Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202221934)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221934

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

1 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.
This report also examines the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which began on 13 August 2021. The property is a 1 bedroom maisonette in a converted house.
The landlord has recorded that resident has support needs having moved to the property from a refuge, but no specific vulnerabilities. The resident has advised this Service that she suffers with anxiety and depression.
The landlord has a “guide to repair responsibilities in your home” document which it provides residents. It says that the landlord will:
1. Keep the structure and exterior of the property safe, secure and weatherproof
2. Maintain communal and shared spaces (allowing for reasonable wear and tear)
3. Carryout all maintenance activities required by law including gas servicing and electrical checks.
The landlord categorises repairs as follows:
1. Emergency – requiring a response within 24 hours
2. Routine – to be completed within 28 days
3. Non-routine – repairs which are more complex will be completed within 90 days
4. Inspections – available where a more in-depth diagnosis is required.
The landlord’s void standards say that properties ready for handover will be:
1. Clean, secure and in a reasonable state of general repair and decoration
2. Wind and weather-tight
3. Free of infestation from pests
The landlord has a compensation policy that allows it to make discretionary awards for service failures such as poor complaint handling, delays and failure to meet response times. It notes that the landlord can award up to £150 for poor complaint handling and up to £350 for service failure or time and trouble caused to a resident.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process:
1. Stage one – response within 10 days of acknowledging the complaint
2. Stage two – response within 20 working days
3. If further time is required to investigate the complaint, then an extension on timescales can be agreed with the resident.
On 16 July 2021 the landlord completed void works and a completion certificate was produced, which was signed off the property being in a lettable standard. No observations were made as to the condition of the communal areas. It noted that all windows were operating correctly. The certificate shows that the works were signed off by the voids contractor, but not the landlord.
On 3 August 2021 the landlord’s available homes officer contacted the void team and explained that a viewing had taken place at the property that day with the resident, and she was “not impressed” with the condition of the communal hallway. Photos were provided which showed a large damp patch above the electrical intake cupboard, browning and cracks on the ceiling. They said that there had been “quite a few refusals” by other potential incoming residents because of the condition of the communal areas.
The resident accepted the property and her tenancy began on 13 August 2021. The same say, she informed the landlord that:
1. There were mice in the property
2. Several windows were not closing properly, leaving gaps
3. There was no lock on the bathroom window, and she had concerns for her safety.
The matter of mice was referred the same day to a pest control contractor. The issue of the windows was raised as a routine repair and marked as complete on 28 September 2021.
On 18 August 2021 the resident said that pest control had visited the property and she felt “no room in the flat was habitable”. They had left multiple traps and had identified holes throughout the flat that was allowing pests to access the property. She included a list of repairs she said fell short of the landlord’s lettable standards. She noted that:
1. All the windows were in a poor state, several were not shutting properly and left a sizeable gap, letting in significant draft
2. The bathroom window did not have a stopper installed and it could be opened from the outside. The bedroom sash window would drop when opened and the rope needed replacing
3. There were several cracks showing up on the walls within the flat and the communal hallway. The hallway had been replastered but to a poor standard.
4. The heaters within the property had years of accumulated dirt that could not be cleaned. The property as a whole needed a deep clean after the previous tenant vacated. There were used cigarettes, pest droppings and grime throughout the property
5. There were large holes under the kitchen units and in the utility cupboard which were attracting pests. The door hinges were damaged and rusting, the tap in the sink was loose and there were lose tiles in multiple places. The kitchen sink would leak where the sealant around it had several holes
6. The laminate in the kitchen had multiple gaps causing water logging. Carpets throughout the rest of the property had been removed but had left loose floorboards and exposed nails. There was loose concrete where the fireplace was which needed to be secure before new carpet could be installed
7. The bathroom wall had holes in it and the bath panel was loose. Sealant was required around all of the units as there were several gaps
8. No carbon monoxide detector had been found in the property. The gas boiler switched on at random times and the casing to it was broken, as was the casing around the thermostat
9. There were issues with the external areas of the building including where the front gate had detached from the wall and the latch on the front door was loose. The light in the communal area had exposed wires. The external window ledges were dirty and required repair and painting.
The landlord forwarded the list of items and photographs the resident had provided to its voids team, marked as “recall” the next day.
On 23 August 2021 the resident contacted the landlord. Notes from the call said that:
1. The resident was “extremely upset” and said she felt that her concerns were not being addressed
2. She had contacted customer services the same day she signed her tenancy agreement and was waiting to hear back from her housing officer
3. She had not yet moved into the property because of the issues and wanted to raise a formal complaint.
An internal email from the void manager the same day said that a lot of the issues “were down to decoration, which the tenant needs to sort”. However they would raise for a repairs officer to attend the property “to avoid the matter escalating”.
On 27 August 2021 the resident asked to speak to her housing officer. The landlord’s records show that the call was transferred, but no detail of the call was seen. On 31 August 2021 the landlord’s income team noted it had spoken to the resident, she had informed them she felt unable to move into the property due to pest control and security issues.
On 1 September 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update about her windows. The same day, the resident’s refuge worker contacted the landlord and asked why she was not able to move into the property and was accumulating rent arrears.
On 27 August 2021, 8 September 2021, 12 November 2021 and 13 December 2021 the resident chased the landlord for an update on proofing from pests in the kitchen. The landlord noted that the proofing works were yet to have the quote approved and “understandably” the resident was close to raising a formal complaint.
On 17 December 2021 the resident contacted the landlord and said that she was unhappy she had only been given half an hour’s notice that an appointment to inspect her property had been rearranged. This was not the first time this had happened, and she had wasted an afternoon waiting at home.
On 12 January 2022 the resident advised the landlord that she wanted to complain. She said that she was unhappy with the state of repairs at the property and wanted a copy of the landlord’s electrical safety certificate. The landlord responded and advised that she could expect a response to her complaint within ten working days. If this was not possible, she would be contacted to agree a new response time.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 January 2022 to obtain more details of her complaint. It noted that the resident had said:
1. She was unhappy with the standard of her property upon let, and repairs had not been completed since she moved into the property in August 2021. There were rats getting through her kitchen and bathroom floors
2. Appointments had been made but not every tradesman had turned up, and nothing seemed to be coordinated
3. Her boiler had been broken for approximately ten days, she had not been given an appointment to repair. There was no carbon monoxide alarm in the property
4. She would submit a full list of outstanding issues so that all matters could be addressed within the complaint process.
On 20 and 27 January 2022 the landlord chased the resident for the list of the outstanding repairs to be considered as part of the complaint. The landlord said if she could send the list promptly, it would contact the relevant departments to have her concerns addressed.
On 1 February 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that she suspected there was a carbon monoxide leak from her boiler. She felt nauseous and her limbs were aching. She had reported the issue to the national gas network who would be attending within the hour.
On 10 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and said that it would need to extend her complaint response until 24 February 2022 as it had not yet received her list of outstanding repairs.
The resident provided to list to the landlord later that day. She noted that:
1. There were issues with the windows at the property. They were in a poor state with several not shutting properly, causing a significant draft. She said that:
  1. The window in the front room was particularly bad as it was street-facing and made her feel vulnerable, unsafe and triggered her anxiety
  2. Several of the landlord’s staff had attended the property and advised that they would submit a report about the condition of the windows. During a visit on 30 December 2021 an operative said the windows needed replacing. She had been given no timeline for this, and a surveyor had not attended to inspect
2. There were a number of cracks on the walls, the floors and throughout the communal areas. She and her neighbours felt that the property was moving and no one had explained why there were significant cracks appearing. She had been told that a surveyor was due to visit “at some point” within the next two weeks, but had heard nothing further
3. There were repairs required in her bedroom. She said that:
  1. The floor had air leaks and was drafty, causing the temporary flooring to bubble and lift. Sleeping in the room had become “impossible” due to the poor air quality and high pitched whistling sounds coming from the floorboards
  2. There was glass above the bedroom door which had not been secured into place
4. There was evidence of a historic leak in the communal hallway next to the electrical meters. She had reported this as an issue before she moved in, but no action had been taken and further cracks had started to appear since
5. There were large holes in the property, which attracted rodents. This affected the kitchen and bathroom in particular. She said that:
  1. she had to chase the landlord “consistently” about the holes since moving in but felt she was being “fobbed off”
  2. she was unable to get carpet fitted, as companies who had quoted refused to do the job until the rodent issue was resolved
6. There were repairs required to her kitchen which included:
  1. The sink was leaking into the unit below and there was water damage as a result. The cause appeared to be where the kitchen sink was not installed correctly and had been left with large gaps around it. This affected the countertops
  2. Several cupboard doors, handles and hinges were either broken or rusting. The kitchen countertops were not matching
  3. Cracks on the wall, which was consistent with other areas in the property including the communal areas
7. In the living room, there was a large hole in the wall in the utility cupboard
8. The bathroom had several outstanding repairs. These included:
  1. The lock on the door handle was not working, and the glass above the door was not secured in place
  2. The light in the bathroom was flickering, which seemed to have started when the cracks on the ceiling got worse
  3. There was a hole under the bath and on one of the walls
  4. The boxed unit behind the toilet had leak damage and there was no sealant around the bath. The lino fell short of the bath, and the room was not water tight
9. There were issues with flooring throughout the property. Floorboards were loose and bouncing around, this caused sound transference that could be heard by her neighbours
10. The property was in a poor decorative state when it was handed over to her. A decorator pack was provided by the landlord, but was insufficient for the size of the property and the extent of the work needed
11. Several appointments had been booked and cancelled last minute, or the wrong contractors were sent to the job. There was no follow up from the landlord to reschedule the works.
Internal emails seen between 10 to 18 February 2022 showed that the complaints team were struggling to get a response from varying teams. A property surveyor commented that the issue with window renewal was not for the repairs but for the planned team to action. A member of the repairs team said the question of “why” issues were not picked up was not for them, but for the void contractors. The landlord forwarded the list for a response from the voids team. A member of staff commented that the complaint had been “kicked to the voids team for comment”.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord’s repair records show that it completed the pest proofing works to the kitchen, bathroom and utility cupboard.
On 25 February 2022 the landlord advised that it would need to extend the deadline for a response again, until 10 March 2022. It said its response would consider awarding appropriate redress for the additional delay.
On 4 March 2022 the resident advised that she had received another last minute call to reschedule an inspection at her property. She said that there was a “pattern of incompetence” where operatives were cancelling appointments last minute, which she believed they had no intention of ever keeping as this often happened on a Friday afternoon.
On 7 March 2022, the landlord’s disrepair and voids works manager attended the property to review the resident’s outstanding items list. Notes from the visit were shared with the landlord’s colleagues on 17 March 2022. They noted that:
1. The property was handed back to the landlord in July 2021 but they were only now being asked to look into all the outstanding items. Some of the items she had flagged was in relation to damage caused by pest control operatives, and therefore it did not feel it was for the voids team to action because there were no signs of rodents during handover of the property.
2. It was not clear what the resident’s issue was with air in the floorboards. No draft could be felt from the floors and they suggested that she arranged to have carpets fitted
3. The resident had used a tennis ball during the visit to demonstrate that it did not roll in the centre of the floor, but there was a slight roll at the edges, towards the wall. The property was old, creaking and slight sloping was to be expected. The flooring was not part of the void works
4. Water damage was not observed in the kitchen, and there was nothing wrong with the door handles, other than some had come loose. This would be raised for a contractor to attend to tighten. The worktop was in good working order therefore it would not be replaced to match other worktop areas
5. The lino in the kitchen was not “cut short” as the resident had suggested, it was where the kitchen plinth had been removed following pest control works. Once the pest proofing had been completed, the plinths could be reinstalled
6. The resident was “literally pointing out every hairline crack” in the property. The cracks were minor and to be expected in a property of that age. It would be the resident’s responsibility to redecorate over the hairline cracks. There were deeper cracks in the communal hallway, but this appeared to be from a historic leak which had since dried out
7. There was a “slight rattle” in the glass above the doors to the bedroom and bathroom that required some silicone mastic. This would be raised as a routine repair.
On 16 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised new windows had been put into the property that day, but there were large gaps around them and they had been left in poor condition. The landlord raised a routine repair job to make good around the windows following the install.
On 24 March 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and advised it still did not have all the information to respond to her complaint, but would aim to do so by 7 April 2022.
On 7 April 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it had some information from the voids team but not the repairs team and therefore it would extend the deadline for a response by a further ten working days.
On 11 April 2022 a repairs supervisor emailed the landlord and advised they had attended the property that morning to inspect the installation of new windows. They said that:
1. The windows had been installed “appallingly and would expect a big complaint from all residents in the block shortly”. It looked as though the contractor never attended to measure up or fully prepare for the job, and the quality of the repair was “unacceptable and careless”
2. The windows that they fitted were too small and had “destroyed” some of the walls around the windows
3. The window contractors had replaced a porch door but didn’t inspect beforehand, so the new doors were sitting directly underneath an old rotten window. They had used a brown weather seal instead of a white one, the doors didn’t close properly and the gaps had been stuffed with tissue
4. Every single window had “more than a standard patch repair to get it anywhere near satisfactory”. Daylight could be seen and drafts felt through many of the windows, even with the excessive use of expanding foam.
On 20 April 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident with a letter entitled “stage one final response”. It said that:
1. It was sorry for the delay in responding to the resident, and wanted to apologise for the inconvenience caused
2. It had spoken to the resident on 18 January 2022 to obtain more information and a full list of repairs concerns was later received on 10 February 2022
3. As part of its investigation into the complaint, it had consulted with the voids team who had later visited the building and raised for outstanding void works to be completed. It had also spoken to the programme team who confirmed that the windows would be replaced by the end of March 2023
4. A repairs officer would visit the property to establish what other repairs are required. At the same time, they would establish if the cracks she had mentioned were due to settlement and the age of the building or were of a structural nature
5. If the resident believed that there was an issue with carbon dioxide she could contact the national emergency gas team to investigate the matter further
6. It was partially upholding her complaint on the grounds that void works should have been completed before she moved in, along with works to repair damages caused by the pest control team. The correct teams were now aware of her concerns and were actively proceeding to rectify the issues
7. To recognise her experience it wanted to offer £225 in compensation, broken down as:
  1. £50 for failure of service
  2. £75 for her time and trouble
  3. £100 in recognition of poor complaint handling
  4. Compensation would be added to her rent account because she was in arrears
8. If she remained unhappy with the response, then she could contact the same staff member who wrote the stage one response.
The resident responded to the landlord on the same day. She said that:
1. The lack of accountability in the stage one response was “shocking to say the least”
2. She included photographs of the windows at the property. The photographs showed new windows installed but large gaps with exposed brickwork and holes around them
3. The landlord’s own operative had commented that the workmanship was “embarrassing and unacceptable”. She felt that the windows were one example that the landlord had failed to resolve and had “glossed over” during the complaint process.
4. She did not understand why the landlord sent an operative to look at the property again when he had already attended and taken images when she first moved in
5. The landlord had not addressed why it had taken so long to respond to her complaint. She had been left with no action plan or schedule of works for her points to be addressed. It had merely informed her that it had “batted it to various departments”
6. To suggest that it had conducted any form of a complaint investigation was “beyond laughable”. Nothing had been resolved between February and the stage one response in April 2022
7. Since moving in, she was yet to have a single room in the property that she could fully occupy and enjoy. She wanted to know why the rent had increased despite the poor level of service she had received. She had been left to live in a “building site”
8. She wanted her complaint escalating to stage two of the complaint process, with sufficient redress which acknowledged the lack of service, physical and mental health issues she had experienced as a result of the landlord’s inaction.
On 21 May 2022 the resident noted that a visit took place with her housing officer and a manager. She recorded that the meeting was successful, and an agreement was reached as to what works were to be completed.
On 23 May 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident and said that it had been liaising with the relevant teams but was not in a position to provide a stage two response until 13 June 2022. The landlord contacted the resident on a further four occasions advising her of further delays for a response.
On 1 June 2022 a senior surveyor updated the landlord’s colleagues on a visit that took place the previous day. They said that:
1. They were “shocked” to see how the new windows and doors had been fitted, and noted there had been no attempts to make good the new installation
2. The contractor had “literally ripped out” the old windows, causing extensive damage to walls. This was evidenced in photographs which showed excessive use of expanding foam and noticeable gaps on the top and bottom of the windows
3. In the resident’s property, the bathroom window wasn’t fitted straight and there were large gaps around it. The lounge wall looked like it had been hit with a sledgehammer, there were gaps around the window with no attempt to make good the damage
4. The external plastic trim around the bedroom window was coming away already
5. There were noticeable repairs affecting the other two flats in the building. Old plastic trims had been left behind in the garden and residents were reporting that the contractors had damaged the communal staircase bringing their materials in and out of the building.
On 13 June 2022 the landlord raised a routine repair to make good to the window frames.
On 21 June 2022 an engineer attended the property to review concerns about cracks generally throughout the building affecting the walls and ceilings in all three flats. The subsequent report produced noted that:
1. The level of damage was slight. It was of the opinion that there was no subsidence damage, and that cracks would have occurred for a combination of reasons associated with the gradual deterioration of the building. These included thermal movement within the construction materials, delamination of old plaster and deterioration of the decoration
2. Some of the cracking would have been related to the structural alterations that took place when the building was converted from a single property to three flats
3. It was satisfied that there was no subsidence or any other form of foundation movement. No monitoring or further investigations were required and arrangements were being made to close the file.
The landlord’s repair records note that it completed works to make good around the windows on 11 July 2022.
On 20 July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and advised an appointment had been booked between 8am-5pm that day. She had stayed in, but no one had turned up.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage two of its complaint process. It said that:
1. It understood that a joint inspection with the property surveyor and structural engineers took place on 21 June 2022 to assess if subsidence movement was a factor causing the internal walls and ceilings to crack. The subsequent reported no subsidence works were needed
2. Minor repairs were agreed during the visit as follows:
  1. Extensive descaling works – completed 13 June 2022
  2. Cleared blockage, caused by a build-up of hair – completed 7 July 2022
  3. Electrical works identified – completed 5 July 2022
  4. Fix section of plasterboard to the ceiling paint to match existing white ceiling – 28 July 2022
3. Works to make good the new windows and overhaul the kitchen sash window had been booked for 1 August 2022
4. It was aware that there were minor works remaining. Contractors had tried to schedule appointments directly with the resident but were unsuccessful. It asked that she made contact to schedule works to:
  1. Make good around the bathroom window and for tiles to be replaced
  2. Repair to the plastering around the bedroom window
  3. Paint the living room once the new plasterwork was dry
5. It had noted that there had been difficulties progressing her complaint and some issues remained outstanding following its stage one response. It acknowledged that the outstanding issues had not been completed within the agreed timeframe. Therefore it was upholding her complaint and wanted to increase her compensation offer, broken down as:
  1. £135 for failure of service
  2. £100 for time and trouble
  3. £100 for poor complaint handling
6. If the resident remained dissatisfied she could contact the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s records reference an inspection that took place with the landlord’s surveyor and contracts manager in August 2022. During the visit, a “scope of works was agreed”, however shortly afterwards the surveyor was absent from work for a period of approximately four months.
On 24 February 2023 the surveyor sent over the list of proposed works discussed in August 2022 for to its contractor to complete.
On 4 March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and advised that remedial works to the windows had not been completed. Leaks and mould were appearing around the windows and urgently required attention.
On 6 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that it had cancelled the repair for the windows because the “issue was in hand, having been referred to the complex team in October 2022”.
The contractor contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 and advised that it had attempted to do a “pre start” visit to the resident for the list of remedial works relating to the surveyor visit in August 2022. He advised that on attendance, she got irate and said the works on the list were not what had been promised to her, and was requesting a further visit. She was refusing repairs until she had further contact from the landlord’s surveyor. The scope of works included:
1. Over boarding the flooring
2. Screed the fireplace
3. Mastic seal the edge of the fanlight
4. Renew the kitchen flooring and subfloor
5. Relay of bath waste and renew casing with UPVC
6. Repair hallway wall crack, repairs and carry out making good remaining decoration.
The surveyor advised the contractor that he felt a further inspection was not required and asked a colleague to make contact with the resident to manage her expectations. The colleague noted in an email dated 25 May 2023 that they had contacted the resident “sometime in April 2022” as requested and her concerns were that there were subsidence issues in the property. The report about the subsidence had not been shared with the colleague and therefore he was unable to provide the resident with any further update.
On 19 June 2023 the repairs manager asked the landlord’s complaints team if it was able to proceed with works whilst the case was being investigated by the Ombudsman.
In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, the landlord has advised that:
1. The resident did not raise concerns with the property itself when she moved in, she only had concerns about the communal area. Concerns about her property were only raised after she had moved in
2. All follow up works following the window renewal have been completed
3. The works which the resident had refused in March 2023 remained outstanding. It would be happy for the resident to make contact to arrange these repairs and any other outstanding snagging issues
4. It had photographic evidence that the property was in a lettable standard at the time it was handed over to the resident. Whilst it appreciated there were areas that did not meet the resident’s own standards, it could not accept that it constituted a failure of service in relation to the void works
5. The flooring was in a suitable condition for the resident to put down her own choice of flooring
6. An engineers report has confirmed that there is no subsidence at the property
7. It had completed a further review of the resident’s complaint and was willing to increase the compensation by a further £450, broken down as:
  1. £50 for poor complaint handling
  2. £200 for failure of service
  3. £200 for time and trouble.
On 18 July 2023, the resident informed the Ombudsman that:
1. She was concerned about the way the landlord managed its repair service. Various staff and contractors would turn up and take notes and photos, but were not seen again. Contractors would turn up to her house unannounced, or cancel appointments at short notice. Record keeping had been an “ongoing issue” and she had to chase the landlord on several occasions
2. On one occasion, the landlord sent a notification that she had missed an appointment, but its evidence was a photograph of the wrong front door
3. Flooring remained an issue in the property with substantial noise transference, and she was concerned about the impact on her neighbours. Her property had insufficient floor coverings and every day she wakes up to a “dust bomb” because of air coming up through the floorboards
4. The landlord recognised that there were issues with her bathroom tiling, but sent an operative to lay tiles on top of tiles. When she challenged the contractor, he got angry and left. No one had returned since October 2022.
5. She remained concerned about the cracks that could be seen in both her property and the communal areas
6. Her property remained cold with wind coming through the sides of the window. There was damp around the brickwork in the living room. Some works had been partially done but not completed
7. It had been hard for the landlord to understand all of the issues she has raised during the complaint process. She felt it was not listening to what she is saying, and it made false promises to resolve matters when repairs remain outstanding
8. In the last 2 weeks, a repair manager attended the property with two other operatives. They took notes and pictures of the property again and advised they would be in touch, but she had heard nothing since
9. She suffers from anxiety and depression. She likes routine and finds unannounced visits and disorganisation over what is being done about the repairs triggering. She is suffering from lack of sleep and is particularly concerned about the impact of dust in the home.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.

This Service recognises that the situation has caused the resident distress as she has experienced delays in the landlord’s response to her reports of repairs since the start of her tenancy. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact the living conditions have had on her health. Unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim. However, where the Ombudsman has identified failure on the landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that it was aware that there were concerns about the condition of the communal parts of the building, as a number of residents had refused to accept the void property before the resident moved in. The landlord is responsible for maintaining communal and shared spaces. It was inappropriate that the landlord acknowledged that there were concerns about the communal areas, but failed to respond promptly to take steps to investigate and resolve matters. Its intentions with regards to redecoration of the communal area remain unclear.
The resident informed the landlord the same day that her tenancy started, that she had concerns about mice, the condition of her windows and security to her property. The landlord responded to her concerns about mice promptly, and a pest control visit was arranged for the same day. However both the resident and pest control reported that further proofing works were required to the kitchen, bathroom and utility cupboard to block up holes to eliminate the issue. The landlord’s records show that a job was initially raised on 27 August 2021 and marked completed on 1 September 2021. Further jobs noting the exact same requirements were raised on a further four occasions until the works were completed on 14 February 2022.
It should not have taken the landlord approximately 6 months to have resolved the pest proofing. The resident had to chase the landlord repeatedly for an update, and from internal correspondence seen on 13 December 2021 the landlord said it was “understandable” that she would want to make a complaint about the delay. This demonstrates that the landlord was aware of the distress the situation had caused the resident, yet it still failed to resolve the matter promptly and the works were not concluded for a further 2 months.
No evidence was seen that the landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports about the condition of the windows, nor how secure they were, despite the resident being clear that security was a trigger for her anxiety and caused her distress. The resident reported that she felt the property was “uninhabitable” and felt uncomfortable moving in to the property. The landlord was aware that the resident had support needs having moved to the property from a refuge, but it took no steps to help her feel safe in her new home. Concerns were raised by the resident’s refuge worker of the impact on the resident including the accrual of rent arrears as a result of delaying her moving in date. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address these concerns and by doing so demonstrated a lack of empathy to the resident’s situation from the start of her tenancy.
When the resident reported a list of repairs relating to the condition of the property on 18 August 2021, it was promptly shared with the voids team, in an email entitled “recall”. It was not until 7 months that the landlord arranged for the voids team to address her list of concerns, which was inappropriate. The disrepair and void manager commented that they were “only now” being asked to review the list of outstanding items, suggesting that the team was not aware of the resident’s initial contact. A separate finding has been made in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.
The landlord treated the concerns the resident had as two separate entities, void works and repair works. The landlord failed to look at the issues the resident raised holistically, contributing towards her frustration. The visit that took place on 7 March 2022, as a result of her complaint, focused solely on the condition of the property upon let. This was inappropriate given the amount of time that had passed since she moved in, and that some of her concerns related to issues linked to the communal areas. Whilst the manager who attended the property addressed many of the items on the resident’s “outstanding list”, they reviewed it solely from a void perspective, and the outcome of the visit was not shared promptly with the resident.
Consequently, the landlord told the resident on 20 April 2022 that further visit was required for a repairs officer to attend to look at all the other outstanding issues, and review the cracks in the communal areas at the same time. The issue with treating the repairs as two separate entities is that the resident received differing perspectives as to what works were required to the property. For example, the disrepair and void manager concluded that there were no issues with the flooring. However, the surveyor who visited raised repair works to overboard the flooring and screed the floor. The failure to conclusively respond to each of the resident’s reports of repairs promptly was unreasonable and contributed to her frustrations.
The resident had concerns about the fabric of the building, following the appearance of cracks that were appearing in her home and in the communal areas. It was not until 10 months after her first reports of cracks in the building that the landlord arranged for an engineer to visit the property to investigate these concerns. The delay in arranging for the inspection was unreasonable.
The engineer’s report dated 21 June 2022 confirmed that there were no issues with subsidence in the property, and its file had been closed. It is reasonable that the landlord relied upon the findings of a qualified professional in relation to its investigations into possible subsidence within the building. However the landlord was slow to update the resident on the outcome, and the results of the visit were not shared until the complaint response that followed another month later.
Though the engineer’s report noted that no further action was required from their perspective, it did highlight that a possible cause of the cracks was due to the deterioration of the decoration of the communal areas. Photographic evidence seen has shown a poor standard of decoration in the communal areas with significant brown stains and flaking paint on the ceiling in the hallway. An order has been made for the landlord to report back on its intentions in relation to this particular point.
The resident’s reports of repairs required to the windows have been handled poorly by the landlord. It is accepted that at the time her tenancy started, the windows were due for full replacement and were scheduled for approximately 7 months later. However the plans for renewal were not effectively communicated to the resident and she experienced time and trouble in chasing several updates to her concerns.
All windows were replaced in the building on 16 March 2022. The same day, the resident contact the landlord to express concerns about the quality of the workmanship. Landlord’s should have appropriate mechanisms in place to monitor the workmanship of its contractors. The repairs supervisor suggested that the window contractor had never attended to measure up or prepare for the installation. This is consistent with the resident’s chase reports that no one had attended to inspect prior to their installation. It is inappropriate that the landlord instructed works to commence without this key element of preparation.
The landlord raised a recall job for the windows as a routine repair for a response within 28 days, which was inappropriate given that there was a risk to security and potential water ingress. A repairs supervisor visited the property on 11 April 2022 and noted that the quality of the repairs were “appalling and careless”. However no evidence was seen that the landlord treated the concerns of the resident or the repairs supervisor with any urgency, and it was not for a further two months that a surveyor attended to reinspect their condition.
It was not until after a surveyor visited on 1 June 2022 that the landlord made arrangements to make good the windows. During this time, the resident was left with extensive damage to her walls and sizeable holes around her windows, which left her feeling as though she had been “left to live in a building site”. It was unreasonable that the resident experienced a delay of four months for the landlord to attend to remediate what its own operatives described as “shocking” and “unacceptable”.
There was a lack of ownership between the landlord’s internal teams in the handling of this case. Internal correspondence showed that the voids team were of the opinion that “much of what” the resident had raised was her responsibility, but did not explain this to her clearly. The voids team passed the matters it did feel responsible for to its repairs team, who also failed to communicate effectively with the resident. Evidence shows that she had to contact the landlord on approximately 7 occasions for updates on both pest proofing works and windows alone.
Internal emails seen between 10 and 18 February 2022 further support that there was a lack of ownership between the landlord’s teams. It was inappropriate that the landlord commented that the resident’s complaint had been “kicked to the voids team”, having been passed between surveyors, the repairs and planned team. The landlord failed to take responsibility for the resident’s concerns and there was no single point of contact to address all the points she had raised.
Records show that a visit took place “sometime in August 2022” with a surveyor and contracts manager to agree a scope of works. The delay of approximately one year to agree an action plan from when the resident first raised reported issues was inappropriate. It was also outside of the 90 day timescale expected for a non-routine repair in line with the landlord’s repair policy. Details of this particular visit was not seen in the landlord’s records.
After the visit, the surveyor went on a period of sick leave for approximately 4 months, until December 2022. During this time, nothing was done with the scope of works and they were not shared with the contractor to complete until 24 February 2023. It was unreasonable that the landlord had no mechanism in place to arrange for follow up works to be completed in the absence of a particular member of staff. The delay in recording and promptly raising the agreed scope of works caused the resident further upset and distress.
It was unreasonable that despite the resident’s request to do so, the landlord took no steps to revisit the scope of works given the amount of time that had passed since the visit 6 months earlier. Further, the surveyor passed responsibility to another member of staff, who did not have the full information in relation to her concerns about subsidence, to manage her expectations. This left the resident feeling that the landlord had not listened to and understood her concerns.
The resident experienced inconvenience with regards to pre-arranged repairs appointments. The landlord’s records show that on 3 occasions between 17 December 2021 and 20 July 2022 the resident reported she had stayed in for appointments which had not been honoured. The concerns about missed appointments have not been addressed by the landlord in any of its complaint responses.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the resident refused outstanding repairs to be completed in March 2023. However it has been unable to demonstrate that it has made further attempts to engage with the resident to resolve her concerns. To date, the resident has reported that there are ongoing concerns with the windows which are now leaking and causing mould to form around them. It was inappropriate that the landlord cancelled the resident’s request for a reinspection of the windows in March 2023 because the “issue was in hand, having been referred to the complex team in October 2022”. The acknowledgement itself that the complex team had not resolved matters for approximately 5 further months was inappropriate and has contributed to the resident’s distress.
In more recent correspondence seen on 19 June 2023, delays to conclude works appear to remain with the landlord, as the repairs manager has been unclear whether works can proceed whilst the investigation is with the Ombudsman. An order has been made to make contact with the resident to finalise and complete the schedule of works.
It is noted that since the resident approached the Ombudsman, the landlord has reconsidered its offer of compensation and has advised it is willing to increase it to £400 to reflect the service failures and time and trouble in concluding her complaint. With repairs that remain outstanding, the Ombudsman has awarded further compensation which better reflects the distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced in obtaining affirmative answers to all of her repair concerns.
Overall there were significant failures in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs. The landlord’s communication was poor, and it did not respond promptly to her concerns about the condition of the property upon let, and failed to support her to settle into the property when it was aware that she had support needs. The were considerable delays in the landlord’s completion of proofing and the workmanship with regards to the windows that took place during the time of the complaint was particularly poor. There was a lack of cohesion and ownership between the landlord’s teams which exacerbated the situation for the resident. The joint visit to agree a scope of works in August 2022 was not actioned for approximately a further 6 months due to staff sickness which was unreasonable, and conclusive repairs remain outstanding.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

There were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) makes it clear that landlord’s must make it easy for residents to complain. In this case, the resident experienced difficulties in getting the landlord to investigate her dissatisfaction with repairs promptly on 23 August 2021, and her concerns went unanswered. The failure to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint was unreasonable. It contributed to the resident’s distress and feeling that her concerns were not being taken seriously.
The resident made a further complaint on 12 January 2022, which the landlord promptly acknowledged. It contacted the resident on 18 January 2022 to obtain more detail around the circumstances of her complaint which was appropriate and allowed it the opportunity to fully observe her concerns. During this conversation, the resident advised that she could provide a list of outstanding items which could better aid the landlord’s investigations. The list was a crucial bit of information the landlord required to investigate each repair and therefore it was reasonable that the complaint response was partially delayed until the resident could provide it. However, in the interim the landlord made no attempt to send a surveyor to inspect the property.
The resident provided the landlord a full list of outstanding items pertaining to her complaint on 10 February 2022. From this date it was reasonable that the landlord had a further 10 working days to conclude its investigations in line with its complaint policy. However, it requested additional extensions to investigate the matter on 3 further occasions and a stage one response was not received until 20 April 2022. The delay was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s frustrations, prolonging a conclusion to her concerns. The landlord apologised for the delay, but it failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint request in August 2021.
Given the amount of time that had passed since she had raised her complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have obtained a full and comprehensive picture of all repairs relating to her property prior to its response. However it did not do this, contributing to the resident’s frustrations. For example, it failed to recognise that the windows had already been installed prior to its stage one response, and that serious concerns had been raised about their condition by its own repairs supervisor. This left the resident feeling as thought the issues with the windows had been “glossed over”.
The landlord failed to put matters right for the resident at the earliest opportunity, and did not address her concerns fully, despite having ample opportunity to address all matters in the time leading up to its stage one response. Crucially, it failed to arrange for a repairs officer to attend the property before it issued its response, and did not provide her with a conclusive action plan or schedule of works to resolve her concerns.
The landlord’s stage one response was inappropriate and contrary to the guidelines set out within the Code. For example, the stage one response was entitled “final response”. This was inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s complaint policy which makes it clear that it operates a two stage complaint process. Further, its response suggested that if the resident was unhappy she could escalate the matter to the same member of staff who investigated the complaint. The Code makes it clear that the person considering a complaint at stage two, must not be the same person that considered the matter at stage one.
After the resident expressed that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response on 20 April 2022, the landlord advised her on approximately 5 occasions that it needed to extend the time expected for a response. Whilst it is accepted that the landlord was in regular communication with the resident about the delay, the length of time it took to provide a stage two response was unreasonable. The delay of 70 working days after the resident’s request to escalate her complaint was significantly outside of the timeframe that could be expected within the landlord’s complaint policy, and contributed to the resident’s distress.
In responding to complaints, landlord’s should apply the Ombudsman’s key principles of “Be Fair, Put Matters Right, Learn from Outcomes”. The stage two response failed to put matters right for the resident, as it did not address fully all parts of her complaint. For example, there is no reference to the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s complaint process, missed repair appointments or decline in mental health. The landlord’s response failed to acknowledge the extent of its failures, and made no assurances that it had learnt from outcomes.
In recent contact with this Service, the landlord has said it has reviewed the resident’s complaint and would consider offering an increased level of compensation to the value of £450. Whilst the landlord has recognised that its complaint responses did not compensate the resident appropriately, its revised offer does not recognise the full extent of its failures. It is unclear what learning the landlord has taken from the resident’s complaint and what its intentions are to complete all remedial works at the property, including the communal areas.
Overall, there were failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to respond to the resident’s initial complaint in August 2021. When it accepted the resident’s complaint in January 2022, the landlord failed to investigate the matter fully, missing key updates which were crucial to its response. The landlord’s responses were frequently postponed and the compensation it offered did not go far enough to recognise the inconvenience, time and trouble the resident experienced in bringing her complaint.

The landlord’s record keeping

Evidence points to failures in the landlord’s record keeping. It is reasonable to expect that the landlord has systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections and investigations. The resident has reported that this has been a particular point of frustration, as she has had several operatives attend the property to take notes and photographs, then later return to repeat the process. Of particular note is the surveyor’s visit “sometime in August 2022”. The exact date this visit took place was not clear, and details of the scope of works was not seen until it was sent to the contractor in February 2023. The landlord should not have been reliant on a particular member of staff to have shared the outcomes of their investigations, and should have been readily available for action in their absence.
This Service was provided with some contact records for the resident, but they do not accurately reflect the level of interactions that took place. For example, there is record that a call was transferred to the housing officer on 27 August 2021 but no record of the conversation was seen. Without comprehensive call notes, the landlord could not evidence what in depth discussions took place with the resident.
There were issues with information sharing between the landlord’s teams which caused confusion about who was taking ownership of the resident’s repairs. For example, concerns with the condition of the property was shared with the voids by email on 19 August 2021. It was not actioned until March 2022 at which point the voids team commented it was “only now” being made aware there were issues. The lack of visibility of repairs at the resident’s property is also evident in the landlord’s complaint responses, where its stage one response failed to acknowledge that replacement of the windows had already taken place. This impacted the landlord’s ability to fully respond to the resident’s concerns, and it was often reliant upon updates from particular staff members as to the status of the repairs.
The landlord’s records did not appropriately reflect the resident’s vulnerabilities. It informed this Service that there were no known vulnerabilities for the resident, but it was aware she had “support needs”. No evidence was seen that the landlord recorded what her specific support needs were, but it is clear that on 10 February 2022 that the resident informed it that she was suffering from anxiety. An order has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to capture relevant details about any vulnerabilities so that it can give consideration as to what further support it can offer her.
Overall gaps in the landlord’s records hindered its ability to demonstrate that it was confident in its investigations and it failed to effectively communicate with the resident. An order has been made for the landlord to review its record keeping, giving due regard to the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take ownership of the resident’s concerns and she was passed through various teams to address her outstanding repairs. There were significant delays in the landlord concluding the pest proofing works, repairs to the windows and providing a schedule of works in particular. The workmanship relating to the installation of the windows was especially poor, and the resident experienced inconvenience and distress over a prolonged period of time. The landlord failed to consider what support it could offer the resident, despite recording that she had additional support needs having moved to the property from a refuge.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident’s contact on 23 August 2021 as a complaint. When it accepted her complaint in January 2022, there were significant delays in responding in line with its complaint policy. The landlord failed to answer all elements of the resident’s complaint, it did not include up to date repair information and it did not acknowledge its complaint handling failures fully. Its offer of compensation did not go far enough to put matters right for the resident and it has failed to demonstrate how it has learnt from outcomes in this case.
There was poor record keeping by the landlord, no evidence was seen of contemporaneous notes of conversations with the resident from its customer relationship management system. Details of all surveyors visits were not seen, and the lack of visibility of repairs information impacted its ability to respond appropriately to the resident. The landlord failed to record that the resident had specific support needs, which is key to providing an effective housing management service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of the landlord’s staff should apologise to the resident, within four weeks.
The landlord to pay the resident £1,700 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation compromises:
1. £450 which the landlord has said it would offer as part of its recent review of the case, if not already paid
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the repairs from the start of the tenancy
3. £250 for the time and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to visit the property to compile a full and final schedule of works. The schedule of works should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. The schedule of works should include, but is not limited to:
1. A review of outstanding repairs required to both the internal and communal areas of the property
2. A review of the resident’s recent reports that the windows are causing water ingress, damp and mould
3. A senior leader to oversee the repairs and act as a single point of contact through to completion.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to have completed the outstanding items listed in the above schedule of works.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to discuss with the resident whether she requires further support and update its vulnerability records as appropriate.
The landlord should carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices, within six weeks. The review must include:
1. An explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
2. A review of how it records specialist inspections, including surveyors reports. Identify how these reports inform its repairs service in a timely manner
1. A review of its customer relationship management system and plan for improvement to ensure that the landlord is able to evidence all contact with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management
2. A full review of its training and information available to staff specifically around managing resident vulnerabilities, including mental health
3. A review of the landlord’s complaint handling in this case, giving due regard to the Code and consideration of further training for staff.