Newlon Housing Trust (202125596)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125596

Newlon Housing Trust

21 April 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a two-bedroom basement flat.
  2. On 19 November 2020, the resident reported a faulty back door, windows and locks not being secure, a broken cooker control unit, and a cracked socket. Following this, some works were completed, but not all (as the landlord awaited photographic reports), and they were subsequently recorded as all complete on 14 January 2021.
  3. On 6 January 20201, the resident complained via telephone that some works were still outstanding; she was dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs and concerned some were completed too quickly; and she was unhappy that contractors had attended without wearing PPE. In the same call, the resident:
    1. said that the cooker had not worked since she moved in, and the landlord offered advice on how to obtain a new cooker;
    2. expressed a desire to move, and the landlord provided explanation about the transfer and mutual exchange process;
    3. reported some additional repairs, and the landlord raised repairs for a broken handrail and a shutter that had fallen off the wall.
  4. On 20 January 2021, the landlord issued a stage one response. It acknowledged and apologised that there had been a delay in some works being completed. It explained that some jobs were quicker than expected because more than one contractor attended, speeding up the process. It agreed the contractors not wearing PPE was unacceptable. It provided advice obtaining new cooker. It offered £45 in vouchers as compensation, and gave the resident one month to appeal the stage one outcome.
  5. On 23 August 2021, eight months later, the resident called to speak to the landlord about poor workmanship in the repairs of the back door, window and bannister. The landlord made several attempts to contact the resident to inspect the works, which there were some access issues for, but an inspection on 2 September 2021 confirmed some issues with the glazing and locks and it was established that a carpenter was required. The resident said that she would not allow access when an attempt was made to book this appointment, so the works order was closed on 21 October 2021 and the resident was notified of this.
  6. On 21 February 2022, the resident contacted the Ombudsman. She said that the landlord had not responded to her complaint; she had experienced poor communication; repairs were still outstanding; there were issues with the quality of work; and she had also experienced ASB and pest issues. She said that she was seeking a home move as a resolution. Following this, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord, and it replied that it was already addressing the points raised with the resident and it re-sent its stage one response to her.
  7. On 21 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to escalate her complaint. She said a wood shutter had not been repaired as a plumber had been sent to do the work; the door did not lock and was draughty; and the bannister had not been repaired. She was unhappy with contractor behaviour and said they had damaged a window and left glass in the property.
  8. Following this, the landlord arranged an inspection and issued a stage two response on 19 April 2022. It offered the £45 in vouchers again which had not been accepted at stage one. It restated its apology for the delay in works that brought about the stage one complaint. It said that when it was made aware that works were outstanding by the residents report on 27 August 2021, it had attempted to rectify the issue but was unable to gain access. It addressed the new issues raised and confirmed a job had been raised to inspect and resolve these. It said it could investigate staff conduct if the resident was able to provide further details such as the names of the contractors that sent the operatives.
  9. Subsequently, works were completed for the handrail, door, locks and glass panel and the landlord received photographic evidence of this on 29 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has brought other issues to this Service such as her request to move home, pests, and antisocial behaviour. These issues exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in August 2022 and will be investigated by the Ombudsman separately. The focus of this investigation is the complaint which exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in its response dated 19 April 2022, and whether or not the landlord responded reasonably to the issues raised in that complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports.

  1. The landlord’s repair response time policy states that any non-emergency repairs will be completed in 20 days, therefore it is reasonable that the resident would expect any repairs that were reported to it would be completed within this timeframe.
  2. The resident reported a problem with the back door on 19 November 2020 and the landlord provided evidence of this job not being completed until 14 January 2021. The landlord acknowledged that it had gone beyond the 20 working day timeframe and offered the resident vouchers as compensation. This was a reasonable response as the amount offered was in line with the guidance set out in the landlord’s compensation policies.
  3. The resident raised concerns about the speed the contractors completed work and that they were not wearing PPE, and the landlord provided explanation about the speed of work and confirmed it would discuss the wearing of PPE with its contractors. These were reasonable responses as the landlord provided suitable explanation and acknowledgment.
  4. The landlord provided the resident with a one month timeframe to appeal the decision of its stage one complaint response, however the resident did not contact the landlord until almost eight months later when she raised concerns over the quality of the work. The landlord actively attempted to make arrangements to inspect the property following these concerns, which demonstrates it attempted to take appropriate action, and the landlord was reasonable to close the repair when it was not given access when requested.
  5. On 21 February 2022 the resident contacted this Service to report issues including that she had not received a response to her stage one complaint of 6 January 2021.The landlord subsequently acted appropriately by re-sending its stage one response to the resident on 8 March 2022.
  6. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on 21 March 2022, which was over a year since the stage one response was issued by the landlord and outside the timeframe provided to appeal. The landlord’s escalation of the complaint at this point appropriately recognised the resident’s report that she had not received the stage one response, and demonstrated its willingness to resolve the resident’s issues and address her concerns.
  7. The landlord contacted the resident immediately following her stage two complaint with a view to inspect and fix any outstanding issues. While it is reasonable for the resident to expect any work to be completed right first time, this was a reasonable response by the landlord on being notified of the issues, and further demonstrates its readiness to put things right.
  8. The landlord issued its final response on 19 April 2022, which was within its 20 day timeframe for responding to complaints. The landlord apologised for delays in works being completed and it explained that when it was made aware the resident was unhappy with the both the quality of the work and further works still being outstanding, it had attempted to remedy this but been unable to gain access to do so. The landlord advised that if the resident was able to provide the names of the contractors that she had issues with in relation to their conduct it could investigate. The landlord also advised that the vouchers that had originally been offered to the value of £45 had not yet been accepted or issued, and it offered these again.
  9. Overall, the landlord’s response was reasonable as all issues were addressed; an appointment was booked to investigate and remedy any outstanding works, which were subsequently completed; and the resident was offered a reasonable remedy in recognition of the delays in works being completed.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident to acknowledge its handling of its response to the resident’s reports of repair issues.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to provide the resident with the £45 in vouchers it awarded, if it has not already done so.