Onward Homes Limited (202013218)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202013218

Onward Homes Limited

30 November 2021

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 resident complains about:
1. The time taken for the landlord to complete a repair to the kitchen door.
2. How the landlord handled his complaint about the kitchen door repair.
3. The time taken for the landlord to complete plastering work to the bathroom.
4. How the landlord handled his complaint about the bathroom repairs.

Background and summary of events: repair to kitchen door

On 5 February 2020, the resident reported an emergency repair to the landlord as he could not gain access to his dining room or kitchen. The landlord agreed for someone to attend that day. Later that day the landlord re-raised the emergency repair due to no access; the resident’s wife was in but did not have enough time to answer the door. The landlord advised that the contractor would attend around 19.00pm. The resident chased this up several times including at 21.12pm stating no one had yet attended.
The resident requested to make a compliant about the time taken. The landlord advised that the operative had attended and said it had marked his contact as dissatisfied and “closed”.
On 6 February 2020, the resident requested again to raise a complaint stating that his wife and children were in the property, including a four-month old baby, and his wife was unable to leave the house as the pushchair was locked in the dining room. She was unable to cook for the children or go out and buy them food. He said that the operative who attended did not leave a card and ran away when his wife opened the door. He complained that even when they attended it was over the landlord’s four–hour timescale and that when he phoned to report the situation, the landlord’s attitude was defensive and he was simply told to wait another four hours. No one attended until 21.00pm.
The landlord responded stating that it had noted a “dissatisfaction” but there was no valid reason to log a complaint. The resident challenged this referring to the landlord’s complaints policy.
On 7 February 2020, the landlord agreed it could escalate the issue to its “Customer Insight Team” and asked what he would like resolved as part of the complaint. The resident said it was about how he and his family were treated, the type of service they received and the denial of a right to complain.
On 10 February 2020, the landlord confirmed it had passed his complaint to the complaint department who would contact him within 48 hours to acknowledge the complaint and respond within ten working days.
The resident chased up the complaint several times in March 2020. On 16 March 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had reported on 5 February 2020 that he could not open the kitchen door. The resident called later that day saying that an operative had attended but his wife was unable to get to the door before the operative left. The landlord said it raised a further emergency repair at 15:16pm and the resident had reported the operative arriving at 21:30pm.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had tried to raise a formal complaint but he was advised he could not do so due to the “no access”. The landlord said this was incorrect and it apologised for the inconvenience caused. The initial emergency repair had lapsed the four-hour agreed timescale therefore it had failed to deliver a service in line with its agreed standards and he was within his rights to raise a complaint. The landlord acknowledged that given his wife was unable to gain access to the kitchen to prepare food or drinks for his young children, it agreed more could have done to assist him following the no access and the urgency of the situation should have been passed to the contractors to make them aware. It apologised that he had to wait a further six hours.
In conclusion, the landlord acknowledged that the time taken to attend the emergency repair was unacceptable and apologised. It said it had fed back to the contractors to highlight the failures. It also said that feedback and training would be provided to in relation to the complaints policy. The landlord upheld the complaint and offered £70.00 as a goodwill gesture.
On 14 April 2020, the resident stated that he was not satisfied with the outcome because this was not the first time had received an unacceptable service. He said he was denied the right to complain and it took a long time for him to convince the landlord that he had the right to complain. He said they had received a poor service including waiting an unacceptable period for a repair and he had to call for an update. This had caused distress. He said his children were put at risk because his wife could not leave the house with three children without a pushchair and the fact that this included a two-year old and a four-month old baby was not taken into account. He said he wanted the service he had received looked at by the Ombudsman.
On 10 June 2020, the resident called the landlord asking to speak to a particular member of staff in the complaints team.
On 25 June 2020, the resident called stating that he had responded to an email from the landlord on 14 February 2020 but he had not received a response and he requested a call back from a manager.
On 30 July 2020, the resident rang requesting to speak to the complaints team. He said he had called on several occasions asking for the staff member’s manger to call but had not received a response.
On 14 August 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord assured the resident that it treats all customers fairly although acknowledged that things had gone wrong in the past and that the service he had received was unacceptable. The landlord said it understood he wanted to escalate the complaint but it had asked him to explain his desired outcome and he had not provided a “meaningful desired outcome as of yet”. It felt it had adequately addressed the complaints raised and agreed that the service was not the standard it expects.
On 27 August 2020, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he felt he had been treated differently from other tenants. He said he had replied to the landlord’s email on 14 April 2020 to say he was not satisfied and wanted the complaint passed to the Ombudsman and did not receive a reply despite having telephoned six times. When the landlord did phone him it did not apologise for the delays. In response to the landlord’s request for a meaningful desired outcome, the resident said that would be for the landlord to accept that his family had been treated differently to other tenants.
The landlord provided contact details for the Ombudsman and agreed to escalate the complaint to Stage two.
On 22 September 2020, the landlord provided a Stage two complaint response. The landlord acknowledged that an operative attended to repair the door but left before the resident’s wife had time to answer the door. The resident had to request the operative return which delayed the repair. It also acknowledged that he had tried to log a further complaint but this was refused. The landlord said it had apologised for this incorrect information but also acknowledged he had experienced inconvenience and distress and offered £25 compensation. This was the landlord’s final response to this complaint.

Assessment

The time taken for the landlord to complete a repair to the kitchen door.

The landlord’s Repairs handbook refers to three timescales for completing repairs:
1. Emergency: target to complete within four hours. These are repairs which put the health and safety of the tenant or anyone else at immediate risk, or can affect the structure of their home or nearby properties.
2. Urgent: target to complete within five working days.
3. Routine: target to complete within 20 working days.
The landlord’s guidance for goodwill payments includes a table of payments that can be offered when the landlord is late for an emergency job as follows:
1. 1-2 hours late: £10.
2. 3-4 hours late: £20.
3. 5-6 hours late: £30.
4. 7-8 hours late: £40.
5. 9+ hours late: £50.
The policy also includes a table of goodwill payments in respect of the number of appointments required to complete a repair. In relation to the replacement of an internal door, the table refers to payments of:
1. £0 if it is fixed on appointment one.
2. £20 if it is fixed on appointment two.
3. £40 if it is fixed on appointment three.
When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
When responding to the resident’s complaint about the time taken to repair the kitchen door, the landlord acknowledged that it had not completed the emergency repair within the four-hour agreed timescale. It also acknowledged that this had caused inconvenience due to his wife being unable to access the kitchen to prepare food or drinks for his young children. It acknowledged that the urgency of the situation should have been passed to the contractors. The landlord apologised and said that it had fed back to the contractors involved. It offered £70.00 compensation.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In acknowledging the delay in completing this repair, apologising, feeding back to the contractors and offering compensation, the landlord has taken steps in accordance the Ombudsman’s principles to put things right and learn from the complaint. The compensation offered was also in line with the landlord’s Repairs policy guidance given that the repair took approximately 12 hours to complete and two appointments. In conclusion, the landlord has taken appropriate steps to acknowledge and apologise for the shortcomings, learn from the complaint and offered appropriate compensation. In doing so, the landlord has offered appropriate redress to resolve the complaint and acted in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.
While the resident also complained that he had been treated differently to other tenants, a finding of discrimination could only be made by the courts and not the Ombudsman. In addition, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the failures identified were deliberate or targeted at the resident in any way.

How the landlord handled the complaint about the kitchen door repair

The landlord’s Complaints policy states that it has a two-stage procedure:
1. Upon receipt of a complaint, the landlord will acknowledge the complaint within two working days and respond within ten working days. It will keep the customer informed if it will take longer to respond.
2. If the customer remains dissatisfied, they can request a review of the case. At stage two, a Director will review the complaint. The request will be acknowledged within two working days and respond within ten working days.
The resident tried to raise a complaint on 5 February 2020. The landlord initially refused to do so, and then agreed and passed it to its complaints team on 10 February 2020. It provided its Stage one response on 16 March 2020.
There was therefore a delay in the landlord accepting and responding to the complaint at the first stage, and it did not do so in accordance with its policy. However, when responding to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that the initial advice the resident was given was incorrect and apologised for the inconvenience caused. The landlord said that training would be provided to staff in relation to the complaints policy, which was appropriate.
The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response on 14 April 2020. He tried to contact the complaints team on 10, 25 June and 30 July 2020. On 14 August 2020, the landlord requested the resident provide his desired outcome. On 27 August 2020, the resident explained his dissatisfaction with the complaint so far. On 22 September 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint. It acknowledged that the resident had been provided information and offered £25 compensation.
While the landlord made an attempt to acknowledge its shortcomings in relation to the complaint handling, the compensation offered is not proportionate to the number of failings. The landlord’s first complaint response was approximately 17 days late, the landlord initially refused to log a complaint at all, the second complaint response was over four months late and the resident called several times to chase up a response before the landlord engaged with him about this. The landlord should therefore have gone further to acknowledge its failings and put things right by compensating for the time and trouble of pursuing the complaint.

Background and summary of events: bathroom repairs

On 3, 5 and 10 March 2020, the resident called the landlord chasing up repairs. He referred to an inspection having taken place in January 2020.
On 25 June 2020, the resident called saying he had reported a faulty socket in the bedroom and painting works for the bedroom and bathroom the previous week. The landlord’s notes also refer to him chasing up plastering/joinery to the bathroom.
On 15 September 2020, the resident called the landlord stating he wished to make a complaint about the plastering work to the bathroom. He said he had made several phone calls and no one had contacted him. The resident said he wanted to make a formal complaint and he would send an email.
On 21 October 2020, the resident called stating that he was unhappy as he had not heard from the complaints team. The landlord said “he wouldn’t be able to just email the resolution inbox like he did”. The resident said no one had contacted for eight months. The landlord referred to the pandemic and said it resumed jobs around June 2020 and there was a shortage in plaster. The landlord said someone would contact him directly about the repairs. The resident then said he was stopping his direct debit as the landlord had said it could not register a complaint.
The landlord’s repair notes of 21 October 2020 state that the contractors advised that the bathroom plastering works had been completed and it was requesting a site visit. The landlord’s repair notes for the tiling of the bathroom also note that the jobs was closed down for billing as at 15 June 2020.
On 20 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord stating that he had had a job done earlier that year to remove part of the walls upstairs to help with a damp problem. He said that part of the upstairs walls had been removed but the damp had come back “worse than ever”.
On 20 November 2020, the resident contacted the landlord saying that there was an issue that had been going on for months but would not say what the issue was.
On 24 November 2020, the landlord contacted the resident about outstanding rent for November and the resident informed the landlord that he had cancelled his direct debit as he had not received a response to his complaint. The resident had also sent an email stating that he wanted to raise a complaint about a delay in service delivery. He said that in February 2020 a surveyor had attended the property and raised jobs. He said that many of these jobs were not done and he had to chase them up. He said he understood that there could be a delay to Covid 19 but after a couple of months he called as he has three children and the works were essential. He said that after a long wait some work was completed but a job in the toilet was outstanding despite him calling many times. He said he had asked to raise a complaint but this was refused and he was told they could only escalate it. He said it was his right to complain and this was the second time he was told he could not complain.
On 25 November 2020, the landlord acknowledged a formal complaint received that day. It aimed to respond within 10 working days.
The resident responded stating that he had made the complaint on 15 September 2020 and chased it up on 21 October 2020.
The landlord’s complaints records state that it tried to call the resident on 27 November and 1 December 2020 but was unable to get through. The landlord reviewed the repairs history and noted that all of the works raised in February 2020 appeared to be completed but the resident had said there were outstanding works in the toilet.
On 4 December 2020, the landlord called the resident and discussed the complaint. The landlord explained that the inspector that attended previously no longer worked for the landlord so it was struggling got find “clear notes”. The resident referred to issues with the “installations” or “insulations” and the beading to the toilet. He said the main issue was the way he and his family were treated and when he tried to make a complaint he was told he could not so. This had led him to believe that the landlord was discriminating against him due to “race/religion”. The landlord said that would not be the case but acknowledged there were a number of service failures. It apologised for the lack of response to his emails. The landlord agreed to look into the issues and provide a formal response.
The landlord’s complaint notes state that it looked like all the works raised in February 2020 were marked as completed although the contractor was supposed to do a post inspection as the resident was unhappy. The landlord made enquiries to try and find out if the contractor had completed the post inspection but there is no evidence to confirm whether they did.
On 9 December 2020, the landlord responded to complaint at Stage one. It defined the complaint as outstanding repairs following an inspection in February 2020 and lack of response to his complaints which he felt was discrimination.
The landlord said that following an inspection in February 2020, it raised four jobs: ceiling plastering; brickwork on the front elevation; plastering/joinery in the bathroom; and tiling in the bathroom. It said that all jobs were marked as completed but it understood that the plastering/joinery in the bathroom was outstanding. It said it had asked the contractor to attend on 9 December 2020 to post inspect the work and that once this had been done, any necessary works would be re-raised.
The landlord said it had also arranged for repairs to be raised in relation to the damp and an appointment was scheduled for 24 December 2020 to check bay pointing for leaks, and for 29 December 2020 to “flush and re-allign the leaking gutters” and apply mould wash to affected areas. The landlord apologised that the resident felt some of the repairs were incomplete.
In relation to the complaints, the landlord acknowledged that the resident’s complaints had not been dealt with appropriately and he had emailed on both 15 September and 21 October 2020 and these were not responded to. The landlord apologised and assured him that it was not intentional or based on discriminatory views. The landlord said this issue would be discussed with senior management to assure appropriate action or training was provided. In conclusion, the landlord offered £100 as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord has provided correspondence from its contractors of 15 December 2020 which includes the following notes from a visit to the property:
1. No hatch fitted in bathroom.
2. No insulation in roof space over bathroom.
3. A new order to mould wash throughout.
4. Repair gutter and check point on bay.
5. Photos show water penetration on front elevation. It had ordered renewal of blown brickwork and repointing around the window which it thought was the reason for water penetration in the front bedroom and lounge.
6. It would raise an order to overhaul the fan in the bathroom as it did not come on during the inspection.
On 15 December 2020, the resident responded stating that he was disappointed that the landlord had not accepted that the failures were not related to race or discrimination as he did not think the landlord provided a similar service to every tenant and it was not the first or second time his family had been subject to this kind of treatment. He requested escalation of the complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 January 2021 and said it would respond by 19 January 2021.
On 24 December 2020, the resident advised the landlord that the contractor attended but the notes state “sounds like wrong trade”. The landlord contacted the contractor.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced for some time and that it had taken longer than expected to complete repairs. It also failed to escalate the complaint at a “more appropriate point”. It said it had tried to call him to check if the repairs were completed. It thought they had but asked him to get in touch if not. The landlord apologised and acknowledged that it had taken too long to resolve the matter. The landlord offered £200 as a gesture of goodwill due for the inconvenience of having to follow up on outstanding repairs.
On 3 February 2021, the resident informed the landlord he wanted to go to the Ombudsman to finalise the repair issue.
On 16 May 2021, the resident informed the Ombudsman that the plastering in the bathroom and the tiling in the bathroom had not been started and no one had contacted him about this.
In a letter dated 3 June 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord about the complaint and noted that the resident disagreed that the bathroom repairs including plastering, joinery and tiling had been completed.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it has now implemented an “escalation triage process” under which it has a dedicated team of “Escalation Specialists” who are on hand to try and resolve complaints at the first point of contact, to mitigate the chance of a complaint not being escalated and dealt with appropriately. It considered this evidence that it had learned from the complaint.
The landlord has also provided evidence that it inspected the property on 8 November 2021 in relation to a report of a leak from the roof into the bathroom. The comments state “checked roof nothing to report, bathroom has vent but no vent tile in the roof, possible cause. Follow on needed to strip section of roof to inspect”. The landlord also attended on 18 and 19 November 2021 in relation to a leak in the kitchen coming from the bathroom. The contractor notes state that leak was found behind the taps to the bath, “added ct1 to stop leak”, but that “new bath required as bath bent”. The contractor also reported that there was “damp on walls and ceiling but air vent switched off in boiler cupboard. Switched on and it does work”.

Assessment and findings

The time taken for the landlord to complete plastering work to the bathroom.

Following an inspection in February 2020, the resident chased up outstanding repairs three times in March 2020, and on 25 June 2020. On 15 September 2020, the resident tried to complain about the outstanding repairs to the bathroom. When the resident chased this up on 21 October 2020, the landlord referred to the pandemic and said it resumed jobs around June 2020 and there was a shortage in plaster. The landlord said someone would contact him directly about the repairs. The landlord subsequently said it arranged a post inspection for 9 December 2020.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord did not complete any repairs in the bathroom in December 2020 and has not done so since then. He said he did not report the issue again after the final complaint response of 14 January 2021 as he had already reported it many times and he had informed the Ombudsman that it was outstanding. Correspondence from the Ombudsman to the landlord of 3 June 2021 also noted that the resident had said that the bathroom repairs were outstanding.
The landlord was made aware by the resident from 25 June 2020 that he did not agree the bathroom plastering works were complete. In this situation, the landlord should have arranged a further inspection to check whether the previous raised repairs were complete to a satisfactory standard. There is evidence that an inspection took place on or around 15 December 2020. This identified that there was no hatch fitted in the bathroom, no insulation above the bathroom, a mould wash was needed and the bathroom fan needed overhauling.
Given the timescales in the landlord’s repairs policy (20 working days for routine repairs), there was a delay by the landlord in re-inspecting the bathroom to check if the plastering works were outstanding and/or if further repairs were needed. It is acknowledged that due to Covid 19, there were periods when government guidance advised landlords to only access properties for serious and urgent repair issues (between 28 March 2020 and 1 June 2020). It is also acknowledged that the landlord may have had a backlog to routine repairs to attend to from 1 June 2020 onwards. However, the landlord should have communicated this to the resident to manage his expectations.
There was an unreasonable delay between 1 June 2020 and 15 December 2020 since the landlord has not provided any explanation as to why (even taking into account any backlog), it took this long to offer an appointment. When investigating the complaint the landlord noted that a post inspection was due to have taken place but there is no evidence to confirm that it did.
When responding to the complaint, the landlord acted appropriately and in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution Principles in acknowledging that the repairs had taken longer than expected and apologising for this. It offered £200 compensation.
The landlord also said that it had tried to call the resident to check the repairs were complete and asked him to get in touch if not. There is no evidence to confirm that the landlord completed the repairs identified on 15 December 2020, but there is also no evidence of the resident reporting the repairs as outstanding at this stage. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the bathroom repairs were not completed in December 2020 or since then and that the bathroom has been damp since February 2020. The recent inspection referred to damp on the walls of the bathroom.
In conclusion, while the landlord appropriately acknowledged some delay to repairs at the time of the complaint response in January 2021, the evidence does not confirm that it appropriately followed up the complaint by ensuring the repairs to the bathroom identified in December 2020 were completed. Some may be outstanding to date. It is acknowledged that the resident did not inform the landlord of this at the time of the final complaint response and his escalation request also focused on the discrimination aspect rather than any outstanding repairs. It would have been preferable if the resident had informed the landlord that he felt the repairs incomplete at this stage and therefore the landlord was not wholly responsible for the subsequent delay.
However, the landlord should also have been able to check at the time of the complaint response that the works raised were complete and should also have take action following the Ombudsman’s communication of June 2021 referring to outstanding repairs. There was therefore a further delay for which the landlord was responsible and which had not been addressed adequately by the complaint response.
The resident also complained that the landlord had discriminated again him as he felt the landlord did not treat other residents as he had been treated. However, a finding of discrimination could only be made by the courts and not the Ombudsman. In addition, the Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence to suggest that the failures identified were deliberate or targeted at the resident in any way.

Assessment: How the landlord handled the complaint about the bathroom repairs.

On 15 September 2020, the resident called the landlord stating he wished to make a complaint. On 21 October 2020, the resident called stating he was unhappy as he had not heard from the complaints team. On 24 November 2020, the resident explained the reasons for his complaint and also set this out in an email to the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 November 2020 and provided a Stage one response to the complaint on 9 December 2020. On 15 December 2020, the resident explained his dissatisfaction with the Stage one response and on 14 January 2021, the landlord provided a final response to the complaint.
In relation to the complaints, the landlord acknowledged that the resident complaints had not been dealt with appropriately and he had emailed on both 15 September and 21 October 2020 and these were not responded to. The landlord apologised and assured him that it was not intentional or based on discriminatory views. The landlord said this issue would be discussed with senior management to assure appropriate action or training is provided. In conclusion, the landlord offered £100 as a goodwill gesture.
The landlord has also informed the Ombudsman that it has now implemented an “escalation triage process” under which it has a dedicated team of “Escalation Specialists” who are on hand to try and resolve complaints at the first point of contact, to mitigate the chance of a complaint not being escalated and dealt with appropriately.
There was a delay in the landlord logging a formal complaint between 15 September 2020 and 25 November 2020. This was frustrating for the resident, particularly given his previous experience of shortcomings in the landlord’s complaints handling process in relation to his earlier complaint about the kitchen door repair.
However, when considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The landlord acknowledged that the complaint had not been dealt with appropriately and apologised for this. It also agreed to take steps to prevent the same thing happening again and offered proportionate compensation. The landlord has therefore taken appropriate steps to resolve this complaint in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the repair to the kitchen door satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to the complaint about how it handled the complaint about the kitchen door repair.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to the complaint about the time taken for the landlord to complete plastering work to the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about how the landlord handled the complaint about the bathroom repairs satisfactorily.

Reasons

There were delays in the landlord addressing the repair to the kitchen door, but the landlord responded to the complaint about this appropriately by acknowledging its shortcomings, apologising and offering proportionate compensation.
There were several shortcomings in the way the landlord handled the complaint about the kitchen door repairs. The landlord’s first complaint response was approximately 17 days late, the landlord initially refused to log a complaint at all, the second complaint response was over four months late. The resident called several times to chase up a response before the landlord engaged with him about this. While the landlord made an attempt to acknowledge its shortcomings in relation to the complaint handling, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the number of failings.
There was a delay in the landlord completing bathroom repairs between June and December 2020. While the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologised for this when responding to the complaint, it also failed to ensure that the works identified in December 2020 were completed as part of the complaint response and this led to a further delay in 2021 for which the landlord was partially responsible.
There was a delay in the landlord logging a formal complaint about the bathroom repairs between 15 September 2020 and 25 November 2020. However, the landlord appropriately acknowledged its shortcomings and apologised. It also agreed to take steps to prevent the same thing happening again and offered proportionate compensation, which was fair.

Orders

The landlord to apologise to the resident and pay him at total of £525 compensation (within four weeks of the date of this Order), comprising:
1. £125 for the shortcomings in how it handled his formal complaint about the repairs to the kitchen door (this is inclusive of the £25 offered previously).
2. £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the time taken to complete repairs to the bathroom (this is inclusive of the £200 offered previously).
The landlord to take steps to ensure it has a process in place to both monitor and ensure that repairs identified during an inspection are appropriately raised and completed in a reasonable time and report back to the Ombudsman as to the steps taken (within six weeks of the date of this Order).
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any concerns he has about ongoing dampness or other issues in the bathroom and if appropriate arrange a further inspection and provide the results of this inspection to the resident and the Ombudsman including a timescale for any repairs (within six weeks of the date of this Order).

Recommendations

The landlord to pay the resident the £170 compensation it offered previously for the delays to the repairs to the kitchen door and the shortcomings in how it handled the complaint about the bathroom repairs if it has not already done so (within four weeks of the date of this Order).