Southern Housing (202123352)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123352

Southern Housing Group Limited

30 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s request for repairs to the property.
2. The associated delays.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 3 bedroom house. The tenancy commenced on 10 March 2008.
The resident is recorded as having a physical health condition and is elderly.

Landlord obligations

The landlord’s repair obligations are set out at sections 3 and 4 of the tenancy agreement and at Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 which states:
1. The landlord must keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling house and keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water.
The landlord operates a repairs policy which categorises repairs between emergency and routine repairs:
1. It does not provide expected timescales for reported repairs, other than emergency repairs which would be made safe within 24 hours. It states it aims to complete all other repairs as quickly as possible.
2. All routine repairs will be arranged by appointment. If it cannot make an appointment, it will inform the resident as soon as possible and discuss an alternative date.
3. The landlord is responsible for maintenance of the internal walls, floors, ceilings and plasterwork, but not including painting and decorating unless in a communal area.
4. It would redecorate any areas that are damaged because of a repair it has carried out.
5. The resident is responsible for minor repairs within the property. It covers:

curtains, curtain rails, shower heads and hoses
repairs to residents own white goods (including those the landlord gifted to residents)
replacing light bulbs, fuses, disposable batteries in door bells and battery powered smoke detectors within the property
resetting or adjusting lighting and heating controls, thermostats and programmers within the property
anything that belongs to the resident or was brought onto the property by the resident.

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The landlord’s compensation procedure explains it may consider a further financial award to reimburse a resident where a resident incurs costs or there has been a financial loss.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Paragraph 42(b) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion:
1. Were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.
The evidence seen by this Service shows the resident had historically complained to the landlord about a range of issues since at least 2013. She has not referred those complaints to this Service previously. This Service is unable to consider the resident’s previous complaints as part of this investigation, as they had not been referred to this Service within 12 months after she exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. This investigation will concern the resident’s recent complaint to the landlord and the events from 16 June 2021.
When the resident referred her complaint to this Service, she raised a number of new repair issues which had not previously been reported to the landlord under its repairs service or as part of her complaint. These issues related to:
1. shower riser and shower curtain rail
2. bathroom light to first floor bathroom not working
3. shaver lightbulb in the ground floor bathroom needed to be replaced
4. garage cleaning.
The resident has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in respect of the new repair issues raised. If the resident wishes to complain about the new repairs, she should report the repairs to the landlord and follow its complaints procedure should the landlord be unable to provide a resolution. This investigation will only consider the repairs issues reported to the landlord in the resident’s complaint on 21 September 2021. Any reference within this investigation made to the repairs not reported to the landlord, is provided for context.

Summary of events

On 16 June 2021 and 1 September 2021, the resident and her representative contacted the landlord to report repair issues in the property. These were reported as:
1. electrics regularly cut out
2. kitchen cupboards were not fit for purpose
3. holes behind the toilet and the bathroom sink
4. crack across the ceiling and running along the structure of the wall
5. skylight window in the roof had no handle and was stuck open
6. gutter at the property needed to be cleared
7. security light outside the property was not working.
On 12 September 2021, the resident complained to the landlord. She listed the following issues further to previous reported repairs:
1. The property was not completed by the builders and she had been asking for the property to be completed for 13 years.
2. She wanted the outside of her property cleaned as binmen would leave rubbish.
3. The property needed to be rewired. She explained this has caused her to be without outside lighting, internal bulbs would flicker, issues with her TV and internet signal and her door bell would not work.
4. She believed there was areas which needed to be examined for asbestos.
5. Both bathrooms needed to be replaced and a panel needed to be fitted around the showering area due to water leaking out of the bathroom.
6. The mobility lift was not working and should be replaced.
7. Stairs to the loft should be reinstated.
8. There was no water pressure in the shower.
9. The drains needed to be cleaned.
10. She would not permit operatives to attend without an appointment in future.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint.
On 28 September 2021, a senior employee of the landlord attended to inspect the reported concerns of the resident. On 30 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident with confirmation of its agreed actions following the inspection. It explained:
1. The kitchen would not be replaced as it was in good condition. It would be replaced during its annual planned programme which was scheduled for 2025.
2. The property was designed for residents who required adapted fixtures and fittings to enable independent living. The wet room was considered fully functional and it would not be converted.
3. Whilst the resident complained of poor water pressure, the landlord had recently installed a booster pump to improve the water pressure. When it was inspected, the resident had turned this off. It advised the resident to ensure the pump was turned on to boost the water pressure complained about. It would not issue further works relating to this issue.
4. It confirmed asbestos was extremely unlikely to be an issue as the property was constructed circa 2000.
5. When the property was constructed, plans to design an occupiable loft room were stopped. The stairway opening visible from inside the loft was therefore sealed off. The landlord would not reinstate the stairway opening nor install a staircase from the 1st floor to the loft.
6. Cracking to the underside of the staircase cupboard was superficial and therefore was not within its decorative responsibility. It advised the resident was responsible for decorating this if she had concerns with its appearance.
In the same email, the landlord also confirmed it had raised an itemised list of repairs and replacements with its contractor. It aimed to complete the repairs within its 28 day policy timeframe. However, it notified the resident some repairs may extend beyond the 28 day timeframe. The itemised list of repairs was as follows:

Location	Works agreed
Hallway	Remove existing lift floor
	Reinstate joists, floor boards and plaster board once lift is removed
	Electrical safety testing to all circuits
	Trace and rectify fault to external lighting
	Replace battery to smoke alarm
Wet room	Overhaul extractor fan, humidistat appears defective
	Remake 2-sided low level ducting behind WC suite due to significant gaps (rodent access)
	Remove shower seat/make good wall once seat removed
	Renew polysafe flooring to wet room
Kitchen	Ease & Adjust base unit door x 1
	Replace existing fluorescent tube light fitting and make ceiling good
	Disconnect & remove worktop hob and worktop housing.
	Supply & Fit 2 x stainless steel strips to worktops
Rear elevation	Trace & rectify fault to security light
	Clear gutters (rear elevation only)
Bathroom First Floor	Remake 2-sided low level ducting behind WHB suite due to significant gaps (rodent access)
	Resecure WC seat
Lounge	Trace & rectify fault to aerial/satellite signal
Loft	Overhaul VELUX window

On 4 October 2021, the landlord confirmed it had a meeting with the resident. Within the meeting it explained it produced an action plan which was shared with the resident relating to its schedule of works and when it aimed to complete these.
On 7 October 2021, the landlord provided its stage 1 response:
1. It reiterated the information shared to the resident in its email of 30 September 2021.
2. It confirmed the communication she received from the landlord’s contractor could have been better and partially upheld her complaint.
3. It confirmed it had created a live action plan which can be referenced by the resident using her complaint reference number.
On 18 October 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm information which was discussed with her on 15 October 2021 when discussing its stage 1 response. It reiterated the landlord’s position that:
1. The kitchen would not be replaced as it was in good condition.
2. It had previously agreed to disconnect and remove the worktop hob and worktop housing, on the basis the resident wanted to fit a freestanding cooker of her choice, as opposed to using the existing worktop hob which was gifted to her when occupying the property. However, this listed repair would need to be revised as the resident purchased a new cooker which exceeded the height of the adapted kitchen worktops and base units. It would not refurbish the kitchen to suit the height of the new cooker.
3. It explained it was reasonable when purchasing custom appliances, residents should ensure their appliances are suitable for the existing components and fittings within the property.
4. The landlord explained the resident had purchased a new cooker hood despite the existing hood to be in good working order during its inspection. It explained installation of custom appliances is deemed as resident responsibility if permission was granted by the landlord. Additionally, should permission be granted and any such custom items be installed, future maintenance and repair to custom items was also deemed resident responsibility.
5. The resident had been turning off the water booster pump. It confirmed the pump resolved all issues with the water pressure when turned on.
6. The resident requested electrical tests in the property to be conducted. This would be handled outside of the action plan of repairs. The resident had been sent a letter to arrange this from the landlord’s compliance team.
7. It asked the resident to confirm how it should proceed relating to whether she would still like the landlord to remove the existing hob in light of its refusal to refurbish the kitchen. It also asked if the resident would be asking for permission to install her own cooker hood.
On 29 November 2021, the landlord received a letter from the resident. However, it was a letter which repeated the wording of the resident’s previous complaint.
On 1 December 2021, internal correspondence at the landlord confirmed that whilst the letter received from the resident was the same complaint previously investigated, it would contact her to establish if there was any new repairs or incomplete jobs, to ensure they were completed quickly.
On the same date, the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to advise what works were incomplete and her desired outcomes. It also asked her to confirm if she wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The resident did not provide a response to the landlord.
On 15 December 2021, the landlord contracted an electrical company to inspect the electrics. Its report confirmed the electrics were safe. It noted an issue was resolved during the inspection which re-terminated the circuit protective conductor (CPC) on multiple socket outlets until it gained an acceptable reading.
On 21 January 2022, the resident contacted this Service. Following advice regarding the internal complaints procedure, the resident provided documents to this Service in March 2022 relating to her outstanding issues. In June 2022 she explained there were several repairs outstanding. The repairs outstanding were:

Location	Outstanding
Hallway	The lift had been removed however, the space had only been covered with a wooden board covering off the area where the lift was.
	The floorboards and plasterboard had not been fitted
Wet room	The floor had not been fixed to prevent water from flowing out of the bathroom and under the door
Kitchen	She purchased a new cooker however, the landlord did not make the alterations to the kitchen space to remove the worktop hob
Rear elevation	There was still issues with the external light fitting at the front entrance door
	Gutters were not cleared
Bathroom first floor	Had not been fitted with low level ducting
Lounge	She continued to experience issues with her ariel
Loft	Her attic VELUX window was not repaired

The resident also reported additional concerns separate to the action plan of repairs which were:
1. She was told it was her responsibility to repair cracks to the walls and ceiling throughout the property.
2. She did not have appropriate water pressure.
3. Her doorbell was not fixed.
4. She wanted the landlord to clear her garage.
5. Her drains needed to be cleaned.
On 8 June 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord asking it to contact the resident and confirm its position relating to the outstanding repairs. It was also asked to confirm whether the resident’s complaint had exhausted the complaints procedure and if it had not, it should provide its final response to the resident.
On 10 June 2022, the landlord confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure and acknowledged this with the resident on the same date.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord discussed the resident’s stage 2 complaint with her. The landlord has not provided a record of this discussion however, following the discussion, internal correspondence from the landlord confirmed:
1. Some of the repairs the resident raised in her stage 2 complaint were new reports of repairs which had not been reported previously. It would therefore treat these outside of the stage 2 complaint procedure. A senior member of staff asked a colleague to explain this to the resident and assist her to raise the new repairs using its repairs portal.
On 21 June 2022, an appointment was made to visit the resident to inspect the property in respect of the outstanding repairs which were reported. The inspection took place on 17 August 2022.
On 22 August 2022, the landlord provided its stage 2 response. It explained:
1. Following its investigation, it found there were delays resolving the repairs listed and some remained outstanding. The delays were not solely due to its service failures as it could not gain access to the property on several occasions.
2. The outstanding repairs related to:
  1. bathroom light to 1st floor bathroom not working
  2. weighted Shower curtain rail to be fixed in the ground floor shower room
  3. riser bar in shower room to be replaced
  4. shaver lightbulb to be replaced in ground floor bathroom.
3. It confirmed its position in its stage 1 response of October 2021 remained the same. It would not replace the kitchen until its annual planned programme in 2025 is due.
4. It explained it had previously agreed to disconnect and remove the worktop hob and worktop housing. This was to create an appliance opening which enabled the resident to fit a freestanding cooker of her choice, instead of the existing worktop hob which was gifted to her at the beginning of her tenancy. However, she had purchased a new cooker which exceeded the height of the in-situ adapted kitchen worktops and base units. It would not refurbish the kitchen to suit the height of her new cooker. It explained residents should ensure custom appliances they purchase are suitable for the existing components and fittings within the property.
5. The existing cooker hood was functional. It would not arrange for the fitting of the resident’s newly purchased cooker hood as it was the resident’s responsibility.
6. It upheld the resident’s complaint as it acknowledged there were delays to complete repairs at her property. It also acknowledged there was a lack of communication with the resident from itself and its contractors when scheduling appointments.
7. It did not offer compensation whilst works were outstanding. Its offer of compensation should reflect the full extent of the delays experienced. It would discuss compensation with the resident once all outstanding works had been completed.

Post internal complaints procedure

On 5 April 2023, the landlord’s contractor attended to complete a heat loss survey. It advised the radiators were the correct size for the property however, they were not functioning correctly due to the system being clogged. It would arrange an appointment for the system to be power flushed.
On 6 April 2023, internal correspondence from the landlord confirmed there was no asbestos report for the property. It was built in 2008 and it was therefore extremely unlikely there was asbestos in the property under The Asbestos (Prohibitions) (Amendment) Regulations 1999.
Between 11 and 14 April 2023, the landlord chased its contractor to confirm all of the scheduled works had been completed. Its contractor explained the works to clear gutters on the rear elevation and an overhaul of the VELUX window, including an instrument to assist in opening and closing had not been completed. The guttering was raised with a roofing contractor and an appointment had been made on the next available date to overhaul the VELUX window. It had not been able to contact the resident.
On 16 May 2023, internal correspondence from the landlord explained that when it inspected the resident’s property on 28 September 2021, the doorbell issue related to a Ring doorbell the resident had fitted herself. During the inspection, it states it explained and demonstrated that the doorbell issue was due to the battery in the Ring doorbell and provided information on charging the battery. The landlord also confirmed the Ring doorbell was the resident’s responsibility as it was her own personal fitting.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman considers its Dispute Resolution Principles. This is good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:

a. be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. put things right, and

c. learn from outcomes.

The resident’s request for repairs to the property

The resident was concerned the property posed an asbestos risk and asked the landlord to inspect the property for asbestos. Asbestos was banned for use in residential dwellings in 1999. Evidence seen by this Service confirmed the property was built in 2008. The landlord therefore acted reasonably by confirming the property was built after the year 2000 to the resident and that it was unlikely to have asbestos. Whilst the landlord acted reasonably and there was no service failure, the landlord could have taken extra steps to refer the resident to Government information on asbestos to reassure her no asbestos was likely present in the property.
The resident complained that she required improvement works relating to a kitchen replacement, wet room replacement, reinstatement of the loft space with installation of a staircase and a crack to the wall repairing.
Within its stage 1 response dated 7 October 2021, the landlord explained the kitchen and wet room were designed for residents who required adapted fixtures and fittings to enable independent living. The kitchen and wet room were considered fully functional and did not require an immediate full component upgrade. Whilst the resident was unhappy with the appearance, the landlord explained its position clearly that these areas would be replaced in line with the landlord’s annual planned programme. The landlord also confirmed it would not commence works to create a loft room or provide a stairway to access the loft room. The landlord took steps to assess the condition which was appropriate and then advised that it was in good order and would be replaced in line with its programmed works. This method of upgrading kitchen and bathrooms is the most cost effective approach for the landlord to take and is an appropriate response.
This was a reasonable response from the landlord. Its repair responsibility does not require it to replace the wet room, kitchen or create a loft room and stairway. Whilst this Service appreciates the resident does not agree with the landlord’s position, the landlord’s response was appropriate and fair in all of the circumstances.
The resident noted she was waiting for the landlord to refurbish the kitchen space to allow her to fit her newly purchased cooker and cooker hood. The landlord’s position was that the cooker hood in place was functional. It however agreed to certain alterations as a gesture of goodwill because the resident wanted to install a cooker to replace the existing hob where she did not previously have a cooker. The landlord’s position is that the resident should have purchased a cooker which fitted the specification of the kitchen. However, what has occurred is that the resident purchased items which were larger than the original specification of the kitchen. The landlord has not provided evidence of its discussion with the resident ahead of agreeing to make the alterations. It is therefore unclear if it did specifically advise the resident she would need to purchase the cooker to fit the existing kitchen space. This Service would expect to see evidence of this recorded.
This Service acknowledges that the landlord would be required to make significant alterations to the kitchen units to fit the cooker. This would likely require all of the kitchen counters to be replaced, or removed to be made wider to accommodate the resident’s request. This is understandably a major work and the landlord had already advised the resident it would not replace the kitchen until the annual planned works programme was due in 2025. The landlord’s policy position was clear that it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure the cooker she purchased met the required specification of the existing kitchen unit and she should seek permission to install her own cooker hood. The landlord took reasonable and appropriate steps in its response to the resident and met its policy obligations.
During the landlord’s inspection, it identified the resident had requested paintwork cracks under the staircase to be redecorated. The landlord deemed the cracks as superficial. The landlord’s repairs policy explains residents are responsible for decorating the property as often as necessary to keep it in a good decorative state. The landlord acted appropriately and in line with its policy position in stating the resident was responsible for the redecoration.
The resident reported her doorbell was not working. The landlord did not formally respond to this issue within its complaint responses. However, it is noted the landlord did previously discuss this issue with her when attending her property on 28 September 2021. The landlord stated the resident had installed her own doorbell. It had explained and demonstrated via battery removal, that the system was not hardwired and she needed to charge the battery. As the doorbell was installed by the resident, it falls within the resident’s responsibility as per the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord showed good practice by showing the resident how to charge the battery, despite it being the resident’s responsibility. The landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the doorbell issues reported by the resident.
The resident also complained she wanted the landlord to clean her garden as the bin men would drop rubbish which would then enter into her garden. The landlord did not formally respond to this issue within its complaint responses. However, this Service recognises cleaning of the resident’s garden does not come under the landlord’s repair responsibilities under the tenancy agreement or its repair policy. It is for the resident to undertake. If the resident remains concerned by this issue, she should report the matter to her local authority and the relevant department regarding rubbish collection.
The landlord’s repairs policy gives it scope to offer a rechargeable repairs service to residents where they have vulnerabilities. This is where the landlord may not be responsible for a repair. However, it can arrange for the repairs to be completed and the cost charged back to the resident. The landlord has not provided evidence it offered a rechargeable repair service to the resident. Whilst this Service cannot comment on whether the resident would have agreed to the landlord’s offer, in light of the resident being elderly and there being some small repair issues she had difficulty with, such as the doorbell or cleaning of the garden, this Service would expect the landlord to have provided evidence it offered to complete a rechargeable repair to the resident.
The resident complained she still had issues relating to her water pressure. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response explained that it had previously installed a booster pump to improve the water pressure. It was however noted the resident had turned this off on inspection of her property on 28 September 2021. The landlord states it turned on the booster pump and could see the issue was resolved. It would not therefore consider further repairs to the water pressure and advised the resident to ensure the booster pump was turned on. The landlord acted fairly and undertook appropriate investigation. It communicated the outcome and required actions needed to remedy the matter with the resident.
The resident states her external light fitting at the front entrance door and her ariel have not been resolved following the repair works which were listed. This Service cannot see that the resident had re-raised these issues to the landlord following completion of the repairs. The landlord did however arrange for an inspection of the property to confirm the repairs which remained outstanding following the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It confirmed the repairs had been completed relating to these issues. A recommendation has been made at the end of this report for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss the unresolved repair issues and complete a further inspection to ensure the repairs were successful.
The landlord showed good practice overall to respond to each of the resident’s requests for specific repairs or actions to be taken. Whilst the resident was unhappy the landlord refused to complete some repairs or did not agree with some of the information and advice the landlord provided, the landlord’s overall handling was reasonable and met its policy position. This Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the property.

The associated delays

On 16 June 2021, the resident called the landlord to report several repair concerns. Her representative also reported these concerns to the landlord on 1 September 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence it acknowledged the repairs reported by the resident or formally logged these into its repairs system and arranged for inspection. Furthermore, there is no evidence it responded to the resident or her representative following the reports. The evidence suggests the landlord did not take the resident’s repair concerns seriously until she formally complained on 21 September 2021, where it was required to respond to the resident’s concerns. This is evidence of poor repair management and poor communication with the resident.
Due to the volume of repair issues raised by the resident, the landlord showed good practice in arranging a full inspection of the property on 28 September 2021. Following the inspection, it identified repairs to several areas of the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, it states an action plan was agreed with the resident for the scheduled repairs and aimed to complete them within 28 days. The landlord showed good practice by agreeing an action plan for the repairs and seeking to manage the resident’s expectations.
This Service recognises the landlord advised the resident it may take longer than 28 days to complete the repairs. However, there is no evidence it communicated with the resident to advise of which repairs may take longer to complete, or evidence it provided regular updates to the resident to manage her expectations. This is evidence of a service failure.
The evidence of the repairs log provided by the landlord is unclear in terms of when works listed as part of the action plan were undertaken and completed. It is recommended the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping to show when a repair has been completed rather than just the target date.
Within its stage 2 response, the landlord states it had issues completing some of the listed repairs due to the resident refusing access which led to delays. Taking this into account, the landlord has failed to document in the repairs log when its contractors attended, whether they could access the property or further information to reschedule the attendance. This Service would expect the landlord to have a clear record of repairs listed, with detailed information explaining the repair, what actions were taken during the attendance and a clear completion date. Without a detailed record, this does not allow the landlord to properly manage the repairs required or use the log as a reference to the previous works completed as part of the ongoing repairs. This is evidence of poor record keeping.
On 17 August 2022, the landlord arranged for a further inspection of the resident’s property to review the position of the repairs listed in its original action plan following its stage 1 response. Whilst this was good practice following reports some of the listed repairs were not completed, it is further evidence the landlord’s record keeping was poor and had insufficient detail to inform it of the repairs it had previously completed.
As a result of the unclear repair log, this Service is unable to independently assess the individual delays relating to each listed repair. A more general approach is therefore required to consider the overall repair delays. Within its stage 2 response dated 22 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged it had failed to complete 4 of the listed works following its inspection on 28 September 2021. It was approximately an 11 month delay at the time the landlord issued its stage 2 response. This was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s response acknowledged the communication from its contractor to the resident was poor and could have been better. However, this Service has not seen evidence it learnt from this and it had taken steps to ensure communication between the resident and its contractor was reviewed or sought to ensure that the landlord relayed any relevant information, rather than relying upon the contractor as the third party. The contractual relationship is between the landlord and the resident, therefore the landlord is responsible for the overall communication of repairs, not its contractor.
Whilst the landlord showed good practice by acknowledging its handling of the repairs was poor within its complaint response, it did not offer compensation to the resident. It explained compensation would be paid once the repairs were completed. This Service has not been provided with evidence to confirm all of the repairs have since been completed or the landlord has paid the resident compensation for the delays.
An order for compensation is made at the end of this report for the delay. However, the landlord should make further payment to the resident to reflect the time it took to complete the repairs following its stage 2 response.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor, it failed to keep an accurate record which allowed it to keep track of the repairs it listed. This caused the resident significant distress and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s handling of the associated delays was maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated delays.

Reasons

The landlord reasonably applied its repairs policy and effectively communicated with the resident when responding to her requests for repairs which were not the landlord’s responsibility.
The landlord’s did not appropriately manage the repairs listed in its action plan and caused some repairs to be outstanding for approximately 11 months.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 in compensation for any distress and inconvenience and time and trouble the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the repairs.
3. Assess if any further compensation is required to be paid to the resident for the time taken to complete the outstanding repairs.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident to record any new repair concerns the resident may have and process these in line with its repairs policy.
The Ombudsman has recently made a number of orders and recommendations in other investigations to this landlord about reviewing it, repairs service and record keeping. The Ombudsman has therefore not made further recommendations around these aspects of service in this report but expects the landlord to take all relevant learning points from this case into account in its overall reviews of its repairs service and record keeping.