Newark and Sherwood District Council (202340559)

Background

1. The resident lives in a house with a flat roof extension. On 21 June 2024 he complained the landlord had not repaired the brickwork after it renewed the roof. After he complained again on 16 January 2024, the landlord completed the brickwork repairs in early June 2024. The resident formally complained about poor water quality on 16 January 2024 after sharing concerns in previous years. The resident then involved his water company who inspected and recommended pipework repairs to the landlord on 15 March 2024. The landlord completed these repairs on 7 May 2024. When the resident referred his complaint to us in May 2024, he also raised concerns about a radiator repair.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
   1. Reports of a radiator repair.
   2. Reports of brickwork repairs.
   3. Reports of poor water quality.
   4. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a radiator repair is outside our jurisdiction.
4. We have found that:
   1. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of brickwork repairs.
   2. There was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor water quality.
   3. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Reports of radiator repairs

5. The resident has raised complaint issues which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure. We have no power to investigate complaints which the landlord has not had the chance to put right first. There is no evidence the resident raised the complaint about the landlord’s response to his reports of radiator repairs. Therefore, we have no power to investigate this issue.

Reports of brickwork repairs

6. The landlord unreasonably delayed completing the brickwork repairs for 11 months. It provided us with unclear and incomplete records. It also did not proactively update the resident about the repair. It apologised for its delay, but this was not enough to remedy the distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Reports of poor water quality

7. The landlord did not address the water quality at stage 1 and did not take ownership to complete the repair which caused delays. It further delayed raising a pipework repair for a month after the water company sent its inspection report. It also said it would reimburse the resident for sink repair parts but did not do this. It had not taken any action to remedy the distress and inconvenience its failings caused the resident.

Complaint handling

8. The landlord reasonably responded within the timeframes set out in its policy and our Complaint Handling Code (our Code). It was correct to open a second stage 1 investigation about the same issue due to the time that had passed since its previous response. It apologised and offered compensation for its delayed response to a gas service issue which was raised in the resident’s escalation. While our Code requires landlords to log new complaints for additional issues raised at escalation, this did not impact the overall outcome of the complaint including this aspect.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

9. The resident said to us he had to bleed his radiators every 2 weeks since moving into this house. He said he reported this issue several times to the landlord and it did not complete a repair. He said he resolved the issue himself in 2024 by removing pieces of silicone from the pipes.
10. While we do not doubt the resident experienced issue with the radiators we have not seen evidence the resident raised these as a formal complaint to the landlord. We do not have power to investigate this issue where it has not gone through the landlord’s complaint procedure. It is important the landlord has an opportunity to investigate and try to resolve an issue before we investigate.

11. The resident’s complaint on 21 June 2023 is the earliest evidence he brought this repair to the landlord’s attention. The landlord inspected and agreed the brickwork needed repointing. In its stage 1 response on 3 July 2023 it committed to complete 2 brickwork repairs.
12. The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete all routine repairs within 6 weeks. The resident and the landlord agree the landlord completed this repair in early June 2024. Therefore, the landlord significantly delayed completing this repair until 11 months after it was reported. While some of this delay is reasonably explained by contractor availability, the landlord contributed to this delay as it:
    1. Did not complete any work in the 6 months before the resident’s next complaint on 16 January 2024. It said this was due to a miscommunication with its contractor. It did not provide any evidence it chased its contractors to complete the repair during this time. This was inappropriate.
    2. Delayed arranging a surveyor inspection until 21 February 2024, 7 months after the resident first raised the issue, and one month after it promised to raise the repairs again. This survey recommended reinforcing and repairing the bricks as well as protective rendering.
    3. Delayed completing the full repair for a further 5 months after the resident’s second complaint. In its final response on 18 April 2024 it said the ongoing delay was because it was waiting for a second quote. Its records show a second quote was due on 15 March 2024. We have not seen evidence of it chasing the quote or seeking another during this delay.
13. The resident was unhappy with the quality of the rendering completed in June 2024. The landlord reasonably arranged to redo this a month later which the resident confirmed was completed to his satisfaction.
14. The landlord showed instances of poor communication. Its repairs policy says the landlord will keep residents informed about what is happening with their repair. However, after it raised the new repair in 2024 its records show it did not proactively update the resident. Instead, it only updated the resident when he chased for information. Keeping residents updated is especially important for complex or delayed repairs, as it helps manage expectations. In this instance, the lack of communication contributed to the resident’s frustration.
15. The landlord showed instances of poor record keeping. Several repair logs do not clearly show what work was completed, and the landlord could not provide many examples of communication with its contractors. Accurate records are important as they allow a landlord to evidence the actions it has taken, monitor ongoing issues, and respond within appropriate timeframes. In this case, poor record keeping has hindered its ability to do so.
16. This delay caused the resident inconvenience and distress over a significant length of time. He felt let down when the landlord did not follow through on its commitments. He described spending a significant amount of his own time chasing these repairs and being available for different appointments. The landlord acknowledged the delays and made attempts to put things right by completing the repairs. However, by not offering compensation, it failed to recognise the inconvenience and distress caused by its failures.
17. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 in compensation to remedy the impact its delay in completing the brickwork repairs and lack of communication had on the resident. This is within the £100 and £600 range for maladministration in our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord acknowledged some failures but failed to put things right.

18. The landlord’s records show the resident first raised his concerns about water quality in 2015 and then again in 2022.Due to a significant gap in reports from 2022 until his formal complaint on 16 January 2024, we have only investigated the period of time from his complaint.
19. After the resident formally complained, the landlord did not investigate or respond to his concern during stage 1 of its complaint response. At this point the landlord should have considered his reports as a service request which it did not. This contributed to an unreasonable 3 month delay and a lack of proactive approach towards resolving this issue.
20. The resident arranged for his water company to inspect on 6 March 2024. They sent a report to the landlord on 15 March 2024. The report requested that to comply with water regulations the landlord needed to replace a lead pipe, and either insulate or relocate cold water pipework so it was not exposed to temperature changes. It asked the landlord to complete this work before its reinspection on 22 April 2024.
21. The landlord unreasonably completed these repairs outside of its repairs timeframe and the water company’s deadline. It completed one on 1 May 2024, and the other on 7 May 2024. This was an overall delay of 5 months from when the resident reported this issue in January 2024. Its records did not show a reason for this delay. The resident reported this work did improve his water quality.
22. On 15 May 2024, the resident also informed the landlord that he had completed a further sink repair himself which improved the water quality further. The landlord agreed to reimburse him for parts relating to this repair under the sink. The evidence suggests that the resident provided the invoice as we have seen his chase up email in July 2023 about the invoice. We would have expected if the had not received the invoice to have requested it at this point or at least to have addressed this in its final response. However, the landlord failed to do any of these and as such it failed to follow on its promise to reimburse him.
23. The resident has provided us with an invoice from 15 May 2024 for sink related parts costing £25.64. We included in the compensation order for the landlord to follow through with its commitment and reimburse this. We have seen further invoices relating to different repairs in different months. As it is not clear from the correspondence which invoices the landlord referred to and intend to reimburse, we have recommended the landlord consider whether to reimburse these other invoices as well.
24. The landlord showed instances of poor communication with the resident as some mentioned above. It also asked the resident to postpone the water company’s reinspection on 22 April 2024 as it would not be able to complete the repair by then. It was unreasonable for the landlord to ask the resident to do this instead of communicating directly with the water company.
25. The landlord’s delay caused the resident distress and inconvenience. He felt the landlord did not take his concerns seriously despite the potential hygiene hazard. The resident explained his concerns about the quality of the water and having to purchase drinkable water. It’s poor communication further increased the resident’s frustration and left him unsure if the landlord was trying to resolve the issue. While the landlord acknowledged some failures it again failed to fully recognise the impact by providing compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
26. We have ordered the landlord to pay £300 in compensation to remedy the impact its delay in completing the water repairs and poor communication had on the resident. This is within the £100 and £600 range for maladministration in our remedies guidance for cases where the landlord has not yet put things right.

27. The resident did not escalate his complaint further after the landlord’s stage 1 response in July 2023. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a new complaint when he complained again in January 2024 as significant time had passed.
28. The landlord’s complaints policy says it will acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days. This says it will respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 15 working days. At the time the landlord’s stage 2 response timeframe was shorter than the 20 working days recommended in our Code. The landlord responded within the timeframes set out in its policy and our Code. It issued its stage 1 response 10 working days after the resident’s complaint. It issued its stage 2 response 13 days after the resident’s escalation.
29. The landlord did not respond to the resident’s water quality complaint in its stage 1 response on 29 January 2024. While we have considered that in the previous section and as part of the handling of the substantive issue, we note the importance of addressing all the complaint aspects raised.
30. The landlord, however responded to an issue at stage 2 that was raised during the resident’s escalation related to delays to respond to an email about a gas service in late January 2024. Our Code requires landlord to raise separate complaints when new issues are brought to their attention. However, in this case the landlord’s review of this aspect was agreed and discussed with the resident. Furthermore, it did not impact the overall outcome of the complaint and we consider this does not amount to a failure. While we have not looked at this particular concern  in the interest of fairness, we have asked the landlord to reoffer the compensation for this aspect as part of our recommendations. If the landlord has paid this no further action is required.

Learning

31. In this case the landlord did not realise a brickwork repair was incomplete for 6 months. It should consider how it communicates and logs feedback from contractors and follow up on works.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

32. The landlord should keep clear records. This will enable it to keep track of its repairs and communications, respond effectively, and evidence its actions.

Communication

33. The landlord should proactively communicate with its residents, especially during complex or delayed repairs.