Places for People Group Limited (202214582)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214582

Places for People Group Limited

30 January 2024

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 the resident’s reports of:
1. Outstanding repairs within the property.
2. Antisocial behaviour (ASB).
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since 15 April 1996. The property is a 2-bedroom house, and the resident lives on her own. The resident received a disability facilities grant from the local authority, which enabled her to complete a loft conversion in the property. The resident has an appointed representative. For the purposes of this report, unless it is otherwise necessary to distinguish between them, both the resident and the representative will be referred to as the ‘resident.’
It is evident that there has been a history of ASB in relation to the resident and her neighbours, although the Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence relating to the landlord’s investigation of such reports.
On 10 June 2021, the resident informed the landlord that she was having issues on bin day (a Tuesday) as her neighbour was refusing to park their car in their vacant space, meaning the resident had to park her car slightly further over to get her bin out. This meant that there was not enough space between the cars for the neighbour to get into their car as they used a walking frame.
The resident requested that the landlord ask the neighbour to use their other vacant parking space to ensure there was a good amount of space for both and thus alleviate the tensions. She further asked that the landlord to remove her front driveway wall to give her more space and to resurface the driveway. This was scheduled for 8 August 2021. Although no evidence has been provided to confirm the date the works were completed, this work was done.
In addition to the issues with ASB, the resident also experienced a leak in her property. The resident first reported a leak in her kitchen in early 2022, although the exact date is unknown as repair records have not been provided. The landlord attended the property on 1 April 2022, and found that the leak had been caused by faulty pipework. A repair was scheduled for 13 May 2022, which included the renewal of the resident’s sink. The resident said she was under the impression that during that visit, the contractors would look at several other issues within the property that she had previously reported. It is not clear what these issues were as no repair records prior to that time have been provided.
On 6 May 2022, the resident put in a formal complaint, which raised the following issues:
1. Damage to her family home from poor workmanship.
2. Members of staff delaying maintenance works on purpose.
3. Damage to the external fences.
4. Cracks on the front driveway.
5. Harassment from the neighbours.
6. The neighbours having work done on their property before the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint, and as the resident had requested, it offered to visit on 24 May 2022. The resident was unavailable on this date and asked for an earlier appointment. This visit took place on 9 June 2022.
On 13 May 2022, the landlord’s contractor was unable to obtain access to complete the required repairs to the kitchen pipes. Contractors advised that the resident had refused access, due to the belief that her full kitchen was due to be replaced. Internal communications show that the landlord spoke to the resident on that date to discuss the issues. The landlord’s records stated that the resident terminated the call. The landlord spoke to the resident again on 20 May 2022, although the Ombudsman has seen no evidence in relation to the content of this call.
In its stage 1 response, dated 22 May 2022, the landlord did not uphold the complaint. It considered that appropriate visits had taken place, and relevant repair orders had been raised and scheduled. The landlord went through each of the points raised as follows:
1. Kitchen:
  1. The landlord attended on 1 April 2022, and found faults within the pipework. A repair was scheduled for 13 May 2022, but they had been unable to gain access. Therefore, the landlord requested that, going forward, the resident provide access to contractors to complete the repair.
  2. The landlord noted that the resident had thought her full kitchen was to be replaced; however, it advised that this was not due until 2026/27.
2. Fencing:
  1. These repairs were completed on 13 May 2022, and the landlord hoped that this resolved the matter.
3. Heating and hot water:
  1. The landlord was aware that there was a compatibility issue between the original system and the new one installed as part of the loft conversion. It confirmed that the issue did not relate to their service, but it would nevertheless commit to remedying the issue.
4. Driveway:
  1. The landlord said it had attempted to discuss this issue on 20 May 2022, but was unable to, as the call was terminated. It confirmed that the concrete driveway was of sound condition, and the hairline cracks were not a cause for concern.
5. Poor workmanship:
  1. The landlord said it was difficult to determine what parts of its service the resident had referred to and requested a visit to view and assess the areas of concern.
6. Issues with neighbours and harassment:
  1. The landlord said that appropriate action had been taken to address these concerns. It advised that it could not provide commentary with respect to an outcome of its ASB investigation but could provide assurances that appropriate actions were being taken to address the matter.
An inspection of the resident’s property took place on 9 June 2022, and a schedule of works was sent to the resident on 24 June 2022. During that visit, the resident raised issues with her drainage and a CCTV survey was booked for 12 July 2022.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord escalated the complaint to stage 2 and advised that work was still outstanding in relation to the kitchen, front door, rear garden, and the driveway, which it had agreed to re-lay with tarmac. Further, it provided appointment dates for each of the works.
The drainage survey was unable to be completed on 12 July 2022, and similarly, on 16 July 2022, the scheduled works in the kitchen were unable to be completed. This was due to access issues. The resident advised that she had been unaware of the appointments. A meeting with the resident, to discuss outstanding works, was arranged for 26 July 2022, and she was offered 27 July 2022 for the drainage survey.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 2 August 2022. In its response, the landlord addressed issues that had been raised at stage one, and newly raised concerns. The landlord responded as follows, to the issues raised in stage 1:
1. It advised that the resident had refused the contractor entry to complete repairs to the sink. Therefore, it would need to arrange a further date to resolve the issue.
2. It advised that it was committed to conducting a review of the heating system and would update the resident on or by 12 August 2022.
3. With regards to the driveway, it upheld this part of the complaint and advised it should have been completed in tarmac. It would therefore arrange a date for that to be completed.
4. The landlord upheld the complaint about the kitchen. It stated that if the kitchen was found to be over 15 years old, it would bring forward its replacement. It subsequently confirmed a replacement on 5 August 2022.
5. The landlord advised it would support the resident in raising and resolving issues that related to her loft conversion that was completed through funding she had secured with the local authority.
6. With regards to the ASB, the landlord said that there was no evidence to uphold a complaint but advised the resident that if issues were still ongoing, she should report them.
Regarding the newly raised issues, the landlord responded as follows:
1. The outside drains were not part of the stage 1 complaint and therefore not upheld. However, a CCTV survey had been commissioned, and it proposed 12 August 2022, for that to be completed.
2. The kitchen floor was also not raised as part of the stage 1 complaint and therefore not upheld. However, the landlord agreed that if they had installed the floor, they would replace it at a mutually agreeable time.
3. The landlord also provided its position on several other issues raised that were not pertinent to this investigation.
On 5 August 2022, the landlord confirmed that the CCTV survey could take place in the week commencing 15 August 2022. However, on 12 August 2022, the landlord had not received confirmation of a suitable date and advised they needed 5 working days’ notice to book the contractor. This was subsequently booked for 23 August 2022. The driveway works were booked for 26 September 2022.
On 24 August 2022, the resident raised concerns that the contractor sent to conduct the CCTV survey did not know how read the results. The resident informed the landlord that her patio had dropped further and stated that this could have been resolved when they had attended to complete similar works at her neighbour’s property. She further stated that false allegations had been made against her and that the landlord had failed to review the “harassment” and “torture” by her neighbour.
The drainage survey showed no issues, only that it had been recommended to renew the manhole cover, which it would do and asked the resident to confirm if an appointment on 16 September 2022 would be suitable; This was to complete the patio repairs.
On 12 September 2022, the resident informed the landlord, via email, that she had been a victim of harassment for many years and believed that the landlord had given the green light to her (now former) neighbour to continue their behaviour towards her. She advised that even though her neighbour had moved, they were still attending the area and spreading rumours about the resident, which had been “very damaging.”
The repairs to the driveway were completed by 29 September 2022. On 4 October, the resident contacted the landlord, via email, and asked for an update on the works as the timelines for repairs had passed the dates originally given to her.
On 6 October 2022, the resident stated that she had suffered harassment from both neighbours, and the landlord had refused to help her, especially while she was looking after her 3 grandchildren. With regards to the drains, the resident said these had been looked at before and they were not correct. She said the landlord had advised they would send someone for a second opinion, which it was now denying.
In responding, the landlord said they wanted to arrange a survey to progress the kitchen works. It confirmed it did not need another survey of the drains. In a further email to the resident, on 13 October 2022, the landlord advised that it wished to progress the works in the garden and asked the resident to confirm her availability.
The landlord had tried to confirm a site visit for 19 October 2022 but had been unable to do this; The survey took place on 2 November 2022, and the landlord confirmed any additional works would be scheduled following receipt of that. On 3 November 2022, the landlord confirmed the outstanding works to be the replacement of the kitchen, levelling of the patio and replacement of all paving slabs and other remedial works in the garden. The kitchen design was sent to the landlord on 29 November 2022, which the resident signed in approval.
From evidence seen by this Service, there are outstanding repairs in relation to the resident’s kitchen and garden. It is further noted that, on 10 August 2023, the landlord confirmed to the resident that it would not return to the property until it could be sure colleagues would be treated appropriately. This was further reiterated to the resident on 8 December 2023 when the landlord advised that it would not complete any further repairs unless the resident sought help from relevant mental health services. As the landlord has not been given the opportunity to provide evidence in relation to the on-going repairs, nor has it gone through the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, this report cannot find a determination in relation to the events post-dating those mentioned in the previous paragraphs above.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that repairs would commence and be completed as follows:
1. Emergency repairs – 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs – 28 days.
3. Planned repairs – 90 days.
When the landlord is unable to gain access, it will leave a card at the property to advise that the repair had been cancelled and the resident must contact it to arrange another appointment. Where a ‘no access’ visit occurs and materials have been ordered in relation to the repair, the repair will stay open to allow time to make contact with the customer to rearrange the appointment. If contact is not made, the repair will be cancelled. The policy states that the landlord will monitor no accessed visits to ensure a property does not fall into disrepair.
When a resident has reported a high level of repairs over a prolonged period, the policy states that an inspection will be carried out to determine the cause of any repairs and identify if further repairs can be raised.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It will acknowledge a complaint with 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It would acknowledge a complaint at stage 2 within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days from receipt.
The landlords ASB policy states that where the ASB does not involve the use of or threat of use of violence, domestic violence or hate crime, the person reporting must complete an initial ASB report form providing details of the incident and supporting evidence. A community safety specialist will assess the form within 5 working days and inform the resident of the outcome. When a case is opened, the landlord will keep the resident updated on the progress of the case and write or email them when it is closed. It states a risk assessment will be carried out, when a resident is identified as vulnerable, or if the ASB involves the use or threat of violence.

Repairs

The resident first raised a repair request in relation to a leak in her kitchen in early 2022. The landlord subsequently attended on 1 April 2022. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence in relation to the initial repair request. Therefore, an assessment cannot be made to determine if this response time was unreasonable or not. The Ombudsman expects landlords to hold accurate, detailed repair records to ensure repairs can be followed up and dealt with in a timely manner. They should also communicate any delays to a resident explaining why and provide a clear timescale, to manage expectations.
The source of the leak and required works were confirmed during the visit on 1 April 2022. Following this, a repair was scheduled for 7 May 2022; however, the resident was unavailable, and this was rescheduled for 13 May 2022. This was in line with the landlord’s policy and was reasonable in the circumstances.
The contractor was unable to gain access to complete the kitchen repairs on 13 May 2022. The landlord attempted to contact the resident between 17 and 19 May 2022, and while they spoke to her on 20 May 2022, the Ombudsman has not been provided with records of that call. With regards to the repair, the landlord followed its policy and kept the repair open. In this instance, the issues with access added to the overall delay to complete the repairs. Therefore, the delay was beyond the landlord’s control.
In relation to the kitchen repairs, the landlord advised the resident that she would have to arrange for her own gas engineer to disconnect and reconnect the gas supply to her hob as she had installed this herself; this was in line with its policy.
After the resident requested help facilitating this, the landlord arranged to cover the costs for her. This was an appropriate use of its discretion, to offer to cover the cost of the disconnection, to assist the resident. It demonstrated the landlord’s desire to help resolve the issues she was experiencing and a commitment to maintain the landlord/resident relationship.
The ‘decent homes standard’ sets out the criteria for when a home falls below the required standards. While a home would have to fail in 3 aspects for it to not meet the standard, it sets out that a kitchen should be 20 years old or less and be reasonably modern. It is the Ombudsman’s understanding that the resident’s kitchen was at least 29 years old. In its internal communications, on 23 August 2022, the landlord recognised that the resident’s kitchen did not meet the standard and that not replacing it could be “reputationally damaging”. Therefore, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to a full kitchen replacement, although it would have been beneficial to have reached this conclusion earlier. Doing so, would have alleviated the residents’ concerns, avoided unnecessary time and trouble in chasing the issue, and enabled a replacement to have been ordered sooner.
In raising issues with the work on the loft conversion, conducted by the local authority, the landlord advised that it was not responsible for the repairs. However, it would assist the resident in resolving the issues. While it was not the responsibility of the landlord to do that, it was appropriate given the extensive repairs raised at the same time and would have helped the resident in resolving the outstanding issues. Further, it a showed a positive commitment from the landlord to help resolve the resident’s issues.
In the resident’s formal complaint, she requested a visit from the landlord and its contractors to discuss and inspect all the issues raised, including the poor workmanship she had raised. Appropriately, the landlord agreed to this request and gave the date of 24 May 2022. As the resident was unable to accommodate this date, it requested 4 further dates when the resident was available. The visit subsequently took place on 9 June 2022. In offering other dates to the resident and being accommodating of her busy schedule, the landlord showed a commitment to resolving the resident’s repairs, and this was in line with its policy.
The landlord produced a detailed schedule of outstanding works showing the dates the repairs were booked for. Given the extensive works required, it was appropriate to provide this schedule and set out clearly the dates contractors were booked for and the work they were due to complete. This enabled the landlord to manage the expectations of the resident and the resident to have a clear understanding of the works being completed and the dates on which work would take place.
Further, it sent the resident an updated schedule with outstanding works on 1 July 2022, and another as part of its stage 2 response. Again, this detailed the outstanding actions and provided the resident with updated appointment times. This highlighted a commitment from the landlord to keep the resident informed, and address and resolve the issues raised. Given the evidential fragile landlord and resident relationship, this further highlighted a commitment from the landlord to maintain a good relationship and advance the outstanding repairs.
The landlord attempted to confirm a drainage survey on numerous occasions. The landlord appropriately informed the resident that it required 5 working days’ notice to book the contractor. While it is important for a landlord to find mutually agreeable times for appointment, not receiving a response to their request caused a delay and appointments could only be booked in the times advised by its contractors. Therefore, while there was some delay, this was beyond the landlord’s control.
Following the drainage survey, the landlord concluded that there were no issues with the drains. The resident disputed this and advised that she had been told previously the pipes were too small. She therefore requested that a further survey was conducted. The landlord declined this. It was reasonable of the landlord to rely on the opinion of its qualified surveyors.
The resident had raised issues with her driveway in her stage 1 complaint. In its response, the landlord advised that it had tried to discuss these with the resident but had been unsuccessful as the call was terminated. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed this call up with an email or a later call back to attempt to understand the outstanding concerns; however, there is no evidence that was done.
The landlord also stated that the driveway was of sound condition. While it was appropriate that the landlord attempted to discuss this issue with resident, there is no evidence that the landlord had inspected the driveway prior to its stage 1 response to affirm its claim. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have fully assessed the condition of the driveway as part of the stage 1 investigation. It was reasonable that the landlord agreed to replace the driveway. However, the delay in coming to the conclusion that it should in fact be replaced caused inconvenience and distress to the resident, which could have been avoided.
Evidence shows that the landlord agreed to a driveway replacement on 1 July 2022. The driveway repairs were concluded on 29 September 2022. The landlord’s policy states that it will complete appointable repairs within 28 days. The driveway was completed 63 working days after it agreed to the replacement and 101 days after the resident had raised it in her formal complaint. The landlord, appropriately, communicated the delays to the resident and advised her it was still trying to ascertain a date for the repairs. The Ombudsman recognises there may be delays with third party contactors for works, such as described, as the tasks are more bespoke than regular repairs issues. The landlord’s good communication with the resident minimised the impact of the delay.
Not allowing access could be considered a breach of the resident’s tenancy, and so the landlord could have considered an injunction. While doing so may have expediated the repairs, in the circumstances, it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider this an appropriate course of action. Instead, it endeavoured to find mutually agreeable dates for repairs and asked the resident to provide suitable dates herself. This was reasonable as it helped maintain the landlord/resident relationship without introducing potentially combative legal action.
However, despite the access issues, the delay in completing repairs was outside of the landlord’s 28-day repair commitment; though it is not reasonable to attribute the delays solely to the landlord. There may be several reasons behind appointments being missed or not confirmed by the resident. The issues relating to confirming appointments and failed access to complete repairs was a mitigating factor when making a determination in this case.
While the landlord did visit the resident and spoke to her on numerous occasions, there were issues with regards to receiving responses from the resident to emails it had sent to confirm appointments, which led to delays in completing repairs. The visits conducted by the landlord and the subsequent schedule of works completed showed empathy from the landlord and a commitment to complete the outstanding works. However, it is not evident that the landlord explored the reasons behind the resident’s lack of response. It is apparent that the resident was frustrated at the delays in conducting the repairs and the condition of her home. The landlord could have done more to explore the reasons behind the resident’s lack of responses and how it could have had more effective communication with the resident. Doing so, may have helped to alleviate the distress of the resident and to build the landlord and resident relationship.
In summary, the landlord conducted a thorough inspection of the resident’s property, following her repair requests and complaint, it kept the resident updated with the schedule of works and worked to ensure appointment times were arranged and suitable for the resident. There were however delays in agreeing to repair or replace certain items. In particular, its delay in identifying the age of the kitchen until after it’s stage 1 response and the delay in agreeing to resurface the driveway. Had the landlord come to this conclusion sooner, it may have alleviated some of the residents’ frustrations and not prolonged the repairs. While the landlord’s actions were appropriate with regards to its communication and provision of updating the schedule and repair dates, there is little evidence that the landlord showed regard to the distress the situation was causing the resident. However, there is evidence provided to show that it attempted to discuss the resident’s concerns albeit unsuccessfully on occasions.
Therefore, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in her property.
It is important to recognise, from evidence seen by this Service, that the landlord has yet to complete the repairs raised in relation to the kitchen and the garden. Evidence seen by this Service suggests that the landlord is unwilling to progress further repairs at this stage. As the landlord has not been given the opportunity to provide its response to this under its complaints process. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the action taken by the landlord in relation to the works outstanding works, she should contact the landlord to raise a new stage 1 complaint in the first instance.

ASB

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish whether ASB was perpetrated, or by who, nor to tackle the ASB itself. The Ombudsman seeks to determine whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably to the resident’s reports of ASB and consider what was fair in all the circumstances of the case.
In the formal complaint received by the landlord, the resident raised that she had experienced harassment from her neighbours. While there is some evidence with regards to ASB, there is no evidence provided with regards to any actions taken by the landlord’s ASB team.
In its stage 1 response the landlord did not evidence that it had explored the issues raised. Instead, it advised that appropriate action had been taken and that it could not provide commentary in respect of an outcome. Given that the landlords policy states that it would give resident’s an update on their ASB reports within 5 working days, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to respond in more detail to the resident as per the policy. In its response, the landlord failed to alleviate the residents’ concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to facilitate further contact with its ASB team and provide an accurate update of the current position of the resident’s case to the resident.
The landlords ASB policy states that residents should report ASB by completing an ASB report online which would be assessed by a community safety specialist. It would have been appropriate to at least signpost the resident to the landlord’s policy and advise her to complete the ASB reporting form if the resident felt there had been further instances of ASB. If that had already been done, the landlord should have ascertained the outcome of the resident’s reports. However, the landlord was unreasonable in its response and failed to appropriately address the concerns the resident had raised.
It also failed to establish with the resident if she was concerned that the ASB had worsened or if she was complaining about the landlord’s response to her ASB reporting. This was a failing by the landlord.
While it may be reasonable for the landlord to leave the investigation for the ASB team, it would have been appropriate for it to clarify the situation with the resident and then to take further action if she was reporting further ASB or conduct a proper investigation if she was complaining about the landlord’s service. The landlord did not explore the full content of the resident’s complaint and failed to fully understand or alleviate her concerns with its response.
The resident referenced the issues she was having with her neighbours in several communications with the landlord. Yet there is no evidence to show that the landlord acted upon those concerns. It showed little regard to the distress the resident was alluding to, and this Service has seen no evidence to show that it forwarded the resident’s concerns to the relevant department.
While it is appropriate for a landlord to follow its ASB policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to discuss this further with the resident. The impact of its response on the resident added to her overall distress and left her unable to know the outcome of the ASB investigation. The response was not in line with its antisocial behaviour policy. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with further information on her ASB case or refer her to a contact within its ASB team. Its response was not helpful in allowing the resident to make an informed decision on whether she wished to pursue a complaint against the landlords handling of the ASB.
Further, it should have taken the opportunity to discuss the case with its ASB team to ascertain the outcome of any investigation. By responding in the way that it did, the landlord missed the opportunity to offer clarity and commitment to the resident in a bid to resolve the complaint and rebuild the trust between the landlord and resident.
The landlord showed a disregard to the feelings of the resident who was concerned about the behaviour of her neighbours. On 12 September 2022, the resident advised a previous neighbour had returned to the area and had been spreading false allegations. While it is limited in terms of what action the landlord could take in terms of tenancy enforcement in relation to the previous neighbour, it could have acknowledged the resident’s concerns and referred her to the police; It failed to be empathetic towards the issues the resident was facing.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord stated that there was no evidence to support the complaint. However, since the resident raised concerns about ASB, the Ombudsman expects a landlord to investigate the matter. The Ombudsman has not received any information or evidence regarding the landlord’s assessment of the situation and its response at stage 2 showed a disregard for the resident’s ASB concerns.
Overall, the landlord failed to provide this Service with evidence in relation to the ASB, it missed an opportunity to provide the resident with what action it had taken and failed in its response, to be empathetic towards the concerns of the resident. The Ombudsman has made an order for compensation with regards to the failures identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of ASB, of £300 for the overall distress and inconvenience caused.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of ASB and an order has been made in relation to this.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints policy. It states that it will acknowledge the complaint with 5 working days and respond at stage 1 within 10 working days. It states that it would acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 3 working days and respond within 20 working days from receipt. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
The landlord responded within 11 working days at stage 1 and 24 working days at stage 2. The landlord should have a system in place to ensure complaints are not delayed and that any delays are communicated to the resident in a timely manner. The landlord has failed to acknowledge the delays in its responses. Whilst the delays were short, and the impact was minimal the responses were not in line with its complaints policy or the Code.
Following stage 1, the resident raised further repair issues. The landlord advised it could not uphold the new complaints as they had not been raised at stage 1. The use of the phrase “not upheld” suggests that the response was final when it was not. It is appropriate the landlord discussed these matters and informed the resident the action it intended to take with regards to fixing the issues. However, the landlord made no attempt to discuss with the resident whether she wanted to pursue the issues as a separate complaint. In not doing so, it denied the resident the opportunity to pursue a complaint in relation to those matters.
The Code sets out clearly the expectations of a landlord with regards to complaint handling. It clearly states that complaints should be investigated through a 2 stage complaint handling process and that the resident should be at the heart of that process. Within its complaint handling in this case, the landlord has failed to adhere to the Code and in doing as has caused a potential delay in the resident raising a complaint and reaching a suitable remedy for her concerns.
Overall, while the delays in responding to the resident’s complaint were minimal, the landlord failed to conduct a thorough investigation of the residents reports of ASB. The stage 1 investigation was limited and delayed the improvements to the driveway. It failed to discuss with the resident whether to wished to pursue the further issues raised as a separate complaint and therefore follow the 2 stage complaints procedure. Both failings would have added to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident. Therefore, a compensation order has been made for £400, which has been made up of £150 for the failure to follow the correct procedure and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in pursuing this complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure with regards to the landlords handling of the resident’s repair request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the residents’ reports of the ASB.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay compensation to the resident of £800, made up of the following:
  1. £100 for the response to the resident’s report of outstanding repairs.
  2. £300 for the response to the resident’s reports of ASB.
  3. £150 for failing to follow the correct complaint procedure.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
The landlord must investigate the ASB asserted by the resident, this should include meeting with the resident to discuss her concerns and providing her with a breakdown of any action it has taken in investigating and resolving the alleged issues. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, she may wish to make a formal complaint.
The landlord must raise a new complaint at stage 1 for the issues, relating to the garden drains and the kitchen floor, that were raised after the stage 1 complaint that it then included but did not uphold or investigate in its stage 2 response. If those matters are now fully resolved it should confirm this to the resident and this service.
It is noted that there are still outstanding repairs with regards to the garden and the kitchen. It is unclear why these repairs remain outstanding as over 12 months have now passed since they were first raised. The landlord must complete the agreed repairs within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. If it is not able to do this, it must provide a revised timescale for completion and an explanation for any further delay to the resident and this Service.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this determination.