Paragon Asra Housing Limited (202116346)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116346

Paragon Asra Housing Limited

31 July 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the roof and subsequent ceiling repairs.
2. The lack of electrical sockets and reduced cupboard space following the installation of a new kitchen.
3. The electrical rewire required to the property.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence the following complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The lack of electrical sockets and reduced cupboard space following the installation of a new kitchen.
Paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme says the Ombudsman will not investigate matters which “in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s kitchen was remodelled in August 2019 following the finding of asbestos in the previous one. The resident initially contacted the landlord to request additional electrical sockets to the kitchen in November 2020. A complaint over this issue as well as the lack of cupboard space in the remodelled kitchen was raised by the resident in January 2021, 17 months after the kitchen had been installed.
There is no evidence that a formal complaint about the lack of electrical sockets and the lack of cupboard space was raised by the resident with the landlord within six months of the issue arising and accordingly under Paragraph 42 (c) of the scheme, this aspect of the complaint is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a three-bedroom house with an extension to the rear of the property. The rear extension contains the kitchen. The tenancy began on 28 October 1996.
The landlord has stated that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident although it is aware that the resident is noted as a carer for her elderly mother.
The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure and exterior of the property which includes amongst other things the roof, the internal walls, floors and ceilings.
The tenancy agreement also set out that the landlord is responsible for the repair of installations which includes electrical wiring including sockets and switches.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one sets out that the landlord in the first instance will aim to resolve the complaint there and then, when it is initially raised. If it is unable to do so it will refer the matter to be investigated. The landlord aims to respond back on the matter within 10 working days. If the complaint is particularly complex it may need longer than 10 days to be resolved. In those cases the landlord will keep the resident informed and updated on the matter.
2. If the complaint cannot be resolved at the first stage, it will be passed to stage two. The landlord will aim to provide a response within 15 working days, however if the complaint investigation or resolution is particularly complex it may need a longer time to resolve. No upper limit in terms of timescale has been provided however the landlord will keep the resident informed and regularly updated in this event.
The landlord’s maintenance policy explains that it has two types of prioritisation for repairs. Leaking roofs and electrical works are considered as non-emergency repairs by the landlord and repair works are to be carried out within 15 working days. Repairs in relation to the total loss of power are deemed to be emergency repairs for which the repairs will be completed within 24 hours.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will make a payment in the event a room was not habitable. This is set at a weekly amount of £50 in terms of a kitchen or a bathroom and is paid following seven days loss of use. The policy explains that the landlord may pay an additional sum to compensate for “out of pocket expenses which have resulted from the loss of this room. An example would be a sum towards the additional costs of food or eating out if the kitchen is unavailable for use”.
The compensation policy set out that for a serious or prolonged service failure that any cash compensation was limited to a maximum of £500. Under right to repair the policy also sets out that residents have a right to expect repairs to be completed within certain set timescales and that if these qualifying repairs cannot be completed within an agreed timescale the landlord will pay compensation for the inconvenience which is £10 plus £2 for each extra day up to a maximum of £50.

Summary of Events

The resident reported a leak from the flat roof at the rear of the property which was coming into the kitchen and the downstairs toilet on 7 October 2020. The landlord set a target date of 28 October 2020 to attend and repair, in line with a non-emergency repair.
On 30 October 2020 the resident contacted the landlord again to explain that the water leak was getting closer to the kitchen light. It was also informed that there was no power in the property. The landlord set a target date of the next day to attend and repair, in line with an emergency repair.
The resident raised a complaint using the landlord’s online complaints form on 7 January 2021. She stated that there had been issues which had been reported throughout 2020. These had concerned lighting issues, leaks and asbestos in the kitchen which had been remodelled in 2019.The resident stated that both she and her partner were shielding as they were vulnerable and that they had reported the issues of the leak in the kitchen since October 2020 and it had still not been repaired. They stated an appointment had been made for the landlord’s contractor to attend on that day however the operative had not emailed or phoned them to explain why the appointment was not kept.
The resident added that every contractor who had attended the property had accessed the fuse box and confirmed when looking at the electrics of the property that the property needed to be fully rewired. She added that the upstairs hallway light could not be fitted with a bulb as it would lead to the whole property fusing.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment letter to the resident on 7 January 2021. It provided a reference number for the complaint and confirmed that it would provide a stage one response within 10 working days.
The resident sent the landlord a further email on 20 January 2021. She said the online complaints form stated a response would be received within three days however this had not been the case. She added that in terms of the missed appointment for the contractor to repairs the leaking roof and skylights on 7 January 2021, all she had received was a missed call on the day the contractor was due to attend. She added she had now been told that the repair would be competed in the third week of January.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 8 February 2021 stating she had yet she had not heard back from the landlord since her previous email sent on 20 January 2021.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment email to the resident on 9 February 2021. It apologised that the resident had not heard anything up to that time and that it would be chasing up the matter for her.
The landlord’s contactor informed the landlord on 9 February 2021 that in terms of the leaking roof that it was not possible to repair it anymore and that instead it needed a full replacement. However it later confirmed that a second repair had been attempted on 18 February 2021.
The landlord issued a stage one response to the resident on 1 March 2021. The response noted:
1. A commitment had been made to the resident in December 2020 to address both the ongoing leak as well as the electrical issue in the kitchen. However it accepted that both of these issues remained outstanding which it stated was caused by “mainly poor communication between the surveying team and our contractors”, although it stated there was also a lack of response from its surveying team in dealing with the matter.
2. The landlord made a discretionary compensation offer of £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused as well as an apology for the sub-standard service which had been received by the resident.
3. The landlord’s surveying team would arrange with the contractor to complete the outstanding works which included a repair to the roof area as well as a full electrical test to the property. A timeframe of six weeks was provided to complete the works and the resident was provided with a dedicated point of contact to oversee the work.
The resident emailed the landlord using the contact address on the stage one response on 4 March 2021. She questioned the award of £250 which she felt was too low for the issues which she had raised and she proposed a counter offer of £500. The resident informed the landlord that the roof was still leaking and that the downstairs toilet was now blocked and it together with the sink was not in use. This had been despite a plumbing operative having visited the property a few weeks previously.
The landlord arranged for a domestic electrical installation condition report (EICR) to be carried out on 10 March 2021. The report which provided an overall satisfactory condition set out that it had covered the “partial testing and inspection of the fixed electrical wiring within the certificate named property”. In terms of what had been tested the EICR report explained that this comprised “100% of final circuits tested, 25% of wiring accessories inspected”. Under section seven which covered observations and recommendation the report noted that there were two issues which had been classified as “C2” which was defined as potentially dangerous and needing urgent remedial action. These related to the cupboard and bedroom switch not screwed back and the wrong size fuse in spur for the kitchen extractor hood. Both of these issues were noted as being rectified on site which meant that they were no longer dangerous. Whilst the EICR noted there were other recommendations these did not prevent the overall rating from being satisfactory.
The landlord did not log the resident’s response of 4 March 2021 as an escalation request nor is there any evidence that it responded back to the resident. An internal case note shows the landlord closed the case following a case review on 9 April 2021.
The resident completed a further online complaint form on 3 July 2021. In this she raised a number of issues. This included mould, concerns about the electrics, the leaking roof, the lack of light in the kitchen and that the back door was jammed and did not lock. The resident stated the landlord’s contractor had suggested replacing the roof which had not been done. The sky lights also needed replacing as both were cracked and there was mould on them. The resident stated that whilst she had responded to the stage one letter the day after receiving it, she had yet to receive a response from the landlord.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 5 July 2021. It explained that a response would be provided within 10 working day. A new complaint reference was provided to the resident and the landlord treated the matter as a stage one complaint.
The landlord sent an email on 5 July 2021 to its contractor asking for a response to the issues which the resident had raised. A response to the issues was received by the landlord from the contractor on the same day which noted:
1. The cracked skylights had been fixed in January 2021. It stated it would check to see if this was still an issue.
2. In terms of the jammed back door and the wiring needing fixing since the resident was unable to put a bulb in upstairs due to it triggering a loss of lights in the property that these issues had not had any previous jobs raised so it would need to check if job orders needed to be raised for them.
3. In terms of the kitchen having no light, the light could not be reinstated until the roof was fixed as water was leaking in the electrics so it was not safe to reinstall the light.
4. In terms of the roof itself the landlord’s contractor had emailed it on 18 March 2021 to say the whole roof had needed replacing however it did not appear the landlord had responded back to the contractor in terms of the matter.
The resident sent a letter to the landlord on 7 July 2021. This was addressed to the individual who had sent the stage one response in March 2021. The resident stated she had responded by email to it on 4 March 2021 but had not received a response. The resident wished to make a new counter offer of £1,000 to the landlord’s offer of £250 as she explained that the bathroom downstairs was still leaking as was the roof of the kitchen. She added she had been ignored by the landlord and that due to the issues she was unable to eat dinner in the kitchen.
A further email to the landlord on 9 July 2021 from its contractor confirmed that the roof had been patch repaired on 21 January 2021 and again on 18 February 2021. On the second occasion this had included the skylight area. Following this the contactor had sent a new works order to the landlord for the full replacement of the roof as it was not possible to repair it. Whilst the landlord had requested a subsequent further temporary repair on the existing roof, it had been informed that this was not possible and that a replacement was required. The contractor asked the landlord how it wanted to proceed.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email of 12 July 2021 that it had requested that the roof was repaired by the contractor and that once this had been done it should resolve any issues with mould. In terms of the timescales for the repair to be done, the landlord confirmed on 29 July 2021 that the contractor had submitted a new works order to replace the roof. This needed to be agreed and raised. It explained it would follow this up the following week as the person dealing with the matter had been on annual leave.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 July 2021. It explained that it had spoken to the surveying manager about the matter and that that individual would be contacting the resident the following week to provide her with an update.
The resident acknowledged the email on 2 August 2021. She explained that she hoped to hear back from the landlord promptly so that the steps could be taken to fix the property.
The landlord chased the surveying manager for an update on the work that had been scheduled including the proposed date for completion. An order was raised to renew the roof with a target completion date of 30 September 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 September 2021. It explained that scaffolding was required however when the contractors had tried to contact the resident about the matter, it had been unable to speak to her about it. It asked which times during that week it could erect the scaffolding.
The resident replied to the landlord an email on 6 September 2021. She enquired as to compensation for the time the matter had been occurring which at that time was 11 months. She gave a date (8 September 2021) when the scaffolding could be erected but asked at what time the contractor would be arriving so that she could open the back gate to allow them in.
The landlord responded to the resident on 7 September 2021. It explained that it would consider the issue of compensation once the repairs had been completed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 September 2021. She explained the contractor had attended twice since the scaffolding had been put up. However she wished to know when the work would commence. The resident also informed the landlord that the downstairs toilet was broken and leaking and that with the floor flooding it had become a hazard which needed fixing.
The resident completed a new online complaints form on 7 October 2021. She set out that her complaint concerned:
1. Whilst the scaffolding for repairing the roof had been put up at the end of August 2021 (this was an error as the scaffolding had actually been put up at the beginning of September 2021), the roof had not been repaired until the first week of October 2021 and no one had been out to inspect the new roof and the new skylights.
2. When would the plasterer be attending to fix the kitchen ceiling followed by an electrician to fix the kitchen light fixture.
3. When would the work begin on the downstairs toiler and sink as the smell was horrendous.
The landlord sent an internal email of 12 October 2021 asking if a surveyor had visited the property. If it had not it proposed one was arranged.
The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2021 to explain that the roof had finally been repaired by its contractor on 7 October 2021 and that it needed to schedule the internal repairs which it was in the process of arranging.
The landlord received an internal email from its surveying team on 12 October 2021. This confirmed that the property had last been visited by a surveyor in December 2020 and the issues had worsened since this time. It proposed a new surveying visit was arranged together with its contactor to ensure every aspect of work required was considered. An appointment was scheduled for 20 October 2021.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service to raise a complaint on 17 October 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two response to the resident on 19 October 2021. It stated:
1. That whilst the resident had been informed at stage one that the repairs to the roof would be completed within six weeks and overseen, this had not occurred. It apologised for this and said it would need to learn from this case going forwards.
2. It understood the roof had been repaired on 7 October 2021 and whilst there were still internal issues including with the electrics it had arranged a joint visit between the surveyor and the contractor on 20 October 2021. Following this the contractor would draw up a schedule of works.
3. It understood the issue had been long running and it provided a named contact for someone who was monitoring the work.
4. It had proposed £250 at stage one for the inconvenience which it acknowledged had not been paid to the resident. It proposed a further £250 which took the total amount payable to £500 It asked the resident for her sort code and account number to enable it to process this payment.
Following the landlord’s surveyor raising a work order for a roof inspection as well as an electrical inspection a roof inspection report was undertaken on 28 October 2021. The report recommended a recall for the roof although no further details were provided to explain the reasons for this.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 October 2021 to question why the ceiling was being temporary fixed in order to be safe. She explained the landlord’s contractor when attending had informed her there was an agreement for the full ceiling. She asked for the matter to be escalated to the next stage.
The landlord sent an internal email on 16 November 2021 to understand what had occurred in relation to the repairs. A response was received from the resident’s point of contact which explained that the landlord’s contractor had been refused access to the property to make the ceiling safe and also in terms of taking down the scaffolding. One note was provided relating to 31 October 2021 which explained the resident had not allowed the contractor to apply a temporary fix to the ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 November 2021 following receiving an email confirming the landlord was awaiting an update from the surveying manager. The resident stated she could not understand why the jobs in the property should take six weeks or more when this was contrary to the policy which stated work would be completed in six weeks. She asked the landlord to sort out the other issues which she had raised which concerned issues with the fencing, shower and electrical issues. She stated these works could be done whilst they were waiting for the kitchen ceiling to be fixed. The resident explained that her kitchen had not been available for her to cook and as a result she had been eating out. She asked for an email address where she could forward her expenses for this.
The resident contacted the Housing Ombudsman Service on 2 December 2021 to ask for an update on the complaint she had made in October 2021. This Service wrote to the landlord on that day and explained to the resident that she should hear back from it no later than by 15 December 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 December 2021 to explain that it had issued her with the stage two response on 19 October 2021. It added that since that letter had been issued, repair issues remained outstanding and the surveying manager who was her dedicated point of contact was handling this and was in contact with her over the matter.
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 December 2021. She explained she had previously asked for the complaint to be escalated as it had taken more than six weeks for repairs to be addressed. Neither had the landlord made a schedule for the repairs to be completed in a timely fashion. She added she had emailed the dedicated point of contact several times however she never received a response. She added whilst he had phoned her a solution was yet to be found. Therefore she was making the same complaints time and again. She added the landlord’s offer of £500 was inadequate. She also raised an issue regarding a fencing repair.
The resident resent her email of 9 December 2021 on 4 January 2022 as she stated she had not received a response. The landlord’s internal communication shows that it had forwarded the previous email to the surveying manager for his comments, however it had not got back to the resident in the interim.
The landlord sent an internal email asking for an update on the work scheduled and it was confirmed by its contractor on 6 January 2022 that works was scheduled between 12 January 2022 and 20 January 2022 to carry out the work on the ceiling and the other works including the fencing. The contractor explained that it had tried to attend to make temporary repairs on the ceiling but it had been refused access on three occasions as the resident did not want any patch repairs, even though the contractor had informed her this was merely a temporary repair and it would be attending on 12 January 2022. Whilst the landlord asked for details of the dates the resident had refused access none were provided.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 March 2022. This was in response to a phone call from her on 24 February 2022 which explained she had not received any response to her emails of 9 December 2021 and 4 January 2022. It explained that the repair works to the kitchen ceiling had been completed on 20 January 2022. It added that it had issued the stage two response in October 2021 and it understood that there had been other issues which had occurred between October 2021 and January 2022 for which it was sorry. It stated the compensation of £500 it had offered was the maximum for the inconvenience suffered. The landlord added it had noted a complaint in terms of the other repairs the resident had raised on 20 February 2022 which were being investigated separately. A response to this complaint was issued on 14 March 2022.

Assessment and findings

Scoping of the complaint.

Since making the complaint about the roof of the kitchen and the electrical rewire in October 2020 the resident has raised a number of other repairs to the property. These include the downstairs toilet, issues with the shower including the shower screen, issues with the steps and floorboards as well as the fencing. In terms of these matters these will not be addressed as part of this investigation as the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Repairs to the kitchen roof and the ceiling.

Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repair policy the landlord is responsible for repairs to the roof as well as the ceiling. The target timescale for such a repair is 15 working days as the landlord considers these to be non-emergency repairs. However if roof repairs are extensive or require scaffolding then repairs may take a longer timeframe to be completed. If the repair was going to exceed the stated timescales the landlord would be responsible for updating the resident on the matter. Following the resident initially raising issues relating to the leaking flat roof at the rear of the property in October 2020 the landlord provided a response time in keeping with this 15 working day timescale for the repairs. However upon the resident explaining that the leak was close to the electrics in the kitchen and that it had affected the power to the property the landlord set a target of the next day which was in keeping with an emergency repair. Given the safety concerns associated with water interacting with electricity this was a reasonable approach for the landlord to take. It disconnected the lighting electrics to the kitchen which was a reasonable approach to take whilst it was investigating the leak issue.
In terms of the ceiling repairs it was reasonable for the landlord to want to resolve the external leaking issue before it tackled the internal works. Had it not done this and undertaken the internal repairs before it was satisfied that the external leak had been resolved this could have resulted in it needing to return to do the repairs to the ceiling again.
Whilst the landlord acted appropriately initially in considering the leak to be an emergency priority its repair logs do not show when it had attended the property to attempt to repair the roof. The resident stated that the repairs were not scheduled until the beginning of January 2021 and that as the contractor did not turn up on the day the work did not take place until towards the end of January 2021. There was no evidence any work was done on the roof between the end of October 2020 to early January 2021 which was in excess of two months. The landlord has stated a surveyor had visited the property in December 2020 however it has not provided this Service with a copy of any inspection report which was undertaken at that time. There was also no explanation of what if any scheduled work the landlord was proposing at that time. Whilst there had been national and local restrictions in place in conjunction with the Covid 19 pandemic the landlord has not indicated that this was the reason for any delay in work being scheduled.
The resident stated that she received no confirmation that the contractor was not turning up on 7 January 2021 apart from a single missed call on the day. The landlord has not provided any evidence to refute this. The resident’s actions in contacting the landlord on that day to enquire about the repair and the whereabout of the contractor were an indication that she had no prior knowledge that the contractor was not due to attend on the day to carry out the repairs.
Although the landlord’s contractor did attempt to patch repair the roof on two occasions in January 2021 and again in February 2021 the contractor had informed the landlord prior to the second attempt that a partial repair would not work and that a full roof replacement was required. Despite doing this the landlord had not considered at that time following the recommendation of its contractor and doing a full roof replacement together with the likely timescales needed to do this. Instead it informed the resident the following month that the outstanding repairs would be undertaken and that a timescale of six weeks was provided for it to complete the works. Although it provided the resident a dedicated point of contact, the landlord failed to check on the progress of the repairs before it closed down the complaint in April 2021. This was despite the resident’s dedicated point of contact having been informed again by the contractor in March 2021 that a full replacement of the roof was required.
Even after the landlord had been told by the contractor that the full roof needed replacing it did not put into motion any plans to do this. Instead it continued to be under the impression that a patch repair could be undertaken and it asked the contractor to undertaken this in July 2021. Only following the contractor reaffirming that a full replacement was required did it finally raise a new work order for this at the end of July 2021.
Even after a new works order had been raised by the landlord and a timescale for the repairs to be completed was provided to the resident the landlord failed to complete the works within this deadline. The landlord did not offer an explanation as to why the works took an extra week past the end of the deadline especially as the scaffolding had been erected in early September 2021.
Following the replacement of the roof the ceiling repair was not completed until January 2022. Although the landlord has stated that part of the delay was caused by the resident refusing access to the contractor on several occasions it has only provided one piece of evidence to support one instance where access had been refused by the resident. Whilst it was reasonable to ensure that no water was leaking into the property from the roof before the landlord carried out the internal ceiling repair there was still a period of over two months between the instance of the resident refusing access and the works having been scheduled by the landlord. This was unacceptable given the lengthy time which the resident had already been waiting at the time for the repairs to be completed.
The landlord offered an amount of £500 compensation in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident which it stated was the maximum cash amount its compensation policy could award. Whilst this amount was in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy it did not consider whether there would be payable any award for the reported difficulty in using the kitchen for the resident or factor in any further compensation for the further delays following the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure up to the time the repairs were finally resolved, some three months later.
The landlord’s compensation policy set out that it was able to make an award of £50 per week following the loss of use of seven days and there was scope for it to meet out of pocket expenses for example the additional cost of food. In terms of out-of-pocket expenses whilst the resident states she was prevented from eating a family meal in the kitchen the kitchen facilities including the cooker were still functioning. Therefore it would not be appropriate for the landlord to consider out of pocket expenditure, especially with the absence of any evidence showing the costs which the resident stated had been incurred. As the resident was able to use the cooker the landlord would also not be liable for any loss of use payment for the kitchen.
The landlord noted both at stage one and at stage two that it would take further action from the complaint. It stated at stage one that it would use the complaint to provide further staff training and in terms of communication and in keeping accurate and up to date records. It also committed to completing the works and providing a point of contact to oversee the work for any queries. At stage two it understood the repairs had not been overseen by it nor the repairs completed. It accepted this was an error and that it would learn from the case going forwards. A different point of contact was provided to the resident; however this was an individual who had not escalated the resident’s complaint to stage two back in March 2021.

The electrical rewire required to the property.

The resident has stated that the electrics at the property needed a full rewiring and that this was commented upon by every contractor who had attended the property. However there is no evidence in any reports from contractors or on the repairs log to show that the operatives who visited the property considered that there was an issue with the electrics or wiring.
The resident has referred to the loss of power at the property and to the inability to connect a bulb in the upstairs landing as it would trip the fuses as evidence to show there was an issue with the wiring. In terms of the loss of power the landlord’s repair log showed this had occurred at the time the leak from the roof had come into close contact with the lighting in the kitchen. Water coming into contact with the electrics would have in all likelihood blown fuses at the property leading to a loss of power. This would however not necessarily be an indication that there was an issue with the wiring.
In terms of the upstairs landing having a bulb tripping the fuses the landlord confirmed that its electrician had determined that one of the cables had been loose and this had been tightened. The landlord’s repairs log has not indicated that there had not been any further issues with the electrics since that point. This would indicate that the tightening of the loose cable had resolved the issue of the upstairs landing lights tripping the other lights in the property.
The landlord had carried out an EICR report in March 2021. This was prior to the repairs to the roof and ceiling been completed however the report concluded there was no indication of an issue with the wiring in the property. The landlord could have waited until the repairs were completed before undertaking the EICR. However as the resident had raised concerns about the electrics when making the original complaint, the landlord’s actions were appropriate and in keeping with what it had informed the resident it would be doing, in the stage one response.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

The resident initially raised her complaint on 7 January 2021. Whilst the landlord acknowledged the complaint and stated a response would be made within 10 working days it actually took 37 days to issue the stage one response. This was not in keeping with its complaints policy. Although the complaints policy does allow a response to exceed 10 working days if it was complex the landlord failed to keep the resident duly updated on the matter.
The landlord also failed to acknowledge and escalate the resident’s complaint to stage two when requested to by the resident. The landlord’s documents show it had received the resident’s request dated 4 March 2021 when she had proposed a counter offer.
Even after the resident had chased the landlord searching for a response to the complaint escalation in July 2021 it did not send her an acknowledgment to the complaint. Instead, it took the resident making a further online complaint in October 2021 before it issued its stage two response. This was outside of the timescales of its complaints policy.

The landlord’s record keeping.

Whilst the landlord has provided a repairs log this does not contain much information of when the landlord and its contractors attended the property. The resident has also made reference in her correspondence to both the landlord and to this Service that the electric issues affected the property on more than the occasions which were noted by the landlord. However the landlord has not provided any notes of any conversations its contractors may have held with the resident about the electrics and concerns which they would have had with it.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests. These recording failures all amounts to a serious failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of repairs to the roof and subsequent ceiling repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 42 (c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s report of the lack of electrical sockets and reduced cupboard space following the installation of a new kitchen is outside jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of the electrical rewire required to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s recording keeping.

Reasons

There were significant delays in completing the work caused by the failure of the landlord to coordinate its contractors. Overall it took around a year from October 2020 to October 2021 to repair the roof. Part of the delays was as a result of the resident not allowing access to the property to the landlord’s contractors and the need to reschedule appointments. However whilst there were some missed appointments and some lack of access at a time when the resident was shielding, the landlord has accepted that there were periods where there appeared no movement in relation to resolving the repairs and in meeting the timescales which the landlord had informed the resident about on multiple occasions.
Whilst the landlord made an offer of compensation in line with its compensation policy, the offer did not take into account the outstanding repairs and issues which followed on from its stage two response in October 2021. The landlord noted the ceiling needed to have a temporary fix to make it safe. It also noted the kitchen light had been removed due to the leaking of the flat roof and was only reconnected some 15 months later.
In terms of the electrical safety of the property the landlord undertook an EICR report following the resident raising the complaint. Although this was prior to the repairs to the roof and the ceiling having been completed no issues were noted and the report explained the kitchen lighting had been temporarily disabled by the landlord in order to fix the leaking roof.
The landlord failed to meet the timescales in the complaints policy at both stage one and at stage two. The landlord also failed to escalate the complaint to stage two following the resident responding to the stage one response.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes of the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord, its contractors and the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what occurred during site visits and during the numerous repairs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £750, which is in addition to the amount offered in the stage two response, which comprises:
  1. £500 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the repairs from October 2021 up to January 2022.
  2. £150 for its failure in its complaints handling.
  3. £100 for the failure in its record keeping.
3. Pay the resident the £500 compensation, if it has not already been paid, which was previously offered by the landlord in the final response letter of 19 October 2021.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).