Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202115696)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115696

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

9 August 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. toilet repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments.
2. bathroom repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments.
3. the resident’s reports concerning heating loss from the windows and door.
4. the complaint and its level of communication.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

The landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. At the Stage One it should acknowledge the complaint within five working days and provide a resolution to the resident within ten working days. At Stage Two it should acknowledge the complaint then send the response within 20 working days. At both stages, if the landlord cannot respond within the required timeframe, it should keep the resident informed and agree new response times.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy dated October 2020 confirms that it can made Discretionary Payments that can cover “poor complaint handling, delays in providing our services such as repairs,… temporary loss of amenity(ies) and failure to meet our target response times, such as missing a repair appointment where we have failed to attend”. With regard to calculating compensation, the policy states:
1. Failure of Service: Low Failure – starting from an apology, Medium Failure – starting from £51 and High Failure – starting from £151.
2. Time and Trouble: Low Failure – starting from an apology, Medium Failure – starting from £51 and High Failure – starting from £151.
3. Poor complaint handling – starting from an apology.
4. Missed appointments – £10 per missed appointment, up to a maximum of £50.
The policy defines medium failure “for cases where there is considerable service failure or total lack of ownership, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant”. The policy defines high failure as “severe lack of ownership and accountability – normally when a department does not want to own the issue. This usually has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. Remedies in this range will be appropriate when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant, including physical or emotional impact, or both”.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy states that emergency repairs should be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs should be carried out within 28 calendar days and by appointment.
The policy further states that the replacement of major items, “repairs which are not routine,…, are normally completed to an agreed work programme…. Some repairs…will be carried out under a separate programme as annual planned works or major repairs”.
The Regulator of Social Housing’s Home Standards states that landlord should “ensure that tenants’ homes meet the standard set out in section five of the Government’s Decent Homes Guidance and continue to maintain their homes to at least this standard”. The Decent Homes Standard 2006 states that “the most common hazard is excess cold and many of these hazards should be tackled in meeting the thermal comfort criterion or through existing programmes to tackle fuel poverty and energy efficiency. However, landlords will need to consider if there are dwellings which will still have a low level of energy efficiency and may need further work to meet the Decent Homes standard”.
The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 2010. Her property is a two-bedroom basement flat. The landlord has advised that it is not aware of any vulnerabilities in the resident’s household. The correspondence on file indicates that the resident has a daughter with special needs.
The landlord’s repair records show that in February 2021, its planned works team agreed to renew the resident’s toilet. The resident also requested that her bathroom be renewed and stated that her property was cold due to single glazed windows. The resident has stated that the landlord advised her that her bathroom was not scheduled for renewal until 2037-8 and that the repairs team should deal with bathroom repairs instead. The landlord raised an order to carry out plastering and decoration works to a wall in the bathroom, and the resident received a message confirming an operative would attend on 12 April 2021.
The landlord’s internal correspondence confirm that the planned works team arranged an appointment for 18 March 2021 to install a new toilet; however, the contractor cancelled the appointment. Another email sent on 19 March 2021 confirms that the contractor did not attend an appointment that day.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord raised a repair, “sole toilet in the property, leaks foul water from wastepipe when flushed”. Its repair records indicate that it attended that day.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that it inspected the resident’s windows on 10-11 April 2021.
On 12 April 2021 the resident raised a complaint about the landlord’s planned works department concerning her toilet and heat loss. She advised:
1. she was unhappy about the poor installation of her toilet resulting in a leak. When the leak was repaired toilet rolls were damaged. The toilet was rocking again and indicating it would leak again. Neither the landlord nor the contractor had made contact about the outstanding works which had been scheduled for 18 March 2021.
2. A heat loss survey had identified that the bay windows were responsible for her property being cold. She had pursued this with the landlord but had not been contacted back. Also, there was a strong draft by the front door.
In a further email sent on 12 April 2021 the resident reported two wasted contractor visits as the contractor reported that the job did not match the job order. The landlord’s internal records indicate that a contractor attended that day for bathroom works but reported no plastering works were necessary and another tradesperson was needed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint by email on the same day.
After the planned works department recommended that new windows be installed in the resident’s property, on 22 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that her windows would be renewed that financial year and that it would be in touch regarding the bathroom issue.
The landlord repair records indicate that on 23 April 2021 it raised a repair order as due to high water pressure, the toilet would shake when flushed. The repair records confirm it completed the repair on 27 April 2021.
Internal correspondence on 30 April 2021 indicates that the landlord considered toilet works complete with a final electrical test arranged for 5 May 2021. The resident has also provided a screenshot of a message confirming that the landlord also booked a bathroom decorating appointment for 5 May 2021. She has advised that a decorator came initially on 30 April 2021 to fill in holes and stated he would return on 5 May 2021.
On 5 May 2021 the resident sent an email noting that she had not had an acknowledgement to her complaint and asking to escalate her complaint. She further stated with regard to the substantive issues:
1. A decorator had not attended the agreed appointment for that day to complete painting works in the bathroom and the landlord had no record of the appointment or that the decorator had previously attended on 30 April 2021.
2. The toilet renewal works had only been completed that day when an electrician attended after two months, but there still needed to be sanding and painting over where a new light switch and ceiling light was installed.
On 13 May 2021 the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at Stage One. It accepted there were delays in the works to the bathroom and that there were missed appointments. It advised that new windows would be installed that financial year and that the contractor would contact her beforehand. It offered compensation of £170 which comprised:
1. £100 – Time and Trouble.
2. £20.00 – Missed Appointment.
3. £50.00 – Service delay.
On 18 May 2021 the resident advised by phone that she wanted to escalate her complaint and that she did not want any repairs in June pending the complaint response. She also sent an email advising:
1. she was not contacted within ten working days of her complaint of 12 April 2021.
2. her second email of 12 April 2021 regarding failed visits and the wider issue of the landlord not approving the renewal of her bathroom was not acknowledged in the investigation and complaint response.
3. the failed appointment of 5 May 2021 was rescheduled for 18 May 2021 but whilst the operative attended, no bathroom works were carried out.
4. the front door was not mentioned in the complaint response.
5. she would like the landlord to internally investigate its “constantly fail[ure] on poor communication and job arrangement structure, resulting in constant failed appointments & incomplete works”.
On 18 May 2021 the landlord sent a Stage One follow-up response. It noted that:
1. it had emailed an acknowledgement to the complaint and provided compensation of £20 for two missed appointments.
2. it confirmed that the all the windows and doors would be replaced that year but due to Covid-19 causing delays with suppliers, it could not yet provide a date.
3. whilst it had offered £50 for service delay, it would offer £10 for complaint handling as it did not extend the complaint to investigate why there was poor communication and job organisation.
4. the failed appointments of 5 and 18 May 2021 occurred after the Stage 1 response so could be considered within the Stage 2 response.

The landlord also advised that it would escalate the complaint to Stage 2.

On 10 June 2021 the resident confirmed to the complaints team that there were outstanding painting works around the toilet light switch and bulb and in the bathroom. She noted that she had not been given a date for the window replacement works. The resident stated “I have reported, stressed out over, EVERYTHING but yet despite 4/5 bookings, each Operative fails it which is definitely due to poor planning again by Repairs, or whichever department is planning it. You are already aware of the full background story to all above”. The landlord arranged for the painting of the resident’s toilet and bathroom for 14 June 2021.
On 15 June 2021 the landlord advised the resident that due to the need to collate further information it would extend the deadline for responding to her complaint to 29 June 2021 (although it mentioned a further 20 working days in the email).
On 28 June 2021 the resident reported that a contractor had advised her that he was going to attend her property within 15 minutes to carry out five jobs; however, she had not previously been made aware of the appointment and was out. In her email the resident stated “How can FIVE JOBS be scheduled and I not be made aware of this?? Metworks fails again. And exactly my main reason for complaint and needing answers, reasons for the handling of this association’s organisation and structure. Can you resolve, rearrange and someone explain why the above took place by Metworks and I not be informed”.
On 1 July 2021 the resident advised the landlord of another instance of a contractor informing her that he was going to attend her property within 15 minutes without her prior knowledge of the appointment. She stated that she believed her complaint should go to Stage 3.
On 6 July 2021 the resident reported a leak from her toilet and was advised that an emergency job for the planned works contractor to attend within 24 hours was raised. The contractor did not attend within this timeframe, so the landlord sent out its responsive repair contractor and also sent an internal email for the planned works department to investigate.
On 4 August 2021 the resident reported stains in the bathroom left by the decorator which she could not remove and on 19 August 2021 she sent photos of this. On 20 August 2021 the landlord confirmed it would review the complaint in depth and escalate it. On 6 August 2022 then 20 August 2021 the landlord advised that it could not provide a full and final complaint response at that time and would therefore extend the response deadline to 20 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 respectively.
On 20 September 2021 the landlord advised it would extend the deadline for the response to her complaint to 4 October 2021. On 4 October 2021 the landlord advised it would extend the deadline to 18 October 2021, then on 18 October 2021 the landlord advised it would further extend the deadline to 1 November 2021.
On 29 September 20221 the landlord raised an order to recall its contractor to clear a yellow stain left on the tiles and bath that the resident could not clean. The landlord arranged an appointment for 7 October 2021.
On 27 October 2021 the landlord sent the Stage Two complaint response. It noted that the quality of the works for the toilet renewal and the missed appointments had been addressed at Stage One. It noted that the second email of 12 April 2021 had not been picked up at Stage One and that it would compensate for this. However, it had since inspected the bathroom and carried out all relevant works. It offered compensation of £300 which comprised:
1. £100 for time and trouble.
2. £100 for poor complaints handling.
3. £100 for service failure.
Internal correspondence dated 23 November 2021 indicates that the landlord noted that the works to clear the stain in the bathroom was not completed. On 2 December 2021 it raised another job to recall the contractor which completed the works on 8 December 2021 according to its repair records.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord noted that the resident reported that the toilet had become rocky again as a tile had slipped. This was referred to the planned works team although the landlord’s records do not confirm what further action was taken at this time.
On 19 January 2022 the landlord carried out a mould inspection of the resident’s property then on 18 February 2022 stain blocked and patch painted all the affected areas by the window recess.
On 17 March 2022 the landlord sent another Stage Two response to the resident’s complaint. It upheld the complaint noting that:
1. following the initial installation of the resident’s toilet it needed to return on several occasions to resolve the matter. It had arranged for the necessary follow-on works in September 2021, but these were not followed through. It then visited the resident to look at the extent of the outstanding works in November 2021 which were followed up and post-inspected in February 2022. At the inspection it confirmed that all works related to the complaint had been completed.
2. regarding the handling of the Stage One complaint there was an additional email in relation to missed appointments which was not responded to. It recognised that this was not specifically acknowledged; however, the email was considered when offering compensation.
The landlord increased the compensation from £170 to £470 which comprised:
1. £150.00 – time and trouble.
2. £20.00 – missed appointment.
3. £150.00 – service delay.
4. £150.00 – complaint handling.
The resident advised the landlord the following day that she remained dissatisfied and would decline the compensation offer. She queried why the landlord had reviewed her original complaint as at the same time it was dealing with a separate complaint about ivy at the property. She highlighted her concern with the way her situation had been managed and the complaint handling at Stage 1.
On 23 March 2002 the resident advised the Service that the landlord’s contractor had not contacted her about the window replacement works.
Both parties have advised this Service that the windows were replaced in November 2022 although exact dates differ. Both parties have confirmed that the door replacement has not been completed. The resident has advised that the contractor pulled out of the job due to pricing issues whilst the landlord has advised that it is currently waiting on its contractor to organise the door replacement.
The landlord’s records do not contain details of the further works to the toilet from September 2021 referred to in the landlord’s response of March 2022. The resident has advised this Service that the toilet kept leaking to the point whereby the water had reached onto the landing stairs carpet outside of the toilet. She recalls contractors were called out at least two times to fix the leak permanently.

Assessment and findings

Toilet repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments

The landlord is responsible for ensuring that the resident’s property has a toilet that is functional and in good repair. Its planned works team evidently decided during or by February 2021 that it should renew the resident’s toilet in order to meet its repair obligation. The landlord’s repair records do not confirm if a new toilet was subsequently installed, or any order raised. This indicates that there were shortcomings in the landlord’s record keeping on planned works. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations at the time. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to resident.
The resident’s complaint of 12 April 2021 indicates that the landlord had installed a new toilet by then, but the works were of unacceptable quality as there had been a leak and the toilet was unstable. Her concern was understandable given the importance of sanitation. The landlord attended on 27 April 2021 to remedy the lack of stability of the toilet; however, the toilet renewal works included electrical works – the installation of a switch and ceiling light. These works were not completed until 5 May 2021 as confirmed by the resident’s correspondence of that date.
Therefore, ultimately there were delays in the landlord initially carrying out work the toilet works. The landlord’s correspondence indicates that there were missed appointments on 18 and 19 March 2021. The resident’s correspondence of 5 May 2021 in which she stated that the toilet works were two months late further confirms that the works should have been completed in March 2021 to a satisfactory standard. Furthermore, although the toilet facility was in a good state of repair on 5 May 2021 decorating works were outstanding, thereby the matter was still unresolved for the resident.
Additionally, it is evident that there remained issues with the workmanship and repair condition of the toilet, causing further distress and inconvenience to the landlord. The resident reported another leak from her toilet on 6 July 2021. Whilst it was appropriate that the landlord raised an emergency repair given the potential for damage and health and safety concerns, it did not respond within the target timeframe of 24 hours. The fact that the planned works contractor was assigned the job but did not attend indicates that the landlord does not have clear procedures, including designation of responsibilities, in respect of the handling of emergency repairs arising from works carried out by planned works contractors.
In the landlord’s initial Stage Two response of 27 October 2021, it indicated that the toilet works had been completed. However, in the second Stage Two response of March 2022 the landlord accepted that it needed to reattend the resident’s property on several occasions and that it was only in February 2022 that it confirmed all works related to the toilet renewal had been completed. The landlord has not provided evidence of the works order of September 2021 or of the inspection of November 2021, which are referred to in the response. This is further evidence of failure in its record keeping.
Regardless of the failings in the record keeping, the further Stage Two response confirms that it was not until February 2022, a year after it identified that the resident needed a new toilet, before it confirmed that it had carried out all works to a satisfactory standard. This was an unreasonable delay during which time the resident remained uncertain that her toilet would not leak. The repeat visits added to the time and trouble she experienced in finding a satisfactory resolution The fact that the resident according to the correspondence on file had a daughter with special needs indicate that her household’s distress and inconvenience was elevated.
Landlords are expected to learn from outcomes in line with this Service’s dispute resolution principles, Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes. It is therefore a matter of concern that the landlord did not seek to establish why contractors had to reattend on several occasions, and how this could have been avoided. Not only would this have assisted in the improvement of its repairs and maintenance service, the landlord also missed an opportunity to provide an explanation to the resident, which is another factor in the resolution of complaints.

Bathroom repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments

Whilst the landlord decided that the resident’s bathroom would not be renewed under a planned works programme until 2037-8, it had an obligation to ensure that the bathroom was in a good state of repair until then. It raised an order to carry out plastering and decoration works to a wall in the bathroom, originally scheduled for 12 April 2021. However, as confirmed by the resident, the contractor did not carry out works that day.
The landlord missed further opportunities to complete the painting works in the bathroom on 5 May 2021 and 18 May 2021, adding to the delay in completing the works, which by now had exceeded the 28-day timeframe for routine repairs. It is not clear when the landlord attended which again confirms that the landlord’s repair records were not fully comprehensive. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the bathroom works were completed on 14 June 2021.
On 4 August 2021 the resident reported a stain left by the decorator in the bathroom. It was not until 19 September 2021 that the landlord recalled the contractor, eight weeks later. The landlord has provided no good reason for that delay. Although the contractor attended on 7 October 2021, it was not until 8 December 2021 that the remedial works to remove the stain was completed, four months after the resident’s report. This constituted another unreasonable delay and again indicates shortcomings in the quality of workmanship.
Ultimately, it took around eight months for the bathroom works to be completed satisfactorily. The works related to the decorative condition of the bathroom, therefore there is no evidence that the resident did not have use of the bathroom facilities at any time. Nonetheless, the overall delay in addition with the number of appointments made caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, and added to the time and trouble she experienced in finding a satisfactory resolution.
In her email of 18 May 2021, the resident made clear that she was unhappy that her bathroom was not approved for renewal. It is reasonable for the landlord to take into account the notional lifetime span of a bathroom and the fixtures within. It is also in line with the repairs policy for the landlord to decide that the renewal of the bathroom should be carried out under the relevant planned works programme. Nonetheless, by not addressing the resident’s query about its decision not to approve the renewal at that time, the landlord demonstrated a lack of clarity in its decision making which exacerbated the resident’s frustration and inconvenience over the condition of her bathroom.

The resident’s reports concerning heating loss from the windows and door

The landlord took appropriate steps to establish the condition of the resident’s windows and doors by inspecting. It evidently decided that the window and doors warranted replacement as it decided that they should be replaced within the budget for planned works for that financial year. Whilst the resident wanted a more precise date the landlord took steps to manage her expectations by making clear in its responses to the resident’s complaint that due to Covid causing delays in supply chains it could not provide a date until nearer the time, when the contractor would contact her directly.
However, it is not then evident that the landlord or the contractor updated the resident that financial year causing uncertainty. This was unreasonable as the timeframe given for the works had passed, therefore a holding response acknowledging and explaining the delay should have been sent in order to manage her expectations and reassure her as necessary.
It was not until seven months into the following financial year that the windows were replaced. Whilst there may be valid reasons for major works to be delayed, again the landlord has not provided evidence that it updated the resident to manage her expectations, therefore prolonging her uncertainty. Furthermore, the door has not been replaced, now over a year when the resident was advised the works would be completed by. The fact that there still has been no update on the status of the work indicates that there has been a failure in procurement and management of the door installation.
Whilst agreeing to replace the windows, the landlord did not directly address the resident’s underlying concern that her property was cold. The landlord had a responsibility to consider how best it could resolve this concern under the Decent Homes Standard. She had advised that there had been a heat loss survey which found that her property lost heat through her bay windows and front door; however, the landlord did not advise of the outcome of the survey; nor did it consider, regardless of the survey, whether there were any steps it could take to mitigate the coldness reported such as draughtproofing, or provide advice to the resident about preventing heat loss herself, for instance through the use of curtains. Therefore, whilst the landlord confirmed it would replace resident’s windows and door, it did not take sufficient steps to fully address and resolve the factors underlying resident’s complaint. The delay in the completion of the window works exacerbated this failing.

The complaint and its level of communication

The resident submitted a formal complaint on 12 April 2021. The landlord has provided evidence that it acknowledged the complaint on the same day, in line with its complaints procedure. However, it did not respond to the complaint within its ten working day timeframe.
The resident raised concerns that her further email of 12 April 2021 was not considered as part of the complaint. The Stage One response cited the bathroom issue and offered redress for two missed appointments, in line with its Compensation Policy, therefore it is evident the emails were taken into account. However, a further acknowledgement sent at the time of receipt would have provided the resident with the necessary assurance that the landlord had received and understood all aspects of her complaint.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 18 May 2021 the landlord exercised its discretion by sending a response the same day to clarify points made, but still escalating the complaint as required by the complaints procedure. However, the complaint was then significantly delayed, with the response being sent over five months later, in October 2021. Where a complaint response is delayed, in order to mange the resident’s expectations, a landlord should send holding responses providing an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received, as outlined in this Service’s Complaint Handling Code at the time. However, the landlord did not consistently do this.
The landlord sent a further Stage Two response to the resident under a different reference number, with an increased compensation offer. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to be flexible in applying policies, practice and process if the circumstances of the case merit this; however, the resident’s response indicates that the landlord had not made clear to her that it would be further reviewing her complaint. Indeed, by stating in the Stage 2 response of 17 March 2022 that it had increased the compensation from £170 to £470, the landlord evidently had overlooked the response of October 2022 which indicates that it had lost oversight over the progress of the complaint.
The landlord offered compensation for service failures in its complaint responses which was appropriate as compensation is a form of redress necessary for the resolution of complaints. However, the landlord’s offer was not sufficiently clear as it did not break down the offer into the separate repair issues complained about, the toilet, the bathroom, the windows and the door. It offered the maximum award for medium failure under the Compensation Policy but without relating the award to each issue complained of the award did not demonstrably reflect the circumstances of the case. Moreover, the landlord’s Compensation Policy somewhat fettered the landlord’s discretion as a maximum award of £150 may not be proportionate to cases where there is considerable service failure or total lack of ownership. This Service’s Remedies Guidance of the time advised: Awards of £50 to £250 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be used for instances of service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant and Awards of £250 to £700 – Remedies in the range of these amounts may be for cases where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.
It is also noted that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about the missed appointments of 5 and 18 May 2021 but did not offer increased compensation, nor did it acknowledge the missed toilet appointments in March 2021 or that bathroom works were not completed on 7 October 2021.
As noted in the Dispute Resolution Principles of this Service, a landlord’s complaints handling procedures should demonstrate that their purpose is to resolve disputes. Furthermore, this Service’s Complaint Handling Code in effect at the time states that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. Over and above the substantive repair issues, the resident in her correspondence raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of repairs, why there had been several appointments needed for all works to be completed and why she was not notified of appointments in good time. However, the landlord did not address the resident’s concerns. As it did not do so, and also taking into account the fact that providing explanations is also essential for dispute resolution, this omission was another failing in the landlord’s complaints handling. As a result, the landlord also missed an opportunity to restore the resident’s confidence in its management of the repairs service.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of toilet repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of bathroom repairs including the standard of works and missed appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports concerning heating loss from the windows and door.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaint and its level of communication.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord initially carrying out work the toilet works. There remained issues with the workmanship and repair condition of the toilet, causing further distress and inconvenience to the resident and exacerbating the time and trouble she experienced in order to seek a satisfactory resolution. It was not until February 2022, a year after it identified that the resident needed a new toilet, before the landlord confirmed that it had carried out the works to a satisfactory standard. The fact that the resident according to the correspondence on file had a daughter with special needs indicate that her household’s distress and inconvenience was elevated.
Ultimately, it took around eight months for the bathroom works to be completed satisfactorily. The works related to the decorative condition of the bathroom, therefore there is no evidence that the resident did not have use of the bathroom facilities at any time. Nonetheless the overall delay in addition to the number of appointments made caused distress and inconvenience to the resident, and added to the time and trouble she experienced in finding a satisfactory resolution.
The landlord has not provided evidence that it updated the resident to manage her expectations about the completion of major window and door works which in addition to the delay in works prolonged her uncertainty. Whilst the landlord confirmed it would replace resident’s windows and door, it did not take sufficient steps to fully address and resolve the coldness reported by the resident in her property, which was the underlying issue. The delay in the completion of the window works exacerbated this failing.
The landlord delayed in its handling of the resident’s complaint at both stages of the complaints procedure. Whilst the landlord offered compensation in order to resolve the complaint, its offer was not sufficiently clear and did not demonstrably reflect the circumstances of the case, including failed appointments. The landlord did not address the resident’s wider concerns about its handling of repairs and why there were so many visits needed in her case.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered, within the next four weeks, to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of staff to send a written apology to the resident.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £1,000 which comprises:
  1. £450 – in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the handling of repairs to her toilet, including the emergency repair of 6 July 2021, and her time and trouble.
  2. £150 – in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the handling of repairs to the bathroom, and her time and trouble.
  3. £150 – for not updating the resident about the windows and not addressing her underlying concerns about heat loss.
  4. £50 – in respect of missed appointment.
  5. £200 – in respect of failings in its complaint handling.

If the landlord has already paid the compensation offered within its complaints procedure, it should only pay the difference, £530.

The landlord is ordered, within the next six weeks, to:
1. Review its handling of repairs, including so as to minimise the possibility of repeat visits to complete a repair.
2. Review its handling of repairs and its communication with contractors and residents so as to minimise the possibility of missed appointments.
3. Review its record keeping processes for works that have been carried out by and which remain the responsibility of the planned works team.
4. Review its handling of complaints taking into account the failings identified by this report.
5. Review its Compensation Policy considering the remedies guidance of this Service and benchmarking against other landlords in the sector.
The landlord is ordered, within the next four weeks, to:
1. Confirm to the resident, when her door will be replaced.
2. Explain further to the resident why her bathroom is not scheduled for renewal until 2037-38
3. Consider, upon evidence being provided by the resident, reimbursing the resident, for any increased utility costs, resulting from any failures identified in the Investigation Report.
4. Provide advice to the resident and other residents in the future, in regard to steps that can be taken to mitigate the loss of heat