We are updating our systems this weekend. You will be unable to submit an online complaint form from Friday 3 April until Monday 6 April.

Normal services will resume on Tuesday 7 April.

Thank you for your patience.

Newlon Housing Trust (202313523)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313523

Newlon Housing Trust

4 December 2024


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. This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Repairs to the resident’s radiators.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy. The property is a 2-bedroom, wheelchair adapted flat on the first floor.
  2. The resident has a disability and uses a wheelchair.
  3. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 December 2022 to report that his radiators were not heating up fully and were only lukewarm. The landlord arranged an appointment for a contractor to attend between 8am and 1pm on 9 December 2022. The contractor arrived at 2:30pm and the resident was in the process of leaving the property to attend a hospital appointment.
  4. The resident arranged a new appointment for 16 December 2022. The contractor was unwilling to attend the appointment following the resident’s alleged behaviour at their previous visit. The landlord arranged further appointments for 19 December 2022, 21 December 2022 and 22 December 2022. For various reasons, contractors did not attend on these dates.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 to raise a complaint about its failure to repair the radiators. The resident chased this with the landlord on 16 January 2023 and 1 March 2023 with a new appointment arranged for 3 March 2023. The resident had to re-arrange this appointment due to his availability. The resident then wrote to the landlord to re-raise his complaint on 6 March 2023. He said he was unhappy about the contractor’s allegations of aggressive behaviour and the way the landlord dealt with his request for repairs. He wanted the contractor to be reprimanded, and compensation provided for the distress and inconvenience he had suffered due to the repairs not being completed.
  6. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 4 April 2023. It said it was still in the process of investigating this with its contractors. It committed to investigating why the contractors had missed appointments and said it would be offering £25 for every missed appointment. It also agreed to schedule a new appointment for a contractor to inspect his radiators.
  7. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 11 June 2023. He said the landlord had failed to address all his concerns and delayed the repairs until the end of the summer. He felt the landlord should properly investigate his concerns and said that it had not replied to some of his contacts.
  8. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2023. It upheld the complaint offering £125 compensation, made up of £100 for 4 missed repair appointments, and £25 for poor communication throughout the resident’s complaint. The landlord said its building services would be in contact by 14 July 2023 to make arrangements to complete the repair.
  9. The resident called the Ombudsman on 14 July 2023 to ask us to consider his complaint. He said that since December 2022 he has had problems with radiators not getting sufficiently hot. This has required him to use portable heaters to warm the property. He said the landlord has missed at least 5 appointments to complete repairs and the contractor’s allegations about him being aggressive were false. To resolve his complaint, he said he would like compensation as well as the radiators being repaired.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s radiators

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy has several timescales for completing repairs. It says that for emergency repairs it will visit within 24 hours. This applies to any repair that is dangerous or likely to become so. For repairs that are either urgent or routine, the landlord states that it will complete these within 20 working days of a report.
  2. The resident’s report was that the radiators in his property were not functioning correctly and not getting hot enough. This required him to use plug-in heaters for thermal comfort. Following a recent call with the resident, he informed the Ombudsman that the landlord has now agreed to replace his radiators, although it has yet to complete this. This means that for over 2 years the resident has not had fully functioning radiators.
  3. After the resident’s initial report, the landlord arranged an appointment for 9 December 2022 which was in line with the timescales set out in its policy. This appointment was an AM appointment, meaning the contractor was due between 8am and 1pm. The contractor arrived at 2:30pm. The landlord failed to inform the resident of this delay. When the contractor arrived, the resident was unable to fulfil this appointment due to a pre-existing hospital appointment. It was unreasonable that this appointment was missed.
  4. There was also some disagreement between the resident and the contractor about the appointment. The contractor made allegations that the resident was aggressive towards them, whilst the resident has denied this and claimed these are false allegations. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine exactly what happened during this visit; instead, we investigate the actions of the landlord in response to the reports and determine whether its approach was reasonable given the circumstances of the case.
  5. Following the initial December 2022 visit, the contractor decided that they would not attend the resident’s property alone. This meant they required either two operatives, or a representative from the landlord present, in order to complete any appointments.
  6. The resident made several attempts to raise new appointments. The contractor cancelled the appointment on 16 December 2022 as they were unwilling to attend alone. The landlord failed to alert the resident to this cancellation. The resident asked to reschedule an appointment planned for 19 December 2022, but this was not possible.
  7. The landlord rescheduled the appointment for 21 December 2022 and then to 22 December 2022. Contractors failed to attend on either of these dates and the landlord again did not communicate this to the resident. The landlord’s records indicate that these appointments were cancelled due to an IT issue but notes also show that the problem may have been the lack of arrangements made for a joint visit. A full explanation regarding this has not been provided to the Ombudsman or to the resident.
  8. The resident contacted the landlord on 22 December 2022 to inform it that no one had attended the appointment and also to raise a complaint. The landlord chased this up with contractors who informed the landlord that it would need to be present for any future appointments. The landlord did not take any further steps after receiving this information. It did not consider any steps it could take, arrange the joint appointments or speak to the resident regarding this. This was a clear failure in service from the landlord and likely contributed to multiple failed appointments that month.
  9. The landlord failed to take any substantive action despite knowing the resident did not have adequate heating in his property. This was even after further contact from the resident on 6 January 2023, 9 February 2023, and 28 February 2023. The landlord’s lack of action and failure to raise work orders or to manage the repair was again unreasonable.
  10. The landlord eventually raised an appointment for 3 March 2023, but the resident cancelled this due to not being available. It is unclear if the landlord took steps to reschedule this appointment following the cancellation or that it communicated any steps the resident needed to take to reschedule.
  11. Following the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it raised an appointment on 12 April 2023. A contractor attended this, but they were unable to complete the work as they could not remove the radiator covers to access them. Despite this, the landlord failed to raise any follow-up appointments with the correct contractors. This was a clear failure in service from the landlord.
  12. Given it was April and the temperatures had increased, the resident informed the landlord that the repair was no longer essential. The landlord therefore said it would arrange to complete the repairs before the following winter. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps towards this such as scheduling an appointment or raising a follow-on job. The landlord’s inaction meant that there was no progress with the repair. This was a significant error from the landlord and represented a failure to correctly manage the repairs. It is of concern that the repairs remained outstanding into 2024.
  13. The landlord did not take the appropriate steps to investigate, and resolve, the disagreement between its contractors and the resident on the allegations the former made about the latter. For instance, there is no evidence that it sought to obtain details of their allegations from the contractor nor that it agreed to the contractor’s joint visit request. Its failure to do so contributed to the delays that left the resident without adequate heating over an extended period of time. It is unreasonable that it did not seek to mediate the situation, arrange for a joint visit or to seek an alternative contractor to perform the repairs in the resident’s property. The landlord should have been far more pro-active in managing the repairs and sought a solution to the problem.
  14. The landlord’s failings meant that the resident went into a further winter without proper functioning radiators. Given the landlord’s failure to manage this repair, its offer of compensation for missed appointments and failed communications was insufficient. It should pay the resident £600 for its failings, inclusive of the £125 offer made in its stage 2 complaint response. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends figures in this range where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy has 2 stages. At stage 1 of the complaints process, the landlord says it will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It then says it will provide its stage 1 complaint response within a further 10 working days. At stage 2 of the complaints process, it says it will provide an acknowledgement of the escalation in 5 working days and provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. It says that there may be times when it is unable to respond within these timescales and may require an extension. It says however that it will inform residents if this is the case.
  2. The landlord failed to log the resident’s complaint on multiple occasions. He first informed the landlord he wished to make a complaint on 22 December 2022. He also chased this with the landlord on 16 January 2023 and 1 March 2023 before this was logged on 6 March 2023. This was a clear failure in service from the landlord and obstructed the resident’s concerns being addressed as a complaint. This inevitably caused the resident additional distress and inconvenience.
  3. When the landlord logged the complaint, it sent an acknowledgement 10 working days later. It then provided its complaint response on 4 April 2023, after 11 working days. Both of these steps were completed marginally outside of the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  4. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 June 2023 and the landlord sent an acknowledgement on 14 June 2023, 7 working days later. It then sent its stage 2 complaint response on 12 July 2023. This was 20 working days later and in line with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy.
  5. There is evidence that, in late 2023, the resident sought to raise a new complaint after the conclusion of the complaints process. The landlord does not appear to have correctly logged this in line with its processes. These events are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as we can only investigate matters that were considered through the complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in July 2023. Nevertheless, the landlord should write to the resident to invite him to log a complaint if he is dissatisfied with its handling of the radiator repairs since July 2023 – a recommendation is made regarding this below.
  6. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It failed on multiple occasions to log the complaint even after the resident chased it for updates on progress. The landlord should pay the resident £150 compensation for these failures. This figure is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which recommends amounts in this range where there has been a landlord failure that has adversely affected a resident.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s radiators.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that within 6 weeks of the date of this letter, the landlord:
    1. Pays the resident £750 compensation (inclusive of the £125 it awarded through its complaints process), consisting of:
      1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failures when handling radiator repairs;
      2. £150 for the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling failures.
    2. Writes to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    3. Arranges an appointment for a contractor to attend the property to assess the radiator fault (if necessary, this should be a joint visit). If the contractor is unable to resolve the problem during the appointment, the landlord should, within 2 weeks of the visit, sent the resident a written report detailing the cause of the problem and its proposed schedule of works.
    4. Provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has done so.

Recommendations

  1. If the landlord has not formally logged the resident’s complaint raised on 16 November 2023, it should contact the resident and arrange to do so in line with its complaints policy.