Newlon Housing Trust (201900081)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201900081

Newlon Housing Trust

10 September 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for:
   1. A kitchen and bathroom refurbishment; and
   2. Repairs required to her bathroom.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident has been an Assured Tenant, in respect of the property, since May 1998.
4. The property is a two-bedroom flat, located on the first floor.
5. The resident has suggested that despite living in her property for more than 20 years, she had never received any works to renew her kitchen or bathroom. While she has asserted that she had subsequently been chasing a kitchen and bathroom refurbishment since 2016, the Ombudsman has only seen correspondence from the resident going as far back as August 2017. The Ombudsman notes that at this time, the resident did bring to the landlord’s attention that she believed her property was due a kitchen replacement. The Ombudsman can see that in response, the resident was informed that her property would be inspected in the following year and would be advised on when an upgrade would be due.

Summary of events

6. On 28 March 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord with a complaint. She expressed:
   1. Dissatisfaction that there had never been any improvement works undertaken to her kitchen or bathroom. She asserted that other housing associations assessed the condition of their properties every 10 years, however the landlord had not done so. She believed she was entitled to a renewal.
   2. As well as her windows being in poor condition, there were several other issues. These included – the kitchen cupboards falling apart, cracks all over the kitchen wall, a shower unit with no shower head which she was unable to source, old tiles in need of refurbishment, the bathtub panel pealing, and flaking paint on every window.

The resident requested an urgent response.

7. According to the landlord, an inspection was undertaken of the resident’s property on 3 April 2018 and her kitchen was found to have no electrical or other faults. It noted that as the changes were only cosmetic in nature, the kitchen upgrade was not considered to be a priority. The Ombudsman cannot see that this decision was communicated to the resident, however.
8. On 28 June 2018 the resident wrote further to the landlord. She confirmed that a bathroom repair had taken place earlier in the day in which her sink and WC had been replaced. She explained, however, that the tiles had been left broken, and the flooring, while also replaced, was left dirty on the sides. She requested that the landlord address this.
9. In response, the landlord acknowledged internally (from the pictures shared by the resident) that works were required to restore the tiles behind the resident’s WC.
10. The landlord noted on 3 July 2018 that it had attempted to make contact with the resident via telephone, however was unable to. It is unclear what it intended to discuss.
11. On 30 August 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord. She reiterated:
    1. She had previously written to it showing that her kitchen was in a poor state and was later advised that this would be due for a renewal in September 2018. She requested to know what date this was planned for as she had not received an update.
    2. She had never had a kitchen / bathroom renewal. She stated that she wished for her voice to be heard as her kitchen walls were cracked, her cupboards rusty, and there were issues with the kitchen light. Additionally, she stated that after raising her issue with the bathroom, things had been made worse. She was displeased with the flooring which was stained and which she stated had begun coming off already.
    3. She requested that the landlord provide her with details of the plan it proposed to put in place. Further images were attached.
12. On 13 September 2018 the landlord responded to the resident. It explained that it had made contact with the Asset Management Department requesting an update on the status of the kitchen renewal. A joint inspection had also been arranged to take place on 17 September 2018 to review the bathroom and the works that were required. Its surveyor would also inspect the resident’s kitchen.
13. The resident chased a start date for the kitchen renewal again on 16 September 2018, repeating that she had been informed that this would commence in September 2018.
14. It appears that the landlord attempted to contact the resident on the following day but without success.
15. On 24 September 2018 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that an inspection had taken place in the previous week. She expressed, however, that no information had been shared despite pictures being taken of the condition of the kitchen. She requested an update on the situation.
16. The landlord responded to the resident on 8 October 2018. It advised that the Asset Management Team would provide an update once the full report was received.
17. The landlord’s notes show that the resident chased this again on 6 November 2018.
18. On 25 January 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord. She explained that there had been further miscommunication. She stated she had already had a surveyor visit on three occasions and pictures had been taken. Despite this, she had received a letter to say that a surveyor was required (which, upon calling up, she had since been told to ignore). The resident stated that she would no longer wait for further delays. She requested an immediate update and decision on the landlord’s intentions for her kitchen. She expressed that it was clear that the surveyors were not doing their job properly.

 

19. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day. It apologised for the resident’s experience however advised that yet another surveyor was being arranged to inspect the property to start the process.
20. The landlord wrote further to the resident on 29 January 2019 and as well as confirming that the kitchen and bathroom would be inspected, it acknowledged that the resident had already had several visits. It explained, however, that the Asset Management Team were keen to ensure that no further issues arose.
21. On 21 February 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord confirming that its surveyor had inspected her property on 5 February 2019. She stated that she had been advised that she would hear back within two weeks, however she had received no update. Adding to her upset, upon chasing this, she had been told that she needed to wait a further two weeks. The resident expressed that this was unacceptable.
22. On 15 April 2019 the resident contacted this Service and explained that the landlord had advised that she was not entitled to a kitchen refurbishment. The resident informed this Service of her earlier complaint, and this was shared with the landlord. The landlord was subsequently advised to consider the resident’s complaint and to respond within 21 days.
23. The landlord confirmed on the same day (with this Service) that it would issue its response within 10 working days.  Despite the landlord’s commitment the Ombudsman cannot see that a response was subsequently provided.
24. On 18 November 2019 the resident wrote to the landlord again outlining her complaint and repair needs. She explained that these matters needed to be addressed urgently. She stated:
    1. The tiles behind the WC were still outstanding and had been raised on several occasions. The panel on the bathtub was also a cheap material and had begun rotting and peeling away – this needed to be replaced.
    2. The windows were still in poor condition, resulting in the cold entering her property and when it rained, water seeped into the property. This had been inspected by five surveyors however on each occasion, an update was never provided.
    3. There was a crack in the glass of the bathroom window as it was so old. This was also the case for the glass in the bathroom door. She explained that she had reported this, however had been informed that she needed to replace this herself. The rope attached to the bathroom window had also fallen off and while it was advised that someone else would look at this, no update had been provided.
    4. Her kitchen renewal still remained outstanding. After several inspections, a note had been left in September 2019 advising that this would be due in December 2019 however she had still not received an update.
25. On 29 November 2019 the landlord offered the resident its stage one response. It stated:
    1. It understood that an inspection was supposed to take place in September 2018. This was to inspect the works completed to renew parts of the bathroom (including the renewed bath panel). The survey was also supposed to consider the kitchen for minor repairs until it was surveyed for renewal. The landlord stated that it was unclear whether the crack on the bathroom window and door window were ascertained at this time, however it had now been arranged for the surveyor to reinspect the property and to review its decision that it was the resident’s responsibility to renew. This was scheduled for 2 December 2019.
    2. It could see that the Asset Management Team had been liaising with the resident in relation to her kitchen and bathroom renewal since April 2018. This was originally scheduled to take place in 2019 however the asset management team had since confirmed that the programme for 2019 had come to an end. This meant that it needed to be reviewed in 2020.
    3. Its operative had fed back that there was a gap in the tiling between the tiles and the cistern from when the new cistern was fitted. It noted from the images provided that this had not been addressed. It had therefore requested that its contractors address this and advised the resident to make contact if she had not heard from them within 10 working days.

The landlord concluded that it would subsequently offer £75 in recognition of its delay in having the tiles re-fixed (£50) and in having the bathroom window and door seen (£25).

26. On 25 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that due to changes in legislation, it would only be undertaking fire safety and compliance works for the foreseeable future. It stated that generally, only essential repairs would be undertaken to kitchens and bathrooms, which would not be replaced until fire safety works had been completed. Subsequently, any resident that had not had a kitchen or bathroom replacement, would therefore be considered for the next available programme.
27. On 10 April 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested that the landlord consider her email as a second stage complaint and explained:
    1. She had been led to believed that she was being placed in the renewal scheme every year for the previous four years. The kitchen had never been touched since moving in and was 30 years old.
    2. She reiterated that the windows were old and falling apart. She questioned why the landlord had done nothing about this and why nothing had come from the several surveyors who had attended.
    3. She reiterated that she had raised that the tiles behind the WC needed to be attended to, yet this had not been done.  The resident highlighted that the board around the bathtub was still an issue too. This needed to be replaced.

She requested that the landlord finally offer a date for the kitchen renewal to take place. She stated that the windows needed to be attended to stop rain coming through as well as being painted.

28. On 9 October 2020 the landlord noted that repair to the resident’s missing splashback tiles behind the cistern was required. Repair was also needed to the resident’s French doors. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord wrote to the resident on 15 October 2020 explaining that it had attempted to make contact to arrange this work, however was unsuccessful.
29. On 16 October 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that her complaint would be reviewed at its Complaints Panel on 23 October 2020. It noted that it had sent the appropriate information to the panel, in which it was explained:

Kitchen and bathroom replacement

1. While the resident’s kitchen and bathroom had been down for replacement in 2019, resources had been diverted to fire safety works.  There was subsequently no replacement program and so it could not be advised when the work would be done. It explained that some of the works highlighted by the resident would, nonetheless, be undertaken on 30 October 2020. The landlord explained that the bath panel would not be replaced however, noting that this had been done in 2018.

Windows

2. Internal decorating of woodwork would be something that the resident was expected to undertake. External painting of the windows would be done when the cyclical paint programme had restarted.
3. The resident’s French doors in the bedroom and lounge would be overhauled with the instruction to carry out any necessary repair to ensure that they were watertight.

Tiles behind the WC cistern

4. As a smaller cistern had been fitted, this meant that the tile profile no longer reflected the shape of the new cistern and looked unfinished. This work had been included in the work order.

The landlord apologised that the resident’s complaint had not been dealt with when it was raised in April 2020, and that she subsequently had to seek support from the Housing Ombudsman Service (HOS).

30. On 10 November 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with its final response. It stated that the Complaints Case Panel had reviewed the resident’s appeal on 23 October 2020 and advised:

Kitchen and bathroom replacement

1. It apologised that the resident had been informed that she was on the replacement list only to be let down and for the position to change in the following year. It stated that while it understood her disappointment, the reasons for this had been explained. The resident was readvised to bring any repair need to its attention for consideration.

Window maintenance, replacement and surveyor follow up

2. The position on the replacement of windows was the same as that for bathroom and kitchen upgrade work. It acknowledged that the resident should have been updated on the findings of its survey and explained that it had passed the resident’s concerns on to the Head of the Repairs Team.
3. It noted that repairs to the resident’s French doors had remained outstanding since the end of October 2020. It stated that it had tried to get in touch with its contractors however had no new information on the appointment.

Tiles behind the WC cistern

4. An agreement had been reached to replace the tiles around the WC cistern in the bathroom and to replace the bath panel, all of which the resident had been requesting for some time.

The landlord explained that it had reviewed the compensation previously offered at stage one. It advised that it would now be offering an additional £75 to account for its poor handling of the April 2020 appeal request (£25), the need to seek help from the Ombudsman Service (£25) and the delay in holding this appeal (£25).

31. On 11 November 2020 the landlord confirmed that it had fixed the missing wall tiles behind the WC cistern, replaced the bath panel and put silicone around the panel and bath. The Ombudsman can see that the resident explained that there were still outstanding matters to be addressed within the bathroom, including the flooring, mould on the ceiling and wallpaper, and the shower unit.
32. On 10 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord and explained that she was unhappy as while the French doors had been addressed and painted, the windows in the bedroom, bathroom and kitchen had been left. She stated that the property had been losing heat due to the condition of these windows.
33. Several other emails were exchanged between the landlord and resident however it does not appear that the windows were addressed.
34. In or around April 2021 the resident’s kitchen was refurbished. The resident made a further enquiry about a bathroom refurbishment however was informed in July 2021 that this would not be done until 2029 as the bathroom had a life of 30 years.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom refurbishment.

35. It is unclear whether the lifecycle of the resident’s kitchen had ended. The Ombudsman has been unable to determine when the resident’s kitchen was last refurbished and what the recommended lifecycle of the kitchen was. The Ombudsman does note, however, that under the Asset Management Strategy, the landlord explains that upgrades to its stock will also depend on the condition at the time. It was therefore reasonable that in 2017, following the resident’s prompt that no inspection or subsequent renewal had taken place at her property, the landlord advised that it would arrange an inspection to assess the condition and to advise on whether an upgrade was due.
36. According to the landlord’s notes, this inspection took place on 3 April 2018 and the landlord satisfied for itself that while there were some cosmetic changes needed, an upgrade was not a priority. While this was not unreasonable, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord communicated this to the resident. There is no evidence that it shared its findings following the inspection, that it detailed why it had decided not to undertake the refurbishment at this time, or that it offered details on when the upgrade would likely be. This was unreasonable, particularly as the resident’s expectation went unmanaged.
37. Due to the lack of clarity, it appears that the resident was under the impression that a kitchen refurbishment would take place in September 2018. The Ombudsman can see that the resident requested an update in respect of this, however despite advising on 13 September 2018 that an update had been chased, the landlord still failed to make clear its position. Instead, another inspection was scheduled and again no feedback was provided to the resident.
38. It is clear that the resident chased this matter on several occasions, and although yet another inspection had taken place, the landlord still failed to share its findings with the resident and to outline its position. The evidence suggests that it was not until April 2019 that the landlord advised that it would not be offering the resident a refurbishment (at which point, the resident contacted this service).
39. The Ombudsman has been unable to consider the landlord’s communication of this decision at this time as the landlord has not shared any records of the conversation that it had with the resident or of any contemporaneous notes. This in itself is unacceptable as the landlord should have systems in place to maintain an accurate audit trail of its activity. This aside, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s explanation of its position within its stage one response, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, particularly as multiple inspections had taken place and the resident had been chasing a decision for a significant length of time, this was unsatisfactory. While the landlord recognised that the refurbishment of the resident’s kitchen was due in 2019, it gave no explanation as to why it had been unable to honour this commitment during the period of its improvement programme. Rather, the landlord simply asserted that its 2019 programme had come to an end and that the resident’s kitchen would therefore need to be reviewed again in the following year. This was unreasonable. Contrary to the landlord’s suggestion on 16 October 2020, no further reasoning was offered to the resident.
40. The Ombudsman does note that later, in February 2020, the landlord advised that in line with recent legislation it would be focusing on fire safety and compliance works and therefore would not be undertaking improvements / planned works for the foreseeable future. While the Ombudsman appreciates that this would have been frustrating for the resident, more so as she had not been provided with a reasonable answer as to why she had not been included in the 2019 programme, it was appropriate that the landlord brought this to the resident’s attention (although this did not mitigate its previous poor communication).
41. Still, this offered the resident no indication on when her refurbishment would be back on the landlord’s agenda. On 10 April 2020, the Ombudsman notes that the resident requested that the landlord offer her a final date in which the kitchen renewal would take place. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord had no replacement programme scheduled for the time being, it appears that this was not responded to until 16 October 2020, several months later.
42. Noting the above, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have acknowledged its handling of the resident’s refurbishment and her experience within its final response. While the landlord did to some extent, apologising that the resident had had her expectations raised only to be let down in the following year, its apology was not sufficient in recognising the distress, inconvenience and time spent by the resident in following this matter up. No award was made in recognition of this, and the landlord failed to fully acknowledge its poor communication.
43. In respect of the resident’s bathroom, it appears that the landlord also satisfied for itself that its condition was satisfactory and therefore did not require a refurbishment. In a similar respect, however, the landlord failed to fully communicate its position with the resident. Despite the resident raising her desire for a bathroom refurbishment, also as early as March 2018 and again in her later complaints, she was not advised until July 2021 (seemingly) that her bathroom was not due a renewal until 2029, as per its 30-year lifecycle. This was unreasonable.
44. It is unclear why the landlord had not advised the resident at the earliest opportunity that her bathroom was not due an upgrade. This may have been as the landlord had been undertaking repairs to the bathroom (or had scheduled to do so) throughout this period. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the landlord’s oversight here resulted in a failure to adequately manage the resident’s expectation in this regard.
45. The Ombudsman has therefore found that there was a clear failure in communication and in putting things right which resulted in detriment to the resident. While it is noted that the resident’s kitchen was later upgraded in April 2021, the landlord still failed to properly acknowledge its service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her bathroom.

46. Under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord has a responsibility to take steps to address repairs which it is responsible for, within a reasonable amount of time. This obligation is equally supported by the tenancy agreement which states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the premises (including windows, internal walls, and flooring) and in proper working order any installations (such as baths).
47. The landlord’s Repair Policy also demonstrates that the landlord will complete routine, non-urgent repair requests within 20 working days of being made aware.
48. Despite these obligations, however, and upon review of the evidence shared, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to act appropriately to address the resident’s repair concerns.
49. The Ombudsman notes that on 28 June 2018 the resident flagged with the landlord that works were required to the tiles in her bathroom. While they were not left broken, as she had described, there was a section of missing tiles which had resulted from the WC cistern being replaced with a smaller one. The Ombudsman can see that the resident provided the landlord with pictures of this, and that upon reviewing these pictures, the landlord confirmed for itself that works were required.
50. In accordance with the landlord’s repair obligations, the tiles therefore should have been addressed within 20 working days or, where the landlord was unable to do so, it should have liaised with the resident to agree a timeframe in which this work could be done. Instead, however, this work remained incomplete until 11 November 2020, over two years later.
51. The Ombudsman can see that the landlord did, in its stage one response, initially recognise that it should have taken steps to address the tile repair sooner, and therefore made an offer of compensation in recognition of this on 29 November 2019. In the Ombudsman’s view, however, the amount offered (£50) by the landlord was insufficient in recognising the extent of the delay (over a year and 5 months at this point).
52. Adding to this, although the landlord had recognised its omission, yet another year had passed before it took any action to complete the repair. At minimum, this should have been acknowledged within the landlord’s stage two response. The landlord failed to take the opportunity to reconsider the appropriateness of the compensation it had offered at stage one and also to take into consideration the additional (and equally significant) delay in refixing the resident’s tiles. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord failed to consider its poor service as a whole and to satisfactorily put things right.
53. In respect of the resident’s windows, the Ombudsman notes that the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the condition of this, explaining that they were old, rotting and in need of paint due to flaking. This was raised in March 2018 and again on 10 April 2020. While the Ombudsman recognises that under the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for the decorative condition of the windows, the Ombudsman cannot see that this was explained to the resident until 16 October 2020. The resident’s expectation therefore went unmanaged for a significant length of time.
54. What’s more, the Ombudsman notes that in the resident’s complaint on 18 November 2019, she also expressed that water seeped into her property when it rained (also reporting being cold during the winter). The landlord therefore should have taken steps to assess the windows and undertaken any action required. Despite its many inspections however, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord took any action to address this, that it advised the resident on its position, or that it even acknowledged the matter in its complaint responses. While the landlord did advise that the French doors would be made watertight, the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord declared any intention to do the same for the resident’s windows. This was inappropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord should have acknowledged this within its final response and made arrangements to respond to this matter. 
55. The Ombudsman also notes that there was a reported crack in the resident’s bathroom window and the glass of her bathroom door. Under the landlord’s repair policy, however, broken windows are the responsibility of the resident to replace except where this is caused by a criminal offence. The Ombudsman has therefore considered it reasonable that the landlord agreed to reassessed this on 2 December 2019 and to reconsider its position on whether it would replace them.
56. With regards to the resident’s bathroom, despite raising her dissatisfaction with the flooring, the Ombudsman cannot see that this was responded to. While this matter had not been raised by the resident on 18 November 2019, it had been complained about on several occasions prior to this and the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord inspected this during its visits or shared any comments with the resident explaining whether this would be addressed. The Ombudsman can see that even after the landlord’s final response, the resident continued to report issues with her bathroom flooring.
57. Moreover, on 18 November 2019 the resident re-raised her concerns with her bathtub panel. She explained to the landlord that since being replaced, it had begun rotting and peeling away, and requested that this be replaced. While the landlord should have taken steps at this point to arrange an inspection of the bathtub, and taken the appropriate steps to repair/replace this (within the prescribed timeframe) if necessary, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord referred back to an earlier inspection which had taken place more than a year prior, and in which it had found the replacement panel to be appropriate. This was unfair. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord again referred to this, in its correspondence on 16 October 2020. Subsequently, it was not until the landlord’s final response that it agreed to replace the resident’s bathtub panel – almost a year later.
58. Finally, it was inappropriate that the landlord had not provided the resident with any updates following its many inspections of her property. The Ombudsman has seen, however, that the landlord did acknowledge this within its final response and advised the resident that her feedback would be passed on to the Head of the Repairs Team. This was reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

59. The landlord’s complaints policy defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.
60. Despite this though, the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction under its formal complaints process for a significant length of time.
61. As early as the 28 March 2018 the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the lack of works undertaken at her property and the delay in obtaining a kitchen upgrade. While it would have been reasonable to consider this under the landlord’s complaints policy, the Ombudsman cannot see that this was done.
62. The landlord was given several further opportunities, following further expressions of dissatisfaction from the resident in June 2018, August 2018, September 2018, January 2019, February 2019, April 2019, and November 2019, however it failed to offer an official complaint response until 28 November 2019. This was despite the Ombudsman Service itself contacting the landlord in April 2019 and advising it to respond to the resident within 21 days. This was inappropriate. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, complaints should be responded to within 10 working days of receiving a resident’s complaint.
63. In light of this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged its shortcomings within its stage one response. The Ombudsman cannot see, however, that the landlord did this. While the landlord responded to the resident’s outstanding repair issues and made an offer of compensation in recognition of this, there was no recognition of the way in which the resident’s complaints had been managed.
64. The Ombudsman can see that following the resident’s stage two complaint in April 2020, the landlord again failed to offer the resident a complaint response until November 2020, contrary to its 30-working day turnaround time. While it subsequently made an offer of £75 to reflect this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion and as a whole, the landlord failed to adequately acknowledge the extent of the service failure, the overall delay which had been caused by its complaint handling, and to make an offer of compensation which satisfactorily reflected its handling of matters. Ultimately, its management of the resident’s complaints resulted in distress, inconvenience, and an unreasonable level of involvement from the resident, but also delayed her in bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman Service to obtain a satisfactory resolution.  

Determination (decision)

65. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen and bathroom refurbishment.
    2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to her bathroom.
    3. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

66. The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determinations as:
    1. Although the landlord arranged to undertake several inspections of the resident’s property to ascertain the condition of her kitchen and bathroom, its communication was unacceptable. The landlord failed to share its findings with the resident on each occasion and also, where it had taken the decision not to undertake improvement works at the resident’s property, it failed to adequately explain its reasons to the resident (within good time). This resulted in poor management of the resident’s expectations over a significant length of time and subsequent inconvenience, in that the resident had to continuously chase the landlord for updates. The landlord failed to fully recognise its inappropriate management of matters within its final complaint response and therefore missed the opportunity to put things right.
    2. Contrary to the landlord’s obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement, and its own repair policy, the landlord failed to recognise and respond to the required works within a reasonable period of time. In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord allowed a significant length of time to elapse before it addressed the resident’s tiles, it failed to properly consider and address the resident’s dissatisfaction with her flooring, failed to respond to the resident’s reports of cold/water ingress, failed to replace the resident’s bathtub panel within good time, and failed to satisfactorily recognise the inconvenience, time and distress this caused within its final response. 
    3. While the landlord’s complaints policy recognises expressions of dissatisfaction about the landlord’s service as complaints, the landlord failed to do so on several occasions. Subsequently, no official complaint response was offered until almost two and a half years after the resident had first raised her issues in March 2018 (although the resident suggests that this period was longer). Even where the landlord was prompted by this Service to respond to the resident, the Ombudsman notes that it still failed to offer an appropriate and timely response. This was unacceptable and contrary to the timescales set out in its complaints policy. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord attempted to put things right by making an offer of compensation, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this failed to satisfactorily recognise the full extent of its failing, and to adequately resolve the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

67. In recognition of the above failures, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to award the resident:
    1. £350 to reflect its handlings of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom refurbishment and the resident’s subsequent experience.
    2. £350 to reflect its handling of the resident’s repairs.
    3. £200 to reflect its handling of the resident’s complaint.
68. The above order does not replace the £150 already offered by the landlord but should instead be paid in addition to this.
69. The landlord should ensure that the above payment is made within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination.
70. The landlord should also, if it has not done so already, undertake an inspection of the resident’s bathroom flooring and reported window defects (causing cold air and water ingress), and write to the resident to outline its findings including when (if required) this will be repaired/replaced. This should also be done within four weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

71. The landlord should recognise the communication errors made in this case and should ensure that moving forward, residents are kept up to date on its position in respect of improvement/planned works, to better manage their expectations.
72. The landlord should make every effort to act in accordance with the timescales set out within its repair policy, and where this is not possible, should communicate the reasons for the delay to the resident.
73. The landlord should also ensure that it is keeping and maintaining appropriate records to enable it to evidence, for itself and to the Housing Ombudsman Service should it be necessary, that it is offering a good level of service for its residents.