Optivo (201903550)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903550

Optivo

29 April 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its handling of repairs to the resident’s property relating to the roof, the boiler, and the bathroom plumbing.
The report will also address the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a three-bedroom house.

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to historic repair issues going back several years, but there is no evidence of any repair reports having been raised with the landlord in the 12 months prior to this complaint. The available evidence shows that the reports relating to this complaint were raised in April 2019. Therefore, whilst any historical issues may be referenced for background context purposes, this report will only consider the events from April 2019 up until the landlord’s final complaint response in April 2020.

Policies, procedures, and agreements:

Tenancy agreement:

This sets out the landlord’s repair obligations as, ‘To keep in repair…the structure and exterior of the Premises including…the roof’. The landlord is also responsible for keeping ‘…in good repair and working order any installations provided by the Association for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity…’

Responsive repairs policy:

This sets out how the landlord will respond to a report about a responsive repair. It states that an Emergency Repair (such as a water leak) is anything that can cause immediate health and safety risk; or cause immediate damage to a property’s structure, fixtures and/or fittings. The policy states that the landlord will respond and ‘carry out works to make it safe within six hours’ of the issue being reported.
With regards to all other non-emergency repairs, the policy sets out the types of repairs the landlord is responsible for and its states ‘We must keep the structure and outside of your home in a reasonable state of repair and in proper working order. We will also maintain any installations we have provided for supplying water, gas, or electricity, and for heating, hot water, and sanitation.
The policy does not set out any specific timeframe for completing non-emergency repairs.

Complaints procedure and policy:

This states that a complaint must be formally raised within six months of the issue happening.
The landlord has 10 working days to issue its Stage 1 complaint response.
If the complaint is not resolved at Stage 1 then the tenant can request a review of the complaint within 10 working days of the Stage 1 response. The landlord will then consider whether the complaint ought to be escalated to Stage 2, and it will notify the tenant of its escalation decision within 10 working days.
A complaint will be closed when the landlord has ‘…sent our full response and the customer hasn’t requested a review’.

Compensation policy:

This sets out the factors the landlord takes into account when considering compensation for service failures. This includes recognising when it has caused distress and inconvenience.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 18 April 2019 the resident called to discuss problems with the roof and the boiler. She said that the roof had issues with leaks over the years and needed replacing, and the boiler had been fitted in an inappropriate location and was too close to the toilet. The landlord explained that it had no recent repair reports about these particular issues, and the last repair report was logged in 2018 about an unrelated issue with the windows. The records show that this call was unexpectedly cut short and the advisor tried to call the resident back but could not get through.
On 3 May 2019 the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and noted the main repair issues as follows:
1. Boiler needed to be moved as it was fitted too close to the toilet.
2. Upstairs bathroom plumbing was unsatisfactory and needed rectifying. It was noted that the resident had carried out their own improvement works in the bathroom (e.g. fitting new toilet, sink and bath) but the associated plumbing and pipework had not been carried out to a good standard.
3. Downstairs WC ceiling had a hole due to a leak from the upstairs bathroom pipework.
4. Damp and possible condensation in the main bedroom which was possibly due to a roof leak.
5. Various other unrelated repair issues were also noted at this time, such as smoke detectors, air vents and handrail all required attention.
It was confirmed by the landlord’s gas contractor on 3 May 2019 that it would be possible to move the boiler slighter higher.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 May 2019 and set out all the repairs it was going to carry out, which included a list of all the jobs that had been booked in as noted during the 3 May 2019 inspection.
On 3 June 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident and confirmed that the WC ceiling repair had been authorised and a further appointment had been booked in for checking the possible damp/mould on the bedroom ceiling. It confirmed that the boiler would be moved but that this was a major job which required further approvals and checks before the work could start. The gas contractor would be contacting the resident directly about this in due course.
The roofing contractor provided his inspection report to the landlord on 13 June 2019 and confirmed the following:
1. ‘I visited the above address on 11/06/2019 and, after the previous day’s very heavy rain, I found no evidence of any roof leaks, The Tenant told me she feels that [the landlord] should strip the roof and recover using breathable felt. I explained that the felt has been removed from inside and this is allowing the roof to be ventilated properly and it has indeed stopped her condensation problems. I feel it is not imperative to strip roof just to install felt.
The resident contacted this Service on 19 June 2019 but as no formal complaint had been logged with the landlord, we advised the resident to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process first.
The landlord’s records show that the work to move the boiler was completed on 30 June 2019.
The landlord has provided an invoice for the bathroom works dated 5 July 2019 which shows that a contractor attended and carried out ‘a full plumbing check under the bath and sink’. A subsequent invoice dated 9 July 2019 shows that the contractor attended to ‘fix the leak under the sink’.
The resident contacted this Service on 15 July 2019 requesting assistance with progressing various repairs. The resident was again advised to complete the landlord’s complaints process first. This Service also wrote to the landlord and asked it to log a formal complaint for the resident if it had not already done so.
The landlord’s records show that on 17 July 2019 a complaint was formally logged for various repair issues. The records did not list the specific details for each outstanding repair, and the complaint was to be looked at as a whole.
The landlord carried out a case review on 22 July 2019 and confirmed that it would only address those issues which had arisen within the last six months, which was in accordance with its complaints policy. It arranged for the property to be inspected again.
The landlord’s records show that the contractor completed the repairs to the WC on 26 July 2019, and that this included making good the ceiling and walls and redecorating following a leak.
The landlord issued its Stage 1 complaint response on 31 Jul 2019:
1. Inspection done on 3 May 2019; multiple repairs were required.
2. No repair reports had been raised in the six months prior to the inspection.
3. ‘Phase 1’ of the repairs had been completed and the landlord would now re-inspect the works and check for any other outstanding issues.
4. It maintained that it was working with the resident to resolve all the repair issues and it said that if she was still unhappy with the resolution, she should contact it within 14 days to request a review. It concluded by saying that if it did not receive a response by 14 August then, in line with its Complaints Resolution Policy, it would close the complaint.
The landlord has told this Service that it closed the complaint in August as the resident had not requested a review.
On 5 September 2019 a follow-up inspection was carried out by the landlord’s surveyor. The findings were as follows:
1. The repair works were in progress.
2. Boiler had been moved.
3. Hole in ceiling had been repaired but required skimming.
4. Smoke detectors and handrail replaced.
5. Bathroom plumbing leak had been fixed but further works were required to complete the job. Plumber to re-attend to this.
6. Ventilation works still in progress.
7. Bedroom ceiling – surveyor was of the opinion that as there were no roof leaks ceiling did not need replacing. According to the surveyor, the resident strongly disagreed and argued with surveyor about this and the surveyor and accompanying landlord staff member had to leave the property due to this and it was agreed that they would confirm in writing what repairs were still to be completed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 9 September 2019 to confirm the outstanding repairs and when they would be carried out.
The invoice provided by the landlord shows that on 19 September 2019 the works to the bathroom plumbing had been completed.
An invoice provided by the landlord, dated 14 October 2019, shows that further works were carried out in the downstairs WC and the ceiling had to be replaced.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident to say that the kitchen would be replaced in 2020 as part of planned works. It would contact the resident closer to the time and it also said that cyclical works to gutters, cladding and the exterior would also be done in the next couple of months.
The landlord’s records note that a further inspection was carried out on 30 October 2019, but the landlord has not provided any specific details of the findings of this inspection.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 November 2019 setting out various repairs that had been booked in, including replacing internal doors, further works in the downstairs WC and a problem with the boiler thermostat. It also mentioned the cyclical works to the exterior were scheduled to take place in a few months.
The resident contacted this Service on 22 November 2019 about repairs that had not been completed. It was not clear from the resident’s submissions whether or not this was part of the original complaint from July 2019, or a new complaint. This Service wrote to the landlord for clarification. The landlord responded on 25 November 2019 and said that it had issued a Stage 1 complaint response in July 2019 and that complaint had been closed. It said it would contact the resident and check if any repairs were still outstanding from the original complaint.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 26 November 2019 shows that the majority of the issues now being raised were new repairs following an inspection on 30 October 2019.
On 11 December 2019 the resident called the landlord as she was unhappy with various issues, including, internal doors had still not been fitted, the contractors had left a mess following the guttering works and there was still a problem with the kitchen floor. The resident also said that she had not received the Stage 1 complaint response in July 2019.
On 3 February 2020 the resident called the landlord to report ongoing issues. These included wanting the roof tested for leaks as she had issues with the dampness in the loft and the bathroom plumbing was running slow.
On 9 March 2020 the resident contacted the landlord to report a roof leak which had caused damage to items in the loft. The landlord’s records show that a contractor was booked to attend as an emergency to replace a missing roof tile.
On 10 March 2020 the resident contacted this Service again about outstanding repairs and she was not sure what stage her complaint was at. This Service then wrote to the landlord to confirm if the complaints process had been exhausted.
The landlord has provided an invoice dated 13 March 2020 which confirmed that the missing roof tile had been replaced.
The landlord contacted this Service on 16 March 2020 and said that it would contact the resident and carry out a review of the complaint.
The landlord’s internal correspondence on 3 April 2020 explains the surveyor’s findings and his opinion on the various repairs after his inspections in May 2019 and September 2019:
1. Boiler – it was agreed that this was not in the right place and would need to be moved.
2. Hole in WC ceiling – the resident had carried out their own bathroom works and this involved re-plumbing the sink and bath and this had caused leaking water to drip through to the downstairs WC ceiling. Both the issues of the downstairs WC and upstairs bathroom were listed for remedial work. It was advised that the ground floor WC ceiling would be repaired after the bathroom works had been completed.
3. Smoke detectors in the living room were noted as damaged and in need of replacement and handrails to the stairs between ground and first level had been detached and so remedial works were advised as required and noted to address and make safe.
4. Second Bedroom – the air vents needed servicing; some had been removed and others interfered with; all the vents were either closed or in need of servicing or replacement.
5. Main Bedroom – the resident was adamant that there was an issue with damp as there was staining on the ceiling. It was agreed that the poor ventilation may have been a factor but the roof and loft would be checked for leaks. If no issues found with the roof, then the ceiling would be washed down and decorated.
6. Roof – the resident believed that there was a problem with the roof leaking and it was reiterated that a roof inspection would be carried out to ascertain whether the roof was in sound condition or whether water penetration was occurring to cause ceiling stains. It was noted that the resident was insisting that the roof be replaced so the surveyor inspected the loft space and found no potential defects to the lay of the roof slating. But it was agreed that a roofer would insect the roof too.
7. Following the further inspection on 5 September 2019 the surveyor noted that the boiler placement had been completed; the WC repair needed to be finished; the smoke detectors had been replaced; the stairs handrails had been reinstated and making good carried out satisfactorily.
8. With regards to the bathroom plumbing, works had been carried out to remedy the faulty plumbing to stop the leaks, but this needed to be finished off and the bath panel and sink cupboard had to be but back in place.
9. The roof issue and ceiling staining was discussed and the surveyor was of the opinion that the roof was not leaking, and the ceiling staining was due to historic poor ventilation issues. The surveyor noted that the resident then became agitated and irate and demanded that the roof be replaced. As the conversation was getting heated, the surveyor decided to leave the property. A landlord staff member remained with the resident to reassure her that her concerns had been noted, but the evidence showed that the roof did not need replacing. The surveyor commented that his responses to the resident had been ‘in a polite; but assertive manner’.
The landlord issued its final complaint response on 6 April 2020:
1. Staff conduct – it apologised if its staff member had come across as rude during the inspection.
2. Quality of repairs – all the works were due to be checked on 27 March 2020 but this would now be rescheduled in light of the COVID 19 situation. It will write to the resident to agree a suitable date when it is safe to do so.
3. Internal doors – the landlord was not responsible for replacing internal doors, but it still agreed to do so. It apologised for the delay in sourcing and fitting the new doors.
4. Repair authorisation – it acknowledged that there can sometimes be a delay in authorising follow-up works. It acknowledged that it had not originally allocated enough time for the internal door repair and it apologised for this.
5. It set out what lessons had been learnt from the complaint, such as improving its communication with tenants.
6. Stage 1 complaint response – it apologised if the resident had not received this letter, but it did not know this at the time and the complaint was closed correctly. It also noted that the resident had not mentioned anything about not receiving the complaint response until March 2020 and the complaint was then escalated to the next stage.
7. Roof – this has been inspected and no further repairs were deemed necessary.
8. Pebbledash – cyclical decoration was done in December 2019, but if the resident was still unhappy with the marks she can send in photos and the landlord will review this.
9. Cladding – had been inspected and it did not need replacing.
10. Boiler – this was relocated to the kitchen in June 2019. Since then the landlord has responded to all reports and resolved any issues with the boiler and there are at present no outstanding issues.
11. Compensation – it said that it was not able to offer compensation for physical or emotional stress under its Compensation Policy. However, in line with the policy it is able to offer the maximum compensation of £350 for the delay with repairs and the lack of communication.
12. It stated that as it had answered all the points in the review request and offered its maximum compensation offer in line with its Compensation Policy, it would not be escalating the complaint to a review. It was confirmed this was the final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the boiler, the roof and the bathroom plumbing were in accordance with its policies, procedures, and any agreements it has with the resident, and whether it acted reasonably, taking into account what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. In doing so, the Ombudsman will not only consider the landlord’s response to the substantive issues, but also the actions it took within its complaints process.
The landlord has demonstrated in its complaint responses that it has formally acknowledged and accepted its service failures with regards to its handling of this matter. It has acted appropriately by apologising for the service failures in relation to delays in completing the repairs and for a lack of communication and offering compensation in recognition of the errors. It is noted that the landlord has offered the resident £350 compensation, which the resident has rejected.
In considering whether or not the landlord’s offer of compensation is reasonable, the Ombudsman has taken into account the landlord’s compensation policy, and this services’ own Dispute Resolution Principles (be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes) and our published Remedies Guidance.
In particular, the ‘Remedies Guidance’ explains that where there have been service failures by the landlord, if the landlord has recognised the failures itself and has taken appropriate action to put this right, including offering reasonable compensation, then the Ombudsman will not necessarily require that the landlord do anything more. One of the factors that the Ombudsman considers is whether the redress is proportionate to the severity of the service failure by the landlord.
Looking at the facts of this case, there have been numerous repair issues raised by the resident, but the main ones that form the subject of this complaint relate to the boiler, the roof, and the bathroom plumbing.
This issue with the boiler is that it when it was originally fitted by the landlord (the date is unknown but both parties refer to it having been fitted a few years ago) it was installed in the downstairs WC directly above the toilet. The resident reported on 18 April 2019 that the location of the boiler was causing her inconvenience when using the toilet e.g. she had sometimes hit her head on the boiler. This was formally logged as a repair by the landlord on 3 May 2019 after it had inspected the property. The landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a gas contractor to attend on the day of the inspection on 3 May 2019 to check the location of the boiler and consider if it could be moved higher up the wall to enable more room to access the toilet.
The landlord’s next update was not until almost four weeks later when it confirmed the next steps in its repair plan. There is no evidence to show what was happening during these four weeks and why it took so long for the landlord to confirm the next steps. The records show that the boiler was moved to a new location on or around 30 June 2019, which is around 10 weeks after the issue had been reported. Whilst the repairs policy is silent on the timeframe for responsive repairs, a delay of 10 weeks to move the boiler is unreasonable and in the absence of any evidence to explain the delay, this is a service failure for which compensation is warranted.
The service failure identified above relate to the delays in authorising inspections, repairs and follow-up works. Whilst the delays are evident, the Ombudsman also needs to consider the impact on the resident. With regards to the boiler, this was in an unsuitable location but was working correctly so there was no lack of heating and hot water. The resident has said that the boiler location meant it was situated too low when using the toilet. The resident has said that she sometimes banged her head on the boiler when using the toilet. However, the Ombudsman is not able to make a determination on matters such as negligence, and compensation for personal injuries are better dealt with in court where any such claims can be properly assessed and quantified.
It is not disputed that it took 10 weeks for the boiler to be moved, but there is no evidence to show that this delay caused any significant adverse impact on the resident.
With regards to the roof issue, this was reported on 18 April 2019 and following the inspection on 3 May 2019 it was formally logged by the landlord as needing further investigations and an inspection by a roofer. As with the boiler issue, there was then an unexplained delay of about four weeks before the landlord confirmed its next steps. The roof was then inspected on 11 June 2019 (almost eight weeks after it had been reported).
Whilst the repairs policy is silent on the timeframe for responsive repairs, a delay of eight weeks to inspect the roof is unreasonable and is a service failure. The landlord has acknowledged that it delayed in authorising follow-up work and it has said that its compensation offer recognises this service failure.
The resident is unhappy that the landlord is not replacing the roof. The available evidence, in the form of the report from the roofing contractor, confirms that there were no leaks visible at the time of the inspection. The available evidence shows that the roof was checked for leaks and no major defects were found even though the inspection took place a day after heavy rainfall. The roofing contractor was of the opinion that there was no requirement to replace the roof. Whilst the resident has remained adamant that the roof ought to be replaced, she has not provided any evidence to substantiate this. In the circumstances, the landlord’s decision not to replace the roof is supported by evidence and is reasonable.
With regards to the bathroom plumbing, the landlord’s records show this was formally logged as a repair on 3 May 2019. The surveyor’s inspection findings on 3 May 2019 noted that the resident had installed new fittings in the bathroom (e.g. new sink) but the associated plumbing and pipework was deemed to be unsatisfactory and not up to the required standard and needing rectification.
As with the other two repair issues above, the landlord has accepted that there was a delay in authorising the rectification works.
The evidence provided by the landlord, in the form of invoices, shows that a ‘plumbing check’ was carried out on 5 July 2019 and a leak was fixed on 9 July 2019. Given that the surveyor noted in his inspection findings on 3 May 2019 that the pipework and plumbing for the sink and toilet were unsatisfactory and needed to be brought up to standard, and that the leak into the downstairs WC was as a result of this pipework, the landlord failed to act promptly when dealing with this issue. There is no evidence to show that the landlord acted decisively or in a timely manner in response to the surveyor’s findings.
The surveyor’s update on 5 September 2019 shows that, while the leaking pipework had been resolved, the bath panel and pedestal cupboard to the sink had not been put back in place and a further visit from the plumber was required. The invoice provided by the landlord shows that the bathroom plumbing works were completed on 19 September 2019. Altogether it has taken the landlord about 19 weeks to complete the bathroom plumbing works. There is no evidence to explain why this took so long. The landlord has therefore failed to carry out the required repair within a reasonable timeframe and this is a service failure.
With regards to the bathroom plumbing, it is noted that this took about 19 weeks and required re-visits to complete the job. There is no evidence to show that the bathroom was unusable during this time. It is however acknowledged that the delay and the re-visits would have been an inconvenience.
In investigating the complaint about the repairs, the Ombudsman has noted that there is an overall lack of detail in the landlord’s submissions. In particular, the landlord has not provided sufficiently detailed evidence of its actions in response to the repair reports and the contact from the resident and there are several gaps in the information on its file. The need for good record-keeping cannot be emphasised enough and it is important not only so that the landlord can provide an efficient and timely service to its tenants, but it also allows for an accurate audit trail of its decision making after the event which can help in resolving complaints and learning from complaints to improve services. The landlord is therefore reminded of the need to ensure that its records are sufficiently detailed and thorough.
Having said that, looking at all the evidence that is available, and taking an overall view on the handling of the repairs, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord has acknowledged its failure to complete the repairs in a timely manner and it has apologised for this. The landlord has responded appropriately by offering compensation in recognition of the service failures in line with its compensation policy.
The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord identified that there had been service failures in its handling of the repairs, and that it has offered the resident reasonable redress for this. The landlord’s offer of compensation recognises the service failures noted above and represents proportionate and reasonable redress for those service failures taking into account the degree of inconvenience caused, and the impact on the resident. The amount offered by the landlord is in line with its own compensation policy, and this Service’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ which sets out the general level of compensation where there has been a ‘failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy’ and where the Ombudsman has found considerable service failure, but there is no significant or permanent impact on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The evidence shows that while the resident contacted this Service on 16 July 2019 to pursue a complaint, it was established that a formal complaint had not been raised with the landlord first. This Service wrote to the landlord on 16 July 2019 notifying it that the resident had contacted us about a complaint. The landlord acted appropriately and logged a formal complaint the next day. It responded in a timely manner by carrying out a case review within a few days and it issued its Stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe set out in its complaints policy.
The resident contacted this Service again on 22 November 2019 about outstanding repairs. Following further discussions with the landlord and the resident it was noted that the issues being complained about at this time were new repairs, and that the original complaint had been closed in August 2019 as the resident had not requested a review following the Stage 1 complaint response. This Service wrote to the landlord asking it to respond to the resident and complete its complaints process.
The resident informed the landlord on 11 December 2019 that she had not received the Stage 1 complaint response that had been issued on 31 July 2019. There is no evidence to show how the landlord responded to this. No new complaint was set up to deal with the new repairs and nor did the landlord escalate the original complaint at this time.
The available evidence shows that it was not until 16 March 2020 that the landlord carried out a review of the complaint. The landlord did not therefore handle the complaint appropriately or in a timely manner and it missed opportunities to try and resolve the matter earlier.
The landlord did not act appropriately as it failed to follow its complaints process. There is no evidence that it re-opened the original complaint or logged a formal complaint when it was contacted by the resident in December 2019. It delayed in carrying out its investigation of the complaint and only escalated the complaint after the involvement of this Service. Its failure to act in a timely manner meant that the resident experienced unnecessary additional inconvenience from not receiving a reply and having to chase progress with the assistance of this Service, which was unreasonable. By not responding to the resident about the complaint in a timely manner, it has failed to comply with its own complaints policy and missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in respect of its handling of the resident’s concerns regarding how it dealt with the repairs to the boiler, the roof, and the bathroom plumbing.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint-handling.

Reasons

The landlord has acknowledged the resident’s concerns and has accepted that there were service failures in its handling of the noted repairs. It has apologised for the identified service failures in respect of delays in completing the repairs and it has accepted responsibility for this. It has offered compensation which, in light of the available evidence, and this Service’s ‘Remedies Guidance’ is reasonable and proportionate redress for the service failures in this case related to the handling of the repairs.
The landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaints policy; it failed to respond to the complaint in a timely manner and failed to escalate the complaint in line with its policy.

Orders

Within the next four weeks the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £100 for the complaint handling service failures.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders to be provided to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

If not already done so, the landlord to pay the resident the compensation of £350 it offered in its final complaint response.