NSAH (Alliance Homes) Limited (202412694)

Background

1. The resident complained about the condition of his property including leaks and general repairs to windows, floors, doors, fence panels and a rat’s nest. He said the landlord’s repair approach had been confusing, the communication was poor, and many repairs were outstanding and ought to have been addressed before he moved in. He asked us to investigate whether the landlord had acted reasonably in the circumstances.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair including:
      1. The kitchen flooring.
      2. Door replacements.
      3. A leak under the kitchen sink.
      4. A leak from the bath and associated damage to the flooring.
      5. A leak from a hole in the porch.
      6. Rotten doorframes
      7. Fencing.
   2. The landlord’s response to a rat’s nest.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s:
   1. Record keeping.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We have found that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of repairs.
   2. The rat’s nest.
5. We have also found maladministration in the landlord’s:
   1. Record keeping.
   2. Complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

Record keeping

6. The landlord failed to record important information about its repair approach, communications with the resident, and reasons for delays.

Repairs

7. The landlord failed to respond promptly to the resident’s reports of leaks and delayed arranging an inspection. It remains unclear whether the agreed repairs were completed or properly monitored. Communication with the resident was poor, particularly regarding delays and missed contractor appointments.

Rat’s nest

8. The landlord did not inspect the reported rat’s nest or make an evidence based decision about responsibility, causing unnecessary concern and leaving the issue unresolved.

Complaint handling

9. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint or escalation request and delayed responses at every stage of the process. It also did not address all aspects of the 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.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

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.

10. Good knowledge and information management is crucial to any organisation’s ability to perform and achieve its mission. If information is not created correctly, it has less integrity and cannot be relied on. This can be either a complete absence of information, or inaccurate and partial information.
11. The landlord’s records were missing key details, including:
    1. When the resident reported issues.
    2. When the landlord attended and delays it experienced.
    3. What investigations it carried out, its findings, and any associated communications with the resident.
    4. Any follow up work required.
    5. If and when follow on work was completed.
12. The absence of this evidence has left us unable to fully assess the landlord’s handling of matters. This was a significant failure that we consider contributed to the landlord’s poor management of repairs and ability to respond to the resident’s reports in a timely manner.

13. The resident said he told the landlord the property was in poor condition when he moved during 2019 but waited before complaining. The resident’s concerns that the repair issues at the property are longstanding are noted. Our investigation has focussed on matters from April 2023 onwards. This was 12 months before the resident raised his complaint. There was an absence of any reports prior to this.
14. There were no records of the resident’s reports of the repair issues prior to the complaint. It is unclear if this is because they do not exist or because they have not been shared with us.
15. After the resident complained about various outstanding repairs, the landlord appropriately arranged an inspection. However, it was arranged for 12 June 2024, 67 days after the resident’s report. It is unclear why it could not attend sooner, and the landlord did not explain its delay. As there were reports of leaks, we would have expected it to have attended within its urgent repair timeframe in its repair policy of 7 days. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, we consider the delay was unreasonable and caused the resident uncertainty and distress.
16. The landlord’s stage 1 response noted the inspection took place and listed a series of work to be carried out across the property. Again, this was reasonable. However, we have not been provided with the inspection report. As such, it is unclear whether the jobs which were raised were appropriate and reflective of what was identified on inspection. The outcome of the inspection should reasonably have been recorded so the landlord could ensure that it had fulfilled its obligations under the tenancy agreement.
17. The landlord said it carried out work in July 2024 to fix leaks and complete kitchen and bathroom repairs. This was nearly 3 months after the resident’s report. Again, the records do not contain sufficient detail relating to the repairs. As such, we cannot assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable. This caused the resident avoidable time and effort chasing updates and re-reporting the repairs.
18. When the resident escalated his complaint, he said several repairs were still outstanding. The landlord’s stage 2 response, 3 months later, clarified which repairs were completed and which remained outstanding. However, there was limited supporting evidence concerning what it did in relation to all the repairs listed. However, we do know the landlord scheduled the soffit replacement for 24 July 2024. But there is no evidence it attended. This was a missed opportunity to resolve the issue at the earliest appointment. It later said the work would be completed in October 2024, but there is no evidence it explained its delay or that this was the earliest available appointment. This was a failure to act within its 30 day timeframe for non–urgent repairs in its repair policy. Which caused the resident avoidable time and trouble chasing its progress.
19. On 31 July 2024, the landlord missed an appointment after the resident returned early from a family holiday for a carpentry repair. It appropriately apologised, rescheduled, and offered £75 compensation. However, in August 2024, the resident reported operatives left without completing the repair or explaining the next steps. With no clear records of what work was attempted, when, or how the landlord approached this issue, we could not assess what happened during August 2024. As such we could not be satisfied the landlord took appropriate steps to investigate the resident’s concerns or if it tried to remedy this. This caused further distress and added to delays. We were also unable to assess how long it took to complete the repair because there were no completion dates in the repair logs. The landlord ought to have been reasonably aware of what happened during July 2024 and ought to have taken steps to monitor the repair closely.
20. The landlord said it would not replace the chain link fence because it was not damaged. While this may have been reasonable, there was no evidence the fence condition was inspected. It also said the doors would be replaced through its major works programme. Again, the records did not show it inspected the doors or reached an evidence based conclusion that earlier repair or replacement was unnecessary.
21. We also could not confirm it appropriately monitored or progressed repairs during the complaint. In the event of delays, we would expect evidence of showing it had used its best efforts to complete work. And that it had communicated with the resident at each stage to manage his expectations about any delays. However, we did not see this in the repair logs or contemporaneous evidence.
22. The landlord said some delays were due to waiting for quotes. It apologised, acknowledged the “inconvenience” caused, and offered £100 compensation for this. It also said it had learned from the complaint and was developing self-service systems for residents to report repairs as well as reviewing its service provision. However, it did not provide evidence of its review or wider learning, so we could not confirm this was sufficient to remedy the issues with its repair management.
23. The cumulative failures we found in the landlord’s approach over the 6-month period caused disruption, frustration, and inconvenience to the resident and his family. The landlord’s remedies did not consider the delay, poor communication, the breadth of the mismanagement of appointments, or reflect the impact caused over a prolonged period.

24. Landlords are responsible for resolving pest infestations if caused by a repair it is responsible for. The landlord does not have a pest control policy, and in the absence of this we have assessed its handling of the resident’s reports on the basis of reasonableness. The landlord should consider whether a policy or guidance is required so that its responsibilities and approach are clear to its residents.
25. The resident reported that there was a rat’s nest underneath the floorboards. He said it was amongst gas pipes and electrical wires, and he was concerned that there may be a safety risk. He also felt the landlord ought to have sorted this during the voids process. It was unclear based on the report if the nest was confirmed as active. However, the landlord advised by way of reply that it would be the resident’s responsibility to contact pest control to resolve the situation.
26. When the issue was reported, the landlord should have checked whether a repair caused the infestation, whether the nest was active, and if pest control was needed. Given the resident’s safety concerns and the uncertainty about the nest, the landlord should have inspected it and made an evidence‑based decision on whether further action was needed. By failing to do so, it did not act reasonably, left the issue unresolved, and caused the resident unnecessary distress. There is no evidence the landlord recognised this failure or attempted to put it right.

27. Our Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), in force from 2024 applied at the time of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy complies with the definition of a complaint set out in the Code.
28. There is no evidence the landlord acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days, this was not compliant line with Code. The landlord issued its stage 1 response 64 working days later. It explained it was waiting for a property inspection to take place before it could respond. However, it communicated this to the resident after it ought to have responded. This did not contain a revised timescale. This was not compliant with the Code and caused the resident distress.
29. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s escalation request within 5 working days, this was not compliant with the Code. It issued its stage 2 response 65 working days later, which was a significant delay, outside of the 20 working day timeframe. There was also no evidence it notified the resident of its delay and provided a revised timeframe. This was not compliant with the Code. This caused the resident further distress.
30. The landlord did not acknowledge its complaint delays, which meant it did not take reasonable steps to put things right. In addition, the landlord also did not answer all elements of the complaint because its responses did not address the resident’s concerns about the rat’s nest. This was also a failure to follow the Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

31. The landlord’s record keeping failed to contain important information, so we have made a learning order so it can review this further.

Communication

32. The landlord did not demonstrate it had communicated appropriately with the resident about the repairs or its delays. This impacted the landlord and tenant relationship.