Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202114993)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114993

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

30 August 2023

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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the resident’s reports that her property was overcrowded;
2. repairs to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen;
3. the resident’s reports of overgrown trees.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident became an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord in 2012. She lives in the property, a 2-bedroom house, with her 4 children. She is a member of the landlord’s ‘intermediate rent’ scheme, which allows tenants to rent a property for less than the market rate in order to save for a deposit to buy a home.
The tenancy agreement states that the tenant “shall not assign, sublet, part with or share possession or occupation” of the property. The landlord’s allocations policy says that it lets a proportion of its properties at affordable rents which are up to 80% of local market rent, and that once a property has been let at affordable rent it will not revert to social rent. The policy says that the distinction will be made clear to prospective tenants when properties are advertised. The landlord’s mutual exchange policy states that assured shorthold tenants are unable to apply for a mutual exchange. The Ombudsman previously determined a complaint by the resident in relation to the landlord’s refusal of her request for a mutual exchange in 2020 (reference number 201906020).
The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water and for sanitation. This is supported by the landlord’s maintenance policy, which confirms that it is responsible for repairs to sinks, wash hand basins, toilets, baths and showers. Tenants’ responsibilities include internal decoration, repairs to internal doors, and any damage caused by “neglect or misuse” including a sink overflowing or flooding. The policy divides repairs into 3 levels of priority, with the landlord completing emergency (priority 1) repairs within 24 hours and non-emergency (priority 2) repairs within 15 working days. The third category of ‘variable timescale’ repairs – often involving multiple visits, costs over £1,000 and/or a tender process – are completed within a timescale agreed with the tenant.
The landlord operates a 3-stage complaints process. If it cannot resolve a complainant’s concerns at the first point of contact (a ‘stage 0 service request’), it will open a complaint investigation. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and within 15 working days at stage 2. Measures it will take to put things right include apologising when it is at fault, learning from its mistakes, and informing complainants of any resulting changes to policies or services. It will not close a complaint until all outstanding actions have been completed.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider paying discretionary compensation if it has failed to meet its own service targets; failed to deliver a service which is paid for through a service charge; not acted reasonably; damaged personal possessions; or if a tenant has been unable to use a room in their home. There are various circumstances in which it will not pay compensation, including if a fault was repaired within the target time and to a good standard, and if it has acted reasonably and complied with its legal and contractual liabilities. Compensation is calculated based on the level of impact to the customer, with payments of up to £20 being due for low impact cases, up to £100 for medium impact cases, and up to £500 for high impact cases. The policy states that cash compensation is limited to a maximum of £500.

Summary of events

On 13 February 2020 the resident reported that her bathroom flooring was lifting, the rubber seal on her shower screen was worn, and her shower waste was leaking. The landlord categorised this as a routine multiple repair. A works order raised in relation to the repair was marked as complete on 30 June 2020.
On 27 May 2020 the resident told the landlord that a number of trees to the front and side of her property required maintenance. She said the trees on the section of land next to her property were growing over her back garden and causing signal interference. The landlord raised a works order in relation to this. Its records indicate that the tree issue was conflated with another issue reported by the resident on 28 July 2020, relating to car parking, which was given the same reference number and marked as complete on 4 August 2020.
The following year, the landlord raised a works order for repair of the resident’s shower screen on 5 February 2021 after she reported this using its app. It initially booked an appointment for 22 February 2021, but this was moved at its contractor’s request as additional materials needed to be ordered.
On 23 February 2021 the resident called the landlord to discuss her tenancy agreement and confirm her tenure type. She said she wanted to know what her options were to move to a bigger property, as her property had 2 bedrooms and she had 4 children. The landlord’s records show that it explained the resident held an intermediate tenancy, which was the same as an assured shorthold tenancy. This meant that she did not have the option of buying her property or completing a mutual exchange with another tenant. It told her that her only option was to surrender her tenancy in order to be considered for housing elsewhere. The landlord repeated this advice in an email to the resident on 24 February 2021, in which it also clarified that it did not operate a transfer process. It advised her to apply to her local council for assistance or explore another intermediate/assured shorthold tenancy.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 March 2021 to chase her outstanding repairs. The landlord asked which repairs she was chasing, and did not subsequently update her as it was waiting for her to pass security checks by confirming her identity. The landlord’s contractor was due to carry out the resident’s shower screen repair on 8 March 2021, but rescheduled for 9 March 2021 when its operative was held up at another job. The contractor then did not attend until 24 March 2021, when they resealed the bath and fitted a shower rail and curtain (instead of a replacement shower screen) at the resident’s request. The landlord informed the resident on this date that its contractor would contact her directly regarding other repairs, and raised a new works order for the trees to be cut back. This was later marked as complete on 1 December 2021.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord raised emergency repairs in relation to a leak from the resident’s bathroom through her kitchen ceiling and into a plug socket. Its records show that these repairs were completed the same day they were reported.
On 16 April 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about “the living conditions I have had to put up with”. She said that:
1. A number of repairs to her property had been carried out but not completed properly.
2. The repairs had been left incomplete, and she had had water running into her kitchen for weeks. She was ignored when she told the landlord it was toilet water. This was unacceptable as there were children in her household.
3. She had complained for years about the overgrown trees, and nothing had been done.
4. She would like to be compensated for the conditions she had been living in and the fact that she had been ignored.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint and requested more details about the outstanding repairs. The resident replied the same day, advising that a leak from her toilet was ignored for weeks and was wrongly thought to be coming from her bath. She said she had to call out an emergency electrician because the leak was running into her kitchen socket. While (according to the resident) the landlord later acknowledged that it was the toilet that was leaking, she had realised this from the outset, and had been living with a leak that was “unhygienic and smelt really bad”. She also said that, following removal of her shower screen and replacement of a shower curtain, her bathroom was left in a mess; she had young children and found this unacceptable. Finally, she noted that the repair relating to the trees had been outstanding for over a year. She said the trees in question had been cut back a number of years ago after they were found to be on land owned by the landlord. The issue had now recurred and the overgrown trees were causing bird droppings to land on her children’s outdoor toys.
On 22 April 2021 the landlord identified a leak from the hot water pipe connected to the resident’s hand basin. On 23 April 2021 it removed the toilet and old flooring and reinstated the toilet. On 26 April 2021 it isolated and repaired the hot water pipe leak and replaced the bathroom flooring.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint on 6 May 2021, stating that:
1. It had liaised with its repairs team, who advised that the resident raised the shower screen repair using its app on 5 February 2021. The works were carried out by its contractor on 24 March 2021. It was sorry for the delay, and had provided feedback to its repairs team and contractor to ensure that this did not happen in future and residents were kept updated.
2. A leak from the hot water pipe was found and repaired in April 2021. The leak meant that the flooring could not be removed and replaced on the same day, due to how wet it was underneath. All works were completed by 26 April 2021.
3. It had contacted its estates team regarding the trees, and a member of the team would visit that week to see what could be done.
4. It was sorry the resident had cause to complain. It hoped its letter showed that her feedback had been fully considered and that she was satisfied with the response.
5. If she was dissatisfied, she should reply to it within 28 days explaining the reasons why and what she sought as an outcome. Her complaint would then be reviewed by its customer experience team at the next stage of its complaints process.
The resident contacted the landlord the same day (6 May 2021) to say that she was unhappy with its response. She felt the response did not reflect the fact that a number of appointments had been rescheduled, and said that the damage caused to her bathroom flooring was not due to water splashing onto it but to the fact that it was not installed properly and was laid over other flooring. She said she had been living in a “mouldy damp bathroom” as she had not initially understood the extent of the damage. She also pointed out that the leak into her kitchen was from the toilet, not the sink, although the landlord’s contractor had found another leak near the sink after the new flooring had been fitted. The landlord asked what outcome the resident sought, and she said she wanted to be compensated for the unsafe conditions she had been living in and for its failure to address the tree issue. The resident did not explicitly request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process, and it did not do so.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord obtained a quote for pruning the trees at the side of the resident’s property and removing the cuttings. On 20 May 2021 the resident told the landlord that tree surgeons had visited the area but were instructed to cut down the wrong trees, so the trees overhanging her property continued to cause a problem. The resident went on to make a complaint to the landlord about the trees on 5 October 2021, stating that she reported the issue over a year ago and had been repeatedly ignored. She asked the landlord to respond within 10 working days, but there is no evidence that it did so (or said it could not do so).
On 15 October 2021 the landlord raised a works order for repairs relating to the leak from the resident’s bathroom into her kitchen. The repairs were categorised as routine and concerned damage to the kitchen ceiling, kitchen sides and bathroom door. The landlord’s records show that photographs of the damage were provided at the time of raising the repairs, and that the works were completed on 1 November 2021.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service for assistance with progressing her complaint. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2021 and asked that it responded to the resident within its published timescales. On 25 November 2021 the landlord told the resident that, following contact by this Service, it had decided to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process and would respond within 15 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 6 December 2021, stating that:
1. It understood the resident was concerned about overcrowding in her property. It had liaised with its home moves manager, who advised that as she was in an intermediate rent property, she would need to contact the local authority regarding rehousing options including a transfer or mutual exchange.
2. The resident had also raised issues regarding repairs to her kitchen following a leak and water damage to her bathroom door. Its repairs manager had reviewed the repairs history and found that while a number of leaks had been attended to, contractors did not report that any further works were required and previous correspondence with the resident did not highlight any issues with the internal bathroom door. It first received a report of damage to the kitchen ceiling on 15 October 2021, and completed works within its target timeframe. If any further repairs were required, the resident should report these to its repairs hub.
3. The resident was concerned about overgrown trees and requested that they were cut back. It understood that its estates team had previously arranged for some trees to be removed, but that 2 more trees at the end of the row also required work. Its estates manager was looking at options and would be liaising with the local authority, as removing the trees may cause other issues.
4. It believed it had addressed all the issues in the resident’s original complaint, as well as additional issues she had subsequently brought to its attention. She had been given the necessary contact details in the event of any future concerns.
The resident replied to the landlord the same day (6 December 2021) to say that the issues she raised in her complaint had not all been addressed. She said that all of the trees needed cutting, “not just the front”, as she could not currently allow her children to play in her back garden due to fallen branches. She also said that she still had water damage to her bathroom door and kitchen sides, and that she had been under the impression that she would be able to buy her property in the near future due to the type of tenancy she held. On 7 December 2021 the landlord replied that its estates team was looking into the tree issue; that the bathroom door issue had been addressed in its stage 2 response; and that the resident should report any further repairs to its repairs hub or via its app. It explained that intermediate tenancies were usually issued for 6 or 12 months to applicants who were working full-time, and that this type of tenancy was created so that tenants could pay 80% of market rent while saving up for a deposit to buy a different property (not the one they currently occupy).
The landlord closed the resident’s complaint on its system on 14 January 2022, noting that it had advised the resident to contact it regarding any further repairs and that the tree issue was being looked into. Its summary of learning from the complaint stated that it would ensure its tenants were aware of how to contact it about raising complaints in future. It also noted that there had been some confusion regarding ownership of the land that the tree was growing on, and that it needed to explore this as soon as it became aware of such issues so that it could provide appropriate advice/resolution.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order in relation to various kitchen repairs, including “skirting falling off”. Works were carried out on or around 18 March 2022 and some remaining repairs were completed on 3 May 2022. On 9 March 2022 the landlord raised a further works order in relation to a number of bathroom repairs, including a water damaged boiler door frame, and these were marked as completed on 30 March 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42(a) and (c) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure, or which were not brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period. This investigation therefore will not consider events that predate the resident’s complaint by over a year, such as previous communications relating to the overgrowing trees. It also will not consider events that took place after the resident’s complaint concluded the landlord’s complaints process, such as a fence repair that the resident reported following storm damage in February 2022. The resident may choose to make a further complaint to the landlord in relation to the fence repair, which she may subsequently refer to this Service if she is dissatisfied with its response. It is noted that compensation of £500 awarded by the landlord in July 2022 related to the fence repair, and not to the issues considered as part of this investigation.

Overcrowding

The Ombudsman has previously found service failure in relation to the landlord’s explanation of the resident’s ‘intermediate rent’ status and the rehousing options consequently available to her. This finding, which concerned the landlord’s omission to establish a link between its published policies and the resident’s situation, will not be duplicated. Instead, the landlord’s response to the resident’s queries about her housing status and reports of overcrowding within the context of her recent complaint will be assessed.
When the resident asked the landlord about her tenancy type and rehousing options on 23 February 2021, it responded appropriately by explaining the contract type and terms of her tenancy. Its records show that it clearly stated the resident’s intermediate tenancy type prevented her from being able to buy or exchange her property. Since this conversation took place over the phone, it was good practice for the landlord to reiterate its advice in writing, and it did so promptly. This also allowed it to clarify that it did not operate a transfer process.
The resident did not raise the issue of overcrowding as part of her original complaint in April 2021, or in her email expressing dissatisfaction with the landlord’s stage 1 response in May 2021. However, when she contacted this Service in November 2021 she said that overcrowding was one of the outstanding issues. Following intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord addressed the issue in its stage 2 response by restating that the resident would need to contact the local authority about rehousing options. In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to include this in its final response letter and to signpost the resident to the relevant agency, although it would have been helpful for it to include a website, written guidance and/or a point of contact.
When the resident told the landlord (on receiving its stage 2 response) that she had thought an intermediate tenancy meant she could buy in the near future, it again responded swiftly with a detailed explanation of her tenancy type and the accompanying restrictions. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this response was more than sufficient, and the resident did not query any points or tell the landlord that she did not understand.
The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident has been seeking a house move for some time, and her reasons for doing so (living in a 2-bedroom property with 4 children) are understandable. It follows that she would seek a more urgent move in view of the repair issues and other matters that formed part of her complaint. However, the landlord is limited by the schemes it operates and the options available to its tenants who hold intermediate tenancies. There is documentary evidence that the landlord has supported the resident in previous housing applications that she has made. Taking all of the circumstances of the case into account, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overcrowding to have been reasonable.

Bathroom and kitchen repairs

Shower screen

The resident first reported that the rubber seal on her shower screen was worn, along with other repairs to her bathroom and garden, in February 2020. The landlord’s repair records indicate that it took over 4 months to complete the repairs. While a delay of this length appears excessive for a routine and non-complex repair, a finding cannot be made due to the level of information available and the fact that the works order related to 4 different repairs (one of which the resident confirmed was completed in April 2020). However, the logging of multiple repairs under a single reference number was confusing, and – together with the low level of detail in the repair logs – constituted poor record keeping. Logging each repair separately would have made it clearer when each one was completed, and would have increased the landlord’s ability to monitor and report on its own performance.
The landlord said in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident reported further issues with her shower screen on 5 February 2021, although this is unclear from its repair logs (which show 18 different repairs, with no description, logged and cancelled on that date). Indeed, when the resident chased some outstanding repairs on 5 March 2021, the landlord itself was unable to identify which works she was referring to, and there is no indication that it was able to update her as it required her to pass security checks first. This was indicative not only of further issues with record keeping, but also of an inadequate system for residents to check progress of their repairs.
The landlord’s delay of nearly 7 weeks before it completed the shower screen repair on 24 March 2021 was unreasonable. While this was partly due to its contractor’s availability and level of preparation, the landlord did not attempt to complete the repair until more than a month after it was reported, and there is no evidence that it encouraged its contractor to prioritise the repair between 8/9 March 2021 and 24 March 2021. Although a lost or damaged seal on a shower screen may reasonably have been considered a priority 2 repair (with a target timescale of 15 working days), the landlord’s response did not acknowledge the resident’s concerns about water splashing onto her bathroom floor and causing damage.
When the landlord carried out the repair, its agreement to install a shower rail and curtain rather than a replacement shower screen at the resident’s request was appropriate and demonstrated both flexibility and a solution-focused approach. It was also good practice for it to give feedback to its repairs team and contractor in order to prevent future delays, although it is unclear whether it would have done so if the resident had not made a complaint.

Leaks

When the resident reported a leak from her bathroom into her kitchen on 1 April 2021, the landlord correctly identified this as an emergency repair and attended within its target timeframe of 24 hours. It completed follow-on works over a period of 3 working days later the same month, which was reasonable. Its subsequent explanation for completing the flooring removal and replacement on different days was satisfactory, although better communication during the 3-day repair period may have served to alleviate any concerns the resident had at the time.
There appeared to be some confusion as to the source of the leak, whether there were multiple leaks, and the cause of damage to the resident’s bathroom flooring. The resident believed the original leak was from her toilet and created an unpleasant smell. The landlord’s records indicate that it found the leak to be coming from a hot water pipe connected to the resident’s hand basin; the resident said in her escalation request that its contractor later found a second leak, which the landlord did not dispute, and its stage 2 complaint response stated that it had attended to “a number of leaks”. The Ombudsman’s role is not to determine the origin of the leak(s), but to examine the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports. It is evident that there was some misunderstanding as to the leak’s source and that the landlord made limited attempts to address this. It also did not respond to the resident’s concerns about hygiene and having a “mouldy damp bathroom” for weeks with sufficient empathy or consideration. If it had grounds to believe that the leaking water was clean, rather than “toilet water”, it should have assured the resident of this so that she could be confident of her family’s safety.
The landlord’s statement in its stage 2 response that it had completed repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling within its target timeframe was reasonable, and supported by its repair records, which showed that the repair was reported on 15 October 2021 and completed 11 working days later on 1 November 2021. This was after an incident where the resident’s child had turned the bath taps on and caused water to overflow on 14 August 2021, resulting in emergency repairs. The Ombudsman has had sight of a photograph which shows water staining to the ceiling; while there is no doubt that this was unsightly and upsetting for the resident, limited evidential weight can be attached to the photograph as it does not confirm the cause, date or nature of the leak. It is also noted that internal decoration would normally be the tenant’s responsibility, but that the landlord completed decorative works following the repair, which was an appropriate adjustment and use of its discretion.

Water damage to bathroom door

The landlord’s records show that damage to the resident’s bathroom door was one of the repair issues reported to it by the resident on 15 October 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that damage to the door was brought to the landlord’s attention prior to that date. It was therefore reasonable for it to explain that its contractors did not highlight any issues with the door when they completed the leak repairs, nor did the resident mention it in her correspondence at the time. However, its advice for the resident to report further repairs via its repairs hub – when it had already been made aware of an outstanding repair issue – was unhelpful. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should have logged the repair itself and confirmed to the resident that it had done so. However, it is noted that (according to the repairs policy) tenants are normally responsible for repairs to internal doors, and so depending on the landlord’s assessment of how the damage was caused and who was responsible, any works carried out may be rechargeable.

Summary

Overall, while some of the landlord’s actions relating to the bathroom and kitchen repairs were reasonable, its delays, poor record keeping and often unsympathetic communication has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Overgrown trees

Correspondence between the resident and landlord indicates that the tree issue had been going on for several years, with some pruning taking place in 2020 and the most recent report of overgrowth (prior to the resident’s complaint) being made in March 2021. The resident noted at this time that there had previously been difficulties in establishing responsibility for the trees, but that investigations the year before had concluded the landlord owned the land on which they were growing. It would be hoped that these earlier investigations would serve to expedite resolution of a recurring issue and prevent a further protracted process. Unfortunately it appears that the previous investigations were either inadequately documented or inaccessible to the relevant staff, as the landlord later referred to confusion around this matter in its learning from the resident’s complaint.
It is unclear whether the pruning that took place in 2020 was in consequence of the report made by the resident on 27 May 2020, and due to a lack of evidence besides the repair log, the landlord’s response to this report cannot be fairly assessed. However, its response to her report on 24 March 2021 was unsatisfactory. There is no evidence that the overgrown tree issue was investigated or otherwise progressed until the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 6 weeks later, at which point it arranged for its estates team to visit the same week. Though the visit did take place, poor communication and reliance on images from Google Street View resulted in the wrong trees being pruned and/or removed. While it may not have been practicable for a member of staff with personal knowledge of the resident’s issues to have attended (although this would have been helpful if possible), the landlord could have attempted to arrange the visit at a time when the resident was available to attend and demonstrate the impact the trees were having on her property. As well as identifying the correct trees, this would have allowed the resident to feel listened to and that her views had been taken into account.
The resident’s frustration at the wrong trees being cut back was understandable, and there is no evidence that the landlord replied to her email in which she informed it of this. This was a missed opportunity for it to apologise and offer appropriate redress – either in the form of compensation, by providing reassurance and a plan for dealing with the correct trees, or both. The information received by this Service indicates that the landlord took no further action for 5 months, after which the resident complained about the lack of action and the fact that she had been ignored. The landlord did not acknowledge this communication as a complaint, or even as a service request. It was not until 1 December 2021, following intervention by the Ombudsman and the landlord’s agreement to produce a stage 2 complaint response, that the landlord made a meaningful attempt to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s commitment in its stage 2 response to contact the local authority and “look at options as to what we can do” was again inadequate. Besides being excessively delayed, its response was unspecific. It did not describe the factors it had considered (such as the length of time the trees had been in situ, relevant legislation, and options for reducing the canopy rather than removing the trees); did not provide an anticipated timeframe; and did not reflect the delays and inconvenience caused to the resident’s family. It also did not offer any compensation, in circumstances where it had not acted reasonably or met its service targets. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of overgrown trees. The compensation awarded takes account of the detriment caused to the resident and her children due to their reduced use of their garden over a period of at least 16 months – with the resident telling this Service in April 2022 that “nothing had been done”, and the landlord confirming in July 2022 that works to reduce the volume of the trees and crown lift the lower branches remained outstanding.
The landlord’s website states that shortly before September 2022 it appointed a contractor to help manage its trees and ensure they “don’t get overgrown or cause any problems”. It says that its contractor will be carrying out surveys across all its communal areas over the coming months in order to determine whether pruning works are needed. If any trees are found to be causing a nuisance or hazard, it will address this in order to comply with its public safety duty. Because of these proactive arrangements, no general order has been made in relation to ongoing monitoring of trees and related works.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code does not support an informal or ‘stage 0’ complaint stage, and it is positive that the landlord logged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 from the outset. It acknowledged the complaint within 1 working day, and it was reasonable for it to request more information from the resident at this point (albeit that, if its repair records were adequate, it may not have needed to do so). It then responded after 12 working days, and although this slightly exceeded its target response time of 10 working days, the delay was not excessive.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its delay in carrying out the shower screen repairs in its stage 1 response. While it was right to reassure the resident that it had taken steps to prevent recurrence of the issue, an award of compensation would have reflected the impact of the situation on the resident and constituted a more personal and meaningful attempt to put things right. The stage 1 response provided a useful level of detail in relation to some matters, such as the leak repairs, but was overly brief in relation to others, such as the tree issue. As a result, the landlord missed an opportunity to demonstrate that it understood how the trees were affecting the resident’s family, and to coordinate a robust plan of action to identify the problem trees and implement a timebound solution. Its failure to designate a point of contact to take ownership of the tree issue – instead assigning isolated tasks to its estates team and contractors – meant that the issue continued for an additional extended period.
When the resident immediately expressed her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response, the landlord should have escalated her complaint to stage 2. Its stage 1 response said that its customer experience team would review the complaint if she replied within 28 days to explain why she was dissatisfied and the outcome she sought, and she did so. However, it did not escalate the complaint until this Service contacted it on the resident’s behalf 6 months later, meaning that the final response was not provided until 7 months after the resident said she was unhappy with the stage 1 response. Not only was this response time excessive, it was also disingenuous for the landlord to tell the resident it had “decided” to escalate her complaint, when in fact its policy gives tenants the right to escalation.
During this 7-month period, the landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to a further complaint (about the tree issue) that the resident made, in which she specifically requested a reply within 10 working days. Had it carried out appropriate investigation upon receipt of the further complaint, it may have identified its failure to escalate the original complaint sooner, and found a solution without the Ombudsman becoming involved. Though it was reasonable for the landlord not to log a second complaint relating to the same issue, a tailored email explaining this to the resident and setting out how it proposed to take her existing complaint forward would have reassured her that it was taking her concerns seriously.
Once the landlord had agreed to escalate the complaint, it responded within 7 working days, which was within its target timeframe of 15 working days. The stage 2 response addressed all aspects of the complaint, but only provided its current position in relation to each aspect, and did not address the resident’s reasons for escalation (ie that she felt it did not offer sufficient redress for the delays and other failures that had already occurred by the time of the stage 1 response). In the Ombudsman’s view, compensation was due, and the landlord’s omission to make an award at either stage was unacceptable. The lack of financial redress, together with the lack of recognition of the impact on the resident and the delays in responding to the complaint, has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that her property was overcrowded;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom and kitchen;
3. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of overgrown trees;
4. maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord was clear before, during and after its complaints process that it was unable to offer the resident a move to another of its properties. It explained the reasons for this and the rehousing options available to her.
The landlord delayed for 7 weeks in carrying out a shower screen repair and did not reassure the resident of her family’s safety when she believed that her toilet was leaking into her kitchen. While some of its repair related actions were reasonable, its communication was sometimes unsympathetic and its record keeping in relation to repairs was poor. This prolonged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, who was also concerned about the impact of repair issues on her children.
The landlord delayed for at least 16 months in dealing effectively with the resident’s reports of overgrown trees, despite having previously established its responsibility for the trees. Its confused approach meant that no staff member or team took ownership of the issue, resulting in the wrong trees being cut back and limited explanation being given for the work undertaken. The impact of the situation on the resident’s family, whose ability to use their garden was reduced, was not sufficiently acknowledged.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint within a reasonable timeframe, but failed to escalate the complaint to stage 2 when she expressed her dissatisfaction and desired outcome in accordance with its process. It did not acknowledge a further stage 1 complaint that the resident attempted to make. Its stage 2 response was produced only following intervention by the Ombudsman, and it did not address the resident’s reasons for escalation or offer financial redress in circumstances where this was appropriate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its poor communication and delays in carrying out repairs/works and responding to her complaint.
2. Pay the resident £1,600, comprising:
  1. £600 for its delays and poor communication in relation to her bathroom and kitchen repairs;
  2. £300 for reduced use of her garden over a period of at least 16 months;
  3. £400 for its complaint handling failures;
  4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to her by the delayed repairs and tree works;
  5. £100 for the time and trouble she expended in chasing matters associated with her complaint.
3. Make arrangements for pruning and/or removal of the trees overhanging the resident’s garden, if it has not already done so. If the trees are not removed, they should be pruned sufficiently so that they do not extend over the garden, or if this is unavoidable, the impact is minimised. There is no requirement for the pruning/removal itself to take place within the 4-week period, but this should not be unreasonably delayed.
4. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.
The landlord is ordered to review its record keeping in relation to repairs within 8 weeks of the date of this report. It should do so in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. A summary of its findings and a timebound action plan for any proposed changes should be provided to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its complaints policy in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and considers removing its ‘stage 0’, currently worded on its website as “Give us one more chance.”
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its compensation policy in conjunction with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and considers revising its tariff, if it has not already done so, including removal of the ‘cap’ of £500.