South Kesteven District Council (202204441)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204441

South Kesteven District Council

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 is about the landlords handling of the:

Resident’s reports of repairs to the front door.
A request for adaptations at the property.
The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord and started on 28 June 2021. The landlord is a local authority. The property is a three-bedroom house and the resident lives with her three children.
The landlord has recorded that the resident has advised that two of her children have disabilities.

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the ongoing repairs have impacted on her mental health. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is outside our jurisdiction, but consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.
The resident reported new repair issues which include that the roof needs repair, electrical repairs are required and a complaint about gas safety checks. This investigation is focused on resident’s complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of a replacement front door and how it handled the resident’s request for adaptations, as this was considered in the landlord’s complaint process. This is because this Service expects complaints to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint and exhausted before the Ombudsman can consider the complaint. Therefore, the resident will need to make a new complaint to the landlord or progress any ongoing matters through the landlord’s complaint process.

The landlord’s obligations

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house.
The landlord has said its repair policies and procedure guidance is under development.
The landlord’s handbook states the landlord will carry out repairs for which it was responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to emergency repairs. The handbook goes on to state that emergency repairs should be responded to within 24 hours, and non-urgent repairs an appointment will be made.
The Equality Act 2010 imposes duties on landlords towards resident’s who are deemed to be under a disability. A disability is defined as a physical or mental impairment that has a ‘substantial’ and ‘long-term’ negative effect on a person’s ability to do normal daily activities. Under Section 20 of the Equality Act 2010, a landlord has a duty to make reasonable adjustments to a property. ‘Reasonable’ means that a landlord can consider whether such an adjustment would be practical and /or affordable.
The landlord’s aid and adaptations policy states that it is committed to meeting the needs of its resident’s and their households to live independently with privacy and dignity. The policy goes on to state that the landlord will only consider carrying out minor and major adaptations, which have been recommended by an occupational therapist (OT). Following a request, an OT assessment report and quote for works, the aids and adaptations team will assess whether it is a minor or major adaptation.
The landlord’s aids and adaptation policy categorises major adaptations as costing over £1,000 usually involving structural alterations, improvements to, or additions to fabric of the property such as adding a stair lift and level access showers. The landlord categorises minor adaptations costing under £1,000 to include grab rails and stair rails.
The landlord has a three stage complaints procedure. At stage one the landlord should provide a formal response within 10 working days. At stage two and three, the landlord should provide a full and final response within 20 days following a full investigation of the complaint.

Summary of events

On 27 April 2021, the resident attended an assessment with an occupational therapist (OT). The assessment identified that the resident’s daughter needed additional support relating to her mobility and ability to complete activities for daily living. As such, the OT said the resident’s daughter experienced regular falls which previously caused injury. Therefore, the daughter was at risk of falling down the stair’s so manually lifting equipment was required in a property. The OT also identified that another of the resident’s children had behaviour difficulties, so a shower was required in a property.
The OT recommended that before the resident moved into the property the landlord should:
1. The lean to at the side of the property should stay in place to allow for a storage area for the resident’s daughter’s wheelchair.
2. Add an external grab rail at the side door to allow the resident’s daughter to be independent in transferring up and down the step of the property.
3. Remove the garden shed and replace it with 6ft fence for security.
4. Add stair rails to the stairs to provide support to the resident and her children ascending and descending on stairs.
5. Make a provision for a stair lift to allow the daughter safe access to both floors.
6. Add shower to the bath.
The resident viewed and accepted the property on 22 June 2021. The evidence provided to this Service does not detail what was discussed or if any adaptations were agreed. The void record show that the lean too building was to be left and the outside tap.
The OT contacted the landlord on 1 July 2021 and requested that the landlord fit grab rails in the bathroom to assist transfers into the bath or shower. Additionally, the OT said that when she visited the property the door to the electricity meter did not close or lock sufficiently. The OT said this was a concern to the children’s safety.
The landlord responded to the OT on 5 July 2021 and asked how many grab rails were required for the bathroom. The landlord said it did not agree with locking the meter cupboard as access was required in emergencies. The landlord said the meter cupboard did not contain any live electrics what would cause harm to the resident’s children.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord raised a repair for a disabled adaptation to the grab rails in the bathroom. This was completed on 26 July 2021 as an urgent repair.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay in responding. The landlord confirmed this was due to annual leave. The landlord said it had spoken to the OT to get a clearer understanding of what adaptations were outstanding. The landlord confirmed that it had received a request from the OT requesting for it to fit a substantial lock on the gas/electricity meters. The landlord advised that it had arranged an appointment for its contractor to attend the property to secure the gas/electricity meters on 3 September 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 4 August 2021 to confirm it would be arranging a meeting to discuss the resident’s concerns.
The resident replied the same day and told the landlord that it had 7 days to complete all the repairs, or she will take the landlord to court. The resident said she was considering taking legal action as the landlord had breached her tenancy agreement and also, it failed to comply on gas safety. The resident said there was also water in her electrics which had been happening for six months. Further, when the toilet was flushed in the bathroom the drain water goes into the bath. The resident went onto say that the impact of the lack of repairs had caused her and her children to be traumatised.
On 10 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to say she had contacted the landlord by telephone, but it was unavailable. The resident requested for the landlord to contact her.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 August 2021 regarding repairs to the front door. The landlord said it originally said the door would be repaired in July 2021, but this was the date when it would receive the glazing. However, this was delayed by its supplier, and it was awaiting a further date for when it would be available. The landlord confirmed that the construction industry was suffering from a national shortage. The landlord confirmed it would contact the resident when it received an update.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 3 September 2021 to secure the gas/electricity meters but the resident was not at home.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2021 and requested for a call back regarding the replacement door and the electrics by the gas meter. The resident said that she felt the door was previously damaged by the police ramming the door when the previously residents lived in the property. The landlord responded the same day by email and apologised that a call back had not been made. The landlord advised that it had been very busy and confirmed it had raised a further order to add another lock to the pantry door. The landlord apologised that this had not been completed and confirmed it would chase this up.
The landlord went onto say it had looked at the pictures the resident supplied off the front door. The landlord said it was caused by a failure of the door finish rather than a consequence of it being rammed by the police. The landlord said the door looked secure but agreed that a replacement door was required. The landlord confirmed that previously the front door was logged for a repair not a replacement. The landlord said it would arrange for the replacement door to be logged as a new case.
The resident responded on 8 October 2021 to say it was her understanding when she viewed the property that the door would have been replaced not repaired. The resident said the landlord told her it had been ordered in August 2021, so she had already waited three months.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 October 2021 and confirmed that when she viewed the house it had been agreed that a new front door would be fitted. The resident said this was also confirmed when she signed for the property in July 2021. The resident said she was dissatisfied as she was told it would be fitted in August 2021.
The landlord responded the same day and apologised that it was unable contact the resident sooner due to it being exceptionally busy. The landlord confirmed it had received a request from the OT to replace a substantial door lock to the pantry door. The landlord said it had arranged for this to be raised but not yet completed. The landlord apologised that this has not yet been done. The landlord confirmed it had received the photos the resident provided of the front door. The landlord agreed it needed a replacement but was secure in the meantime. The landlord said someone would contact the resident to arrange the replacement.
The resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord on 14 October 2021. This included that the resident complained:
1. That the front door of the property was faulty and unsafe. The landlord came to fix the front door in July 2021 but instead put a new panel of glass in the backdoor.
2. That there was wiring hanging out and the gas box was unsafe as the meters were not locked away. The resident said she was promised this would be fixed when she moved in but did not happen.
In resolution to the complaint, the resident requested that the door was replaced, wires fixed, and the gas box made safe.
The landlord acknowledged the resident complaint on 14 October 2021 and confirmed it would provide a response within 15 working days.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm that a lock for the pantry door had been ordered and the repair was due to take place on 3 September 2021. The landlord said this did not happen as the resident was not at home, so it asked the resident to contact with her availability. The landlord advised the resident that she would need to contact its repair team to arrange a suitable time and date.
In terms of the replacement door the landlord said that a new front door had not been ordered, only a repair to glazing. The landlord explained that it was only when it received the resident’s video and photos of the door that it was aware it was cracked and needed to be replaced. The landlord said it had passed this to the relevant team who had attempted to contact the resident and it would keep trying.
On 15 October 2021, the resident called the landlord to say she was not happy that the person considering the complaint was who she complained about. The same day the landlord contacted the resident regarding outstanding repairs. The landlord said:
1. It had ordered the door lock to the pantry door. The landlord said it intended to complete the repair on 3 October 2021, but the resident was not available. The landlord confirmed it had asked the resident to contact the repair team directly to rebook. The landlord said as of, yet the resident had not yet rebooked the repair.
2. It was only aware that the resident needed a new front door when the resident sent it a video showing cracks on the door. The landlord said its contractor had attempted to contact the resident to arrange a repair date. The landlord confirmed that the contractor will continue to contact the resident to confirm a date.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident regarding her withholding her rent. The landlord advised the resident that by not paying her rent she was in breach of tenancy. Further, the landlord was considering commencing possession proceedings. The landlord went on to say that it noted that the resident had contacted the landlord numerous times each day about the same matter. The landlord said this had caused members of staff discomfort and placed an unnecessary burden on the landlord. Due to this, the landlord asked the resident to reconsider the level of her contact she had with its service. Also, at the present time it did not think a meeting would be of value.
The landlord issued its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2021. The landlord said:
1. Overall, it apologised for the lack of progress and delays on its part fitting a new door. It also said:
  1. It had looked at the void documentation from prior to the resident moving in the property and it did identify at this time that a replacement door was required. The landlord said the records show that this was passed to its improvement team for progression. The landlord explained that as it was not marked as urgent it was only when the resident provided a video of the door on 30 September 2021 that a request was actioned.
  2. It requested a new door on 8 October 2021 and its contractor contacted the resident on 15 October 2021, to booked at survey for 3 November 2021.
  3. It apologised for the delay in fitting a new door.
  4. It acknowledged the breakdown in communication led to a delay between the void taking place and the improvements team.
  5. It acknowledged a delay due to it not providing the resident’s contact details to the booking for the survey.
2. Regarding securing the meters:
  1. It confirmed that the landlord emailed the OT on 5 July 2021 and advised that it did not recommend boxing in the meters as it was a safety issue.
  1. It agreed to add a more substantial lock to the pantry door, and this was requested in August 2021 and an appointment was made for 3 September 2021. However, the resident was not at home for the appointment. Therefore, the landlord requested for the resident to contact with available times and dates, allowing it a weeks’ notice.
3. Regarding how it communicated with the resident.
  1. The landlord said it had reviewed all of its communication with the resident it found it had communicated in an open honest manner.
On 27 October 2021, the resident requested the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The resident said she was unhappy with the landlord’s response as the complaint investigation was completed by the person the resident complained about. The same day the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to progress the complaint to stage two. The landlord said it aimed to provide its response by 15 November 2021.
The landlord completed a survey on the resident’s front door 3 November 2021.
The landlord issued its stage two complaint response on 16 November 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had considered its stage two response and found it acknowledged that a misunderstanding had led to delays replacing the front door. The landlord reiterated its apology made at stage one of the complaint process.
2. In terms of securing the meters, the landlord said at stage one it understood that the resident had missed the initial appointment. The landlord said at stage one it requested for the resident to contact its service with dates it could complete the work. The landlord confirmed as of yet, it had not had any contact from the resident to confirm when was convenient. Subsequently, the landlord agreed to contact the resident to arrange a date.
3. In relation to the resident’s complaint about contact from her housing manager the landlord found that the housing manager had demonstrated progress and a clear understanding of repairs. The landlord found that the housing team had apologised for the misunderstanding regarding the front door. As such, on review the landlord found this to be a genuine misunderstanding.
The resident requested that the landlord progress the complaint to stage three on 16 November 2021. The resident did not provide a reason why she was unhappy with its stage two complaint response.
The landlord acknowledged the residents request to progress its complaint to stage three on 18 November 2021.
The landlord provided a stage three complaint response on 2 December 2021. The landlord said:
1. It found inconsistencies in its complaint process as the housing officer who responded to the complaint at stage one was subject to elements of the resident’s complaint. Therefore, it was not best practice for the housing officer to be part of the process. The landlord said it had amended its complaint process to ensure this does not happen again. The landlord did, however, agree with the housing officers’ findings at stage two of its complaint process.
2. It replaced the resident’s front door in December 2021.

Post complaint

The resident reports that she has ongoing issues with her roof, the door and toilet. Also, the resident said repairs are still outstanding to the gas/electricity meter to make them secure due to live wires. The resident went on to say, this is a hazard to the family particularly, as disabled children are in the household.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:

be fair
put things right
learn from outcomes.

This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs responsibility outlined in the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for the structure of the property which includes the door and door frame. It was therefore required to investigate reports of any issues and take appropriate action to investigate and resolve these issues in a reasonable time. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs details the good practices that landlords should follow in respect of repairs including keeping records of resident’s reports, contractors’ inspections and repair outcomes.
The resident has been clear with the landlord that it agreed that the front door would be replaced. In terms of evidence provided to this Service, the landlord has provided no evidence of what was discussed when the resident initially viewed the property. However, there is no record of what conversation took place and any record of agreed works at this time. The shortcomings in its records placed limitations on this Service’s ability to make findings about how the landlord handled works to the property while it was empty and at the re let stage. In terms of repair records, the limited records the landlord has provided did not include any record of the front door needing replacing. Therefore, this Service is limited on obtaining clarity on the matters complained about.
There is, however, no dispute between the landlord and the resident that the landlord agreed that the resident’s property needed the front door replaced at void stage. However, it was only when the resident provided the landlord of a video showing the front door being damaged that the landlord raised this as a replacement not a repair. This is not appropriate and shows poor communication and miscommunication on the landlord’s part. As such, this led to further frustration for the resident as well as time and trouble contacting the landlord for a clear response. This Service has found that the landlord acknowledged this in its stage one and two complaint responses. However, the landlord has not offered financial redress to put things right.
In terms of information known to this Service, the landlord has confirmed that it does not have a repair policy at the moment. The landlord has said this was being progressed. This Service’s spotlight report on repairs states that landlord’s should set out clearly in its policy any agreed actions and timescales for responding. Also, that a landlord should monitor its progress and have accessible records of appointments, inspection reports, work orders and completion dates for its repairs and that of its contractors. With this in mind, this is not reasonable as the landlord should have a repair policy to cover its policy position and also for residents to rely on. As such, this Service has made an order for the landlord to action this as part of our orders and recommendations.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the landlord replaced the resident’s front door in December 2021.The records provided to this Service does not provide the exact date. However, this Service has found that it took the landlord over five months to replace the door from when it agreed it needing replacing on 22 June 2021. This is not reasonable and is not in accordance with best practice to complete routine repairs within one calendar month.
The landlord advised that the reason for the delay in replacing the front door was due to a mix up on its part. The landlord explained that the front door was identified as needing a replacement when the resident initially viewed the property on 22 June 2021. The landlord went onto to confirm that at this stage there was a lack of communication between the void team and the improvements team. Additionally, the replacement door was logged as not being urgent. Therefore, the landlord apologised that the replacement door was not ordered as it promised it was. The landlord confirmed that it was only when the resident emailed it with a video on 30 September 2021, showing that the front door was damaged that it actioned the request for a replacement door.
This Service recognises that the landlord has provided mitigation for the delays in replacing the resident’s front door. However, this Service would expect the landlord to keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records. Had the landlord have done so, it would have been aware that it had agreed to replace the front door earlier. As this was not the case, the landlord missed an opportunity to complete the repair within an appropriate timescale. As such, this only sought to exacerbate the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord for an update and for action. This is not appropriate as this Service would expect a landlord to keep accurate records as such this is a failing.
Overall, a delay of over five months for the landlord to replace the resident’s front door was not reasonable. The landlord’s poor record keeping meant it did action repairs in a timely way and led to it failing to communicate effectively with the resident regarding the progress of repairs. This amounts to maladministration.
In terms of putting things right, the landlord has apologised and provided an explanation as to why there was a delay in replacing the front door. This Service’s dispute resolution principles However, this this Service has found that the apology provided by the landlord is not sufficient to put things right in accordance with this Service’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
This Service has made orders to remedy the landlord’s failings on this case to cover the distress, inconvenience, and time and trouble the resident would have been put to in having repairs resolved.

The landlord’s handling of a request for adaptations at the property

The Equality Act 2010 states that landlords have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for residents who are at a substantial disadvantage compared to people who do not have a disability. This Service would expect the landlord to consider an OT report and have due consideration on whether the adaptations were reasonable and proportionate.

In this case, the resident attended an assessment with an OT on 27 April 2021 in relation to the property. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the OT made a series of recommendations for adaptations for the property to meet the resident and her disabled children’s needs. There are a number of factors which influenced the adaptations which meant the adaptations required were urgent. This included grab rails to be fitted on the stairs to provide support for resident’s daughter. The OT issued their request to the landlord on 6 May 2021.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the OT contacted the landlord on 1 July 2021 and requested an adaption to the gas/electricity meter. The OT said that due to the resident’s son’s medical condition he was unaware of danger. Therefore, the OT requested that the landlord add a lock to the existing meter box. The resident also requested that the meters are moved externally out of the property due to the safety risk they posed to the children.
this Service would expect to see best practice from the landlord, to complete urgent adaptations within 28 days and non-urgent minor adaptations within a maximum of six months. In cases when a landlord is unable to meet the required timescales, this Service would expect to see an ongoing dialogue with the resident until works have been completed. This Service would also expect a landlord to complete an assessment of risk to establish whether interim solutions could be put in place until adaptations was completed.
From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord did not complete an assessment of risk when it could not complete the adaptations to the meter box. This was not appropriate given the resident had reported to the landlord that it posed a safety risk to the resident’s children. Taking this into account, this Service would have expected the landlord to contact the resident to arrange an alternative solution.
The records show that in response to the OT recommendation it was proactive in contacting the OT to discuss adaptations. The evidence shows that the landlord raised a disabled adaptation to add grab rails to the bathroom on 9 July 2021 and this was completed by 26 July 2021. This would have been classified as an urgent adaptation as grab rails ensured that the resident’s daughter could safely access the bathroom. This was reasonable and completed within an appropriate timescale in accordance with best practice, which this Service would expect for an urgent adaptation.
In terms of the requested adaptations to the gas/electricity meter box, this Service has found that the landlord had conversations about proportionate action it could take. The evidence shows that the OT was concerned as the gas/electricity meter door did not lock or close sufficiently. Therefore, the OT and the resident said the meter box was a safety risk to the children as there was a risk of injury. With this in mind, the landlord confirmed there was already a latch on the meter door as such the meters did not need to be boxed in. Also, that there was not any live wires which could have caused an injury. However, based on the OT and the resident’s concerns the landlord agreed to fit a further substantial lock on the door to secure the meters.
The landlord had recorded it its correspondence with the resident that it had attempted to attend the property on 26 July 2021 and 3 September 2021. However, this Service has not been provided with any evidence that it had pre-arranged both appointments with the resident. However, the resident was not available on either occasion. This Service is aware that at the time the of the landlord’s issuing its stage two response that the adaptation to the meters was still outstanding. At this time, the landlord requested that the resident contact its contractors to rearrange the appointment. However, this Service would expect the landlord to take reasonable steps to ensure that necessary adaptations took place. With this in mind, this Service would expect the landlord to be proactive to arrange a further appointment. As such, the landlord missed an opportunity to add the lock to the meter door sooner.
Due to the landlord not being proactive in rearranging the appointment to attend the resident’s property this left the resident having to contact the landlord for an update on 4 August 2021 and 8 October 2021. The landlord’s lack of contact with the resident is indicative of poor communication. This meant that at the time the landlord issued its stage two complaint response the adaptation was just over seven months outstanding from when the OT made the recommendation. This is not appropriate or in accordance with best practice for landlords to complete minor adaptations.
In addition, there was no evidence the landlord checked with the resident to see if she needed additional support whilst adaptation work was in progress. This is not reasonable; the landlord was aware of the complex needs of the family. However, it failed to actively listen to the distress the process and delays were causing and provide any dialogue with the resident in how best they could support the family to navigate through this time. This is indicative that the landlord failed to have regard to its obligations and this amounts to maladministration.

The associated complaint

The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) was introduced with the aim of improving complaint handling across the housing sector. As a member of the Scheme, the landlord is obliged to establish and maintain a complaints procedure in accordance with any good practice recommended by the Ombudsman.
The resident initially complained to the landlord on 14 October 2021. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day. Nine working days later the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 27 October 2021. This was in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy and the Code.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2021 to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint process. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request the same day. 21 working days later the landlord provided its stage two complaint response on 16 November 2021. This was slightly out of line of the landlord’s complaint policy to provide a response within 20 working days.
The resident requested that the landlord progress its complaint to stage three on 16 November 2021. The landlord acknowledged the residents request on 18 November 2021. 17 days later on 2 December 2021 the landlord provided its stage three complaint response. This was in line with the landlord’s complaint policy.
This Service notes that the landlord has a three-stage complaint process, and this is not in accordance with the Code which states that landlords should ideally have a two-stage process. This ensures that the landlords complaint process is not unduly long.
This Service acknowledges that the resident does not consider the landlord’s complaint responses goes far enough to put things right. In particular, the resident considers that the landlord should have offered compensation to cover her inconvenience of improving the house due to its failings. Also, to cover the impact the resident’s reports had on her mental health.
The Code states that when something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right. The Code goes on to state that this can include but not limited to the landlord acknowledging when things have gone wrong, apologise, provide an explanation, and providing a financial remedy.
This Service has considered whether the landlord put things right. Based on the evidence this Service has considered there was significant delays in the landlord replacing the front door and making adaptations to the meter box. The landlord also failed to arrange an appointment to adapt the meter box and it placed too much onus on the resident to book in the appointment. This was not appropriate as the landlord should have been proactive and resolution focused in offering the resident alternative dates. Whilst this Service can see that the landlord has provided an explanation and an apology the landlord did not go far enough to put things right. Therefore, this Service has found that the landlord should have offered financial redress in its complaint responses.
This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaint’s failings. This amounts to a service failing.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the property following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a request for adaptations.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failures by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord replacing the resident’s front door. landlord failed to provide regular updates on the delays and did not keep accurate repair records. The landlord did not complete repairs in accordance with what this Service recognises as best practice.
The landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident regarding the delay in adding an adaptation to the meter box. The landlord did not offer any support to the resident when it delayed fitting adaptations to the meter box.
The landlord failed to put things right in its complaint responses as it did not consider an offer of financial remedy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Pay the resident the sum of £850 which is comprised of the following:
  1. £600 to cover the resident’s distress and inconvenience for its failure to complete repairs and adaptations.
  2. £200 for time and trouble chasing the landlord on repairs and adaptations.
  3. £50 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
2. Within eight weeks the landlord should action a repair policy inclusive on how it handles emergency repairs and responsive repairs inclusive of timescales.
3. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord should review the Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on knowledge and information management (KIM). This has been published on the Housing Ombudsman’s website. The landlord should consider incorporating some of the recommendations made in the report into its policy/framework. This includes carrying out a review of its record keeping practices to ensure that it keeps robust repair and inspections records.
1. The landlord should review and self-assess its complaints policy to ensure it is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.
1. The landlord should self-assess against this Service’s Code and also in light of the joint Code between this Service and the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman commencing in 2024.