NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202346133)

Background

1. The resident and his wife are disabled. The resident complained to the landlord that it had not laid a new concrete patio, that it agreed to. After the landlord laid the patio, he complained it had been laid in 2 parts with different concrete, which created a trip hazard. He wanted the landlord to re–lay the concrete.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Report about the safety and quality of its patio works.
   2. Complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the safety and quality of its patio works.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the safety and quality of its patio works

4. The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for an update about his concerns about the patio. It delayed deciding, and telling the resident, it would not re-lay the patio.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

5. The landlord followed its policy timescale at stage 1. However, when the resident told it he was unhappy with the way it laid the patio, it escalated his complaint to stage 2 instead of logging a new stage 1 complaint.

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.

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.

6. The landlord partly laid the patio on 29 March 2023 and completed it on 24 May 2023. The resident reported issues with it and chased the landlord for a response to his concerns on 13 June 2023, 3 August 2023 and 14 August 2023. The landlord did not respond to him, which was unreasonable and poor customer service.
7. The landlord inspected the patio on 21 September 2023. The visit notes say the concrete had raised and started to crack. It said it may get worse in winter, and the resident and his wife had been ill and found it hard to walk on the surface. It said if the concrete had been applied differently, there would have been a more level walking surface.
8. The resident chased the landlord for an update again on 24 and 31 January 2024 but the landlord did not call him back until 9 February 2024. Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord reinspected the patio on 22 February 2024. It considered the depth of the surface variation against the guidelines in the Housing Health Safety Rating System (HHSRS). It also considered the resident’s vulnerability, in line with the HHSRS. It decided that because the difference in levels was 10mm, it was not a trip hazard, and so the concrete did not need to be re-laid.
9. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the safety and quality of patio works. The resident chased the landlord several times, between June 2023 and March 2024, to find out what was happening. After 9 months, the landlord told him it would not re-lay the patio. It failed to manage his expectations, and he experienced avoidable distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address this in its final complaint response and therefore failed to put things right.
10. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience it caused him. The poor service we identified was limited to a specific period and did not have a permanent impact on the resident. However, it could have easily been avoided if the landlord decided whether it would re-lay the patio, when he first enquired in June 2023. The compensation is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident.

11. The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code 2022 (the Code) was in place at the time of the resident’s complaint.
12. The landlord had a 2-stage complaints procedure. It said it would acknowledge stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5 working days. It said it would respond at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s definition of a complaint and response timescales were in line with the Code.
13. The resident’s original complaint in February 2023 was about the landlord failing to complete the concrete patio. The landlord sent its acknowledgement and stage 1 responses in line with its policy timeframes and addressed all the complaint points.
14. The resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint in February 2024 because he was unhappy with the how it laid the patio and said it was a trip hazard. The landlord should have recorded this as new complaint because it was about a different issue. Instead, it escalated the complaint and responded at stage 2. This meant the resident got his response 6 working days later than he should have got a stage 1 response.
15. We found service failure with the landlord’s complaint handling and have ordered it to pay the resident £50 compensation to recognise the inconvenience it caused the resident. This is in line with our compensation guidance where there was a minor failing, but it did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

Learning

16. The landlord should ensure it understands when to escalate a complaint to stage 2 and when to raise a new complaint in line with its policy and the Code.

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

17. The landlord’s records did not show when the concrete was laid or if any follow-on work was done. The landlord should ensure its job records contain accurate and complete information. This is not only to assist if a complaint is made, but to help ensure it can monitor the case effectively.

Communication

18. The landlord should review its process for returning resident’s calls. It should consider whether call back timescales could manage resident’s expectations and provide a service standard for the landlord to follow.