One Vision Housing Limited (202204268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204268

One Vision Housing Limited

4 November 2022

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 handling of:
   1. The resident’s reports of repair issues to the roof and the associated squirrel infestation.
   2. The resident’s request for the compensation offered by the landlord to be donated to charity.

Background

2. The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord.
3. The resident reported on 15 November 2021 that there were squirrels in the loft area, that had entered due to repair issues. The landlord subsequently raised a work order to resolve the issue.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 28 February 2022, as he had reported a squirrel infestation on several occasions, but the issue was still recurring. He asked when the required work would be completed as an appointment on 22 November 2021 had identified that the soffits were beyond repair. He also asked if the landlord would repair any damage caused to his loft, at no cost to him. 
5. In the landlord’s complaint response, it acknowledged that the works had taken a significant amount of time to complete, as there were mitigating circumstances, including sourcing required materials and extreme weather conditions. It apologised for the delays and offered £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
6. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, he said he remained dissatisfied with the time taken for the landlord to resolve the squirrel infestation and he wanted an apology from the landlord. He was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the charity payment. 

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of repair issues to the roof and the associated squirrel infestation.

7. In accordance with the lease agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof. As such when the resident reported that damage to the fascia and soffits was allowing squirrels into the building, the landlord was responsible for investigating the issue and completing any required repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it “will respond to non- emergency repairs within 10 working days of the date of the notification subject to availability of specialist parts”.
8. It is not disputed that it took a significant amount of time to complete the required repairs, as the landlord acknowledged this and offered £100 compensation in its stage two complaint response. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
9. It is noted that there were historical issues as the resident initially reported a squirrel infestation in the property on 9 February 2020 and works were carried out throughout 2020. However, there is no further evidence of issues being raised by the resident until 15 November 2021, for which a contractor subsequently attended to assess the issues. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord contacted the resident to advise him of the outcome of the repair appointment, or that it had advised when the follow-on work would be completed, prior to him raising a complaint on 28 February 2022. This was despite the fact that the resident had reported on numerous further occasions that there was a recurrence of the infestation. However, the repair records confirm that further pest control appointments were attended promptly after the resident’s additional reports. As a result, there was a period of three months in which the landlord failed to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the scope and timeframe for the required works. 
10. Although the landlord should aim to adhere to its repair response timeframes, it is not always possible. In this case, the landlord explained in its stage one response that the delay had been caused due to the size of the works, and the limitation of the weather during the winter months. It advised that the works were provisionally scheduled to begin on 24 April 2022. In the landlord’s stage two response, it advised the resident that it had encountered issues with obtaining the required materials to complete the works, due to increased demand following storms, which had caused an additional delay. Following completion of the complaints process, the landlord explained to the resident that the work was considered as an “X priority” job, due to the high value of the work as scaffolding, additional materials and labour were required. It stated it had set a deadline of 29 July 2022 to complete the works. The landlord’s repairs policy does not reference “X priority” jobs, so it is unclear what the timeframe of the works should have been. However, the landlord advised that such categorisation meant the work would be completed in a longer timeframe. It is recommended that if this is a classification used by the landlord for repair timeframes, it should review its repairs policy to reflect this information, in order to ensure that it is acting in line with its policies and is formally managing residents’ expectations. The works commenced on 21 June 2022 and were completed on 28 June 2022, so the landlord completed the works in line with its revised deadline.
11. When the repair timeframes cannot be met for appropriate reasons, the landlord should complete the works as soon as possible, keep the resident regularly updated, and consider interim solutions if appropriate. In this case, the clear impact on the resident was the recurring squirrel infestations. The landlord took appropriate steps to limit the impact on the resident, as it had instructed a contractor to eradicate the squirrels on three occasions, when the resident reported a recurrence of the infestation. There is limited evidence to show that the landlord kept the resident updated on the progress of the works, outside of the formal complaints process. However, the landlord promptly revised its estimated completion date on 25 April 2022, when it exceeded the original completion date of 24 April 2022. The resident had to chase the works on several occasions, which caused him additional time and effort. This was particularly evident between November 2021, when the resident raised the repair issue, and March 2022, when the resident raised the complaint.
12. Ultimately, although the delays in completing the repairs were somewhat out of the landlord’s control, the landlord should have taken additional steps to ensure it was regularly updating the resident. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£100 are appropriate in cases where the landlord has made an offer of compensation, but it does not quite reflect the detriment on the resident or acknowledge all the failings identified in this report. Although it was reasonable that the landlord used its discretion to offer a goodwill gesture of £100 due to the length of time taken to complete the works, it has not acknowledged its communication issues. Good levels of communication are necessary for an effective tenant/landlord relationship. As the landlord failed to recognise its communication issues within its complaint response, there was a missed opportunity to learn from the complaint. As a result, the landlord should award the resident an additional £100 compensation. The landlord should also review its communication practices and provide additional staff training if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation to be donated to charity

13. The landlord offered the resident £100 compensation in its final response and the resident subsequently requested the money to be donated to charity, which the landlord initially confirmed on 1 April 2022 it would be able to do. The landlord then stated on 6 April 2022 that it was unable to process the payment directly to the charity due to issues with tax implications, but advised it could make the payment to the resident, to enable him to make the payment himself. It is acknowledged that this may have caused frustration to the resident, as the landlord had retracted its initial statement. However, it was reasonable that the landlord provided a clear explanation of why it was unable to proceed with the donation and it offered an alternative option to enable the resident to donate the money.
14. On 26 April 2022, the resident pursued the issue and asked why the landlord was unable to donate the money directly to charity, as it had previously done so. The landlord said on 6 June 2022 that it had reviewed the case and confirmed that it was able to make the payment directly to the charity. There were then delays with the payment outside of the landlord’s control, as it experienced issues with obtaining the charity’s payment details, which the resident was informed of. The landlord confirmed the payment was made on 20 July 2022, and provided the resident with proof of the payment on 22 July 2022.
15. Although the resident had to chase the issue on several occasions, the landlord provided updates where appropriate in order to manage the resident’s expectations regarding the progress of the payment. The landlord had promptly advised the resident when it initially encountered issues in progressing the payment, so it was understandable that there were delays in actioning the donation. The landlord had also provided a viable alternative, so the delays could have been avoided. Ultimately, despite the delays which the landlord has acknowledged, the payment was made to the charity, and the landlord provided the resident with proof of the payment. 

Determination

16. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repair issues to the roof and the associated squirrel infestation.
17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for the compensation offered by the landlord to be donated to charity.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

18. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident an additional £100, as a result of the communication failings outlined in this report. The landlord should provide proof of this payment to this Service, within four weeks of the date of this report.
19. The resident had previously declined compensation and requested for it to be awarded to charity, so the landlord should confirm with the resident how he wants to proceed with the order of compensation made in this report.

Recommendations

20. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its communication practices, and considers providing additional staff training if required.
21. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repair timeframes within its repair policy to ensure it is in line with information provided to residents.