Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202305487)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202305487

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

24 March 2025

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 the landlord’s handling of repairs.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since March 2009. The property is a 2 bedroom flat. The landlord has it noted that he has a long term medical condition.
In August 2022, the resident reported there were outstanding repairs that had not been done and/ or not completed properly. The landlord inspected the property in October 2022, and raised works orders for repairs to the balcony, bathroom and extractor fan.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 3 November 2022. He said he was unhappy with how long it was taking to complete the repairs, as they were still outstanding. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 18 November 2022. This said the complaint was not upheld because there had been no service failure, and its contractor was attending in line with its service standards.
The landlord attended the property multiple times between November 2022 and May 2023, to complete works to the bathroom, balcony and extractor fan.
On 2 June 2023, the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said there had been delays in works being completed and he had to take time off work for appointments, which impacted his finances. He told it this matter had negatively affected his mental and physical health.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 June 2023. It acknowledged there had been service failures in its handling of the bathroom and balcony works. It apologised and offered £450 compensation. Two months later, the resident asked us to investigate his complaint. He said some repairs had still not been done, the landlord had not kept promises made and the contractor had lied.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told us that some of the repair issues were outstanding when he moved in to the property in 2009. We will not investigate issues that happened more than 12 months before the resident raised his formal complaint, or that have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints process. We know the resident made formal complaints in January and December 2021, which the landlord responded to at stage 1 of its internal complaints procedure. However, these were not escalated or responded to at stage 2. Therefore, they did not complete the landlord’s internal complaints process.
As the resident’s third complaint, raised in November 2022, did complete the landlord’s internal process, the scope of our investigation extends to 12 months before this date. Anything that happened before November 2021, has been considered for context, but not assessed or determined as part of this investigation. Similarly, because the 2 complaints raised in 2021 were not considered or responded to by the landlord at stage 2 of its internal complaint process; the issues raised as part of these also fall outside the scope of this investigation.
Since July 2023, the resident has told us on a number of occasions that he has had further problems with repairs being completed by the landlord. In recent contact, he has told us that some of the issues are still not resolved to his satisfaction. As these issues have happened after the landlord’s stage 2 response in June 2023, the landlord has not assessed its more recent handling of repairs via its internal complaints process. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of repairs after June 2023 falls outside the scope of this investigation and is not considered further in this report.
The resident has told us that his mental and physical health have been negatively affected by this issue. We do not doubt his comments; however, we cannot make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. He can seek independent advice about making a personal injury claim if he believes that his health has been affected by the landlord’s action or failure. While we cannot consider the effect on health, we have considered any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of repairs

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the bathroom, balcony and extractor fan in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property as well as installations for the of supply water and electricity.
It was sensible of the landlord to inspect the property, in response to the resident’s report about outstanding repairs, in August 2022. This allowed it to properly assess what the issues were and how it could resolve these. The inspection went ahead on 17 October 2022, which was nearly 2 months after the resident had reported the outstanding repairs. This was too long and meant the landlord was delayed in identifying what action it needed to take to address these issues. This delay amounts to maladministration.
After the inspection on 17 October 2022, the landlord raised a works order to change the bathroom extractor fan the same day. This was recorded as completed 38 days later, on 23 November 2022. This was over the 28 day committed timescale for routine repairs, set out in the landlord’s repairs service standard leaflet.
After the landlord raised a works order for bathroom and balcony repairs, on 3 November 2022, the contractor arranged to attend later that month. As part of his complaint the resident said the contractor visit was to assess the works needed, but he felt this was a waste of time as the landlord had already done this when it inspected the previous month. In response to his complaints, the landlord told the resident its contractor needed to visit to assess the works and complete a risk assessment. They would complete all repairs that did not need materials ordering. It was not possible for the contractor to stock all materials and often a physical visit was needed to determine what materials were required. If materials were needed, then a follow on appointment would be made. It would only know if materials were needed and when these would be available, once it had attended.
While frustrating for the resident, the landlord’s response was reasonable. This is because contractor operatives would only have a limited supply of the most commonly used materials available on the day. If larger, more specialist items were needed, these would need to be ordered. The nature of what was needed, would determine how quickly these could be obtained and the contractor would only be able to confirm this when it attended. While the landlord had attended to inspect the property, this did not include a detailed assessment of what materials were needed to complete the jobs or a full risk assessment for this. This would be for the specialist trade operatives to identify and complete.
The contractor attended to complete balcony and bathroom repairs at the end of December 2022, but these were not completed. The landlord said this was because there was not enough time or materials available. Considering the contractor had already attended the previous month to assess the works, it should have known how long was needed and arranged for materials to be available. Its failure to do so meant the works were delayed and this amounts to maladministration. This also meant the resident had to take time off work unnecessarily for the appointment, when no works were completed.
We are aware the landlord subsequently offered the resident compensation for loss of earnings for this day, which was appropriate. The resident said the works were booked in for 3 days in December 2022 and so he missed more than 1 day of work and asked to be compensated for all 3 days. We have seen no evidence that the works were scheduled for 3 days and so cannot award further compensation in that regard. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £102.60 compensation for loss of earnings previously offered, if not done so already.
The landlord categorised the bathroom repairs as routine, which it said it would complete within 28 days. It noted these were completed on 15 March 2023. This was 133 days after the works had been raised. Therefore, the landlord did not complete these in line with its target timescale. Instead of taking around 1 month, it took more than 4 months for the landlord to complete these works. This was an unreasonable delay that amounts to maladministration and caused the resident to feel let down by the landlord.
The balcony works were also noted as being completed on 15 March 2023, however, these were later recalled. When the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response in June 2023, there were still outstanding works to the balcony, which it said were completed in July 2023. During the period of this investigation, the landlord attended at least 7 times regarding the balcony repairs and the resident has told us that on a number of these occasions, little or no works were done. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for him as he had to take time off work to allow access for these appointments.
Due to the nature of the balcony works, including that scaffolding and/ or a cherry picker may have been needed, it was reasonable that these works were treated as a non-routine repair. The landlord’s repairs service standards said it would attend these types of repairs within 60 days. For the period of this investigation (November 2021 to June 2023), the balcony works were outstanding for at least 10 months, from August 2022 to June 2023. This was around 8 months longer than the target timescale for non-routine repairs. This was an unreasonable delay that amounts to maladministration, and was disappointing for the resident.
We can see that during the period of this investigation, the resident contacted the landlord repeatedly about these repairs. He was promised call backs but these were not always made. These broken promises left him feeling let down and amounts to maladministration. It also meant he incurred time and trouble to chase up the repairs when the landlord did not call him back, when it said it would.
The resident said he asked repeatedly to speak to a manager about this issue but despite being promised call backs, these did not happen. In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it had recognised it was not always possible for a manager to return a call within 48 hours, and so it no longer offered this. While positive that the landlord recognised its limitations in respect of this and changed it approach, the resident had been left disappointed by the landlord’s failure to keep its promises. This amounts to maladministration.
In May 2023, there was a communication failure in respect of an appointment for the balcony repair. The landlord originally told the resident it did not need access to the property for this, as it would use a cherry picker, but subsequently changed its mind. This resulted in the contractor calling the resident repeatedly on the day, to arrange access at the last minute.
The resident said this was stressful as he was at work and resulted in a decline in his health, which meant he had to leave work. The landlord was entitled to change its mind on how to approach this issue, however, it should have told the resident this and rearranged the appointment for another date to ensure adequate notice was given. It was unfair of the landlord to expect the resident to give access at short notice and put pressure on him to do so. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident has said contractor staff have lied. While we do not doubt him, we are unable to conclude whether a landlord, including its contractors, have acted in an unlawful or improper manner. This is a decision only a court can make. Therefore, we are unable to determine that the landlord’s contractor has lied.
The landlord acknowledged failure in its handling of the repairs as part of its stage 2 response. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning. This was in line with our dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord offered £450 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with our remedies guidance, this amount is insufficient. We have made an order for the landlord to pay the resident £600 compensation, inclusive of the £450 already offered, if not done so already.
The resident has told us that balcony works are still outstanding and that he is dissatisfied with the quality of the works completed to the bathroom and the extractor fan. Therefore, we have made an order for the landlord to inspect the property to assess these and any other issues. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and any works it will carry out, with an estimated timeframe for these to be completed.

Complaint handling

When the resident raised his complaint in November 2022, he told the landlord he was unhappy that his previous complaint, responded to in January 2022, could not be reopened, as he had not asked for this to be closed. The landlord noted it told him that he had 20 working days to escalate the stage 1 complaint and because he had not done that, a new complaint would be raised.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said residents had 20 working days to ask for a review of their stage 1 complaint. As the resident’s request was being made 10 months after the stage 1 response had been sent, it was reasonable that the landlord raised this as a new complaint, rather than escalating the previous complaint.
The landlord acknowledged the residents stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2022, which was the same day he made the complaint. It acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2023, which was 2 working days after it had received the escalation request. These were both in line with the 3 working day committed timescale for acknowledgements, set out in the landlord’s complaints policy at the time.
The landlord’s complaints policy at the time said it would respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 working days. In this case, the landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in 8 working days and the stage 2 in 11 working days. The stage 1 response was sent in line with the target timescale and while the stage 2 response was sent 1 working day late, this was a minor delay and not a failure by the landlord.
The resident contacted us in May 2023 about his complaint, which resulted in us contacting the landlord asking it to respond to his complaint within 15 working days. As a result of this, the landlord wrote to the resident and provided copies of the 3 previous stage 1 responses and an update on its current position regarding the repairs. This was reasonable and meant the resident had an up to date response from the landlord, including details of how to escalate his complaint, which he did 9 days later.
Within the stage 2 response, the landlord told the resident that by contacting us, he had effectively skipped stage 2 of its process and his complaint was now being dealt with in line with our instructions. This was incorrect as our contact asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint, or provide evidence that it had already done so.
While the response deadline we gave (15 working days), differed from the landlord’s target response time (10 working days), set out in its complaints policy, this did not mean the resident had skipped a stage of its process. This information went against our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at the time, which said complaints could not be escalated to stage 2 without having been considered at stage 1 and; in order for us to consider a complaint it must have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure.
It was misleading of the landlord to tell the resident this and caused confusion. This amounts to service failure and we have made orders for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him £50 compensation. This is in line with our remedies guidance.
The misinformation given by the landlord suggests a lack of knowledge of the complaints process and our role. Therefore, we have made a further order for the landlord to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on complaint stages, the importance of not skipping stages and what intervention from us means. We will consider this order complied with, if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature in the last 12 months.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £752.60, made up of:
  1. £102.60 compensation for loss of earnings previously offered, if not done so already.
  2. £600 compensation for its handling of repairs (inclusive of the £450 already offered, if not done so already).
  3. £50 compensation for its complaint handling.
2. Inspect the property to assess all outstanding repair issues. A written update to be sent to the resident confirming the outcome of the inspection and any works it will carry out, with an estimated timeframe for these to be completed.
3. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks, the landlord is ordered to deliver training to all complaint handling staff on complaint stages, the importance of not skipping stages and what intervention from us means. We will consider this order complied with, if the landlord can provide evidence that it has delivered training of this nature in the last 12 months. Evidence of compliance to be sent to us within 8 weeks.