Southern Housing Group Limited (202103763)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103763

Southern Housing Group Limited

31 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Resident’s reports of problems with the heating and hot water system.
2. Replacement fire door at the resident’s property.
3. Repair of floor tiles in the resident’s bathroom.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a housing association landlord. The property is a two bedroom flat and the tenancy started on 30 January 2012. The resident lived there with her two children.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
In May 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to explain that she had been told by an operative who had replaced the faulty lock on her front door, that the door had been damaged and was no longer fit for purpose as a fire door. The landlord has provided evidence that it carried out an inspection of the front door and reported it to be of good standard and no further work required.
The landlord had an individual leasehold interest in the property which it sub-let by way of assured tenancy to the resident. The development was served by a communal heat network, which provided heating and hot water to each home and was the repairing and maintenance responsibility of the superior landlord for the development and was administered by its nominated managing agent (EMA). The cost of repairing and maintaining the heat network formed part of the service charge. Each property had under floor heating system.
The superior landlord was responsible for servicing and maintaining the heat network up to and including the heat exchanger (HIU), which was situated in the property. The service beyond the HIU, including the underfloor heating was the responsibility of the individual leaseholders (in this case the landlord).
On 17 May 2021, the resident contacted this Service to express her disappointment with the landlord’s lack of action over reported repairs. She explained that she had made a formal complaint in November 2020, which had been acknowledged by the landlord but that she had not received a formal response.
The landlord explained that there had been multiple changes to the EMA at the block of flats, consequently the records it could provide were limited.

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord, the resident made reference to the impact the issues with the boiler were having on her households health. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). This is a legal process and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option.

Summary of events

On 14 October 2020, the resident reported various outstanding repairs. She said that she was still waiting for a light to be fixed and wall tiles replaced in the bathroom. According to the landlord’s repairs record the bathroom light was reported as faulty on 21 August 2020.The landlord confirmed that an appointment had been made for the contractor to fix the bathroom light on 16 October 2020 and at the same time check the thermostats in the bedroom as the resident stated she was having problems with the heating.
Whilst the landlord has provided notes to this effect, this is not reflected in the landlord’s repairs record. Consequently it is not obvious to this Service if the contractor was instructed to assess the thermostats. The landlord also confirmed that a contractor would attend to the bathroom tiles on 22 October 2020. The resident explained that she had reported an issue with her front door the previous year but this had not been resolved.
Following the resident’s contact, the landlord emailed the external contractor in relation to the damaged front door, which it said had been originally reported in May 2019. The landlord said that from the resident’s explanation, the door was secure but may not be fit for purpose as a fire door. The landlord asked if the maintenance team could inspect the door and repair the damage.
Two days later the contractor responded that the last order raised in relation to the front door was in November 2018, and that its operatives attended and completed the job. It explained that it had no outstanding jobs relating to the front door. On 19 October 2020, the landlord asked the contractor to arrange for someone to inspect the door.
On 5 November 2020, an internal email confirmed that there was no program in place to replace the fire door at that property. It explained that if there was a major issue with the door then it would need to be made safe or replaced by the contractor until it could be upgraded, which might not have been for some time. Nevertheless the landlord asked its fire safety team if it could visit the property to inspect the door.
The landlord accepted a formal complaint from the resident on 17 November 2020 and acknowledged the complaint on 18 November 2020. In its letter acknowledging the complaint, the landlord said it understood the complaint to be about the fire door not having been replaced and the resident believed it was not fit for purpose. It said it understood there were outstanding repairs to the bathroom and asked the resident to confirm what they were. The landlord asked the resident to confirm her preferred form of communication so it could stay in contact with her weekly and that it aimed to resolve the complaint as fairly and efficiently as possible.
Between 18 November 2020 and 15 December 2020, evidence provided by the landlord showed that it had attempted unsuccessfully to contact the resident by telephone and that the resident had telephoned the landlord on two occasions asking for someone to call her back so that she could discuss her complaint
The landlord eventually managed to make contact with the resident on 15 December 2020. During the conversation, the resident explained that the thermostat for the underfloor heating couldn’t be set and that the heating wasn’t working. She explained that although the hot water was working at that time, it seemed to work intermittently and suggested that it had been a problem since she moved in. She added that someone had previously inspected her fire door and said that it wasn’t fit for purpose. In respect of the bathroom lights and wall tiles, she acknowledged that an appointment had been made to repair these on 23 December 2020. As a resolution to the issues she was experiencing, the resident said she wanted the repairs done as quickly as possible, compensation and a transfer to an alternative property. The landlord explained that a transfer was not a realistic outcome.
The same day the landlord emailed its contractor to explain the outstanding repairs and asked it to advise whether it was responsible for the repairs to the boiler or if they were the responsibility of the EMA. The landlord asked the contractor to respond by 17 December 2020.
A internal email the same day provided the telephone number for the EMA and explained that the resident would need to contact the agent directly with regard the issues with the heating, as it was responsible for the communal boiler. It is not clear whether this was explained to the resident at that time.
A further internal email explained that an inspection had been done at the property on 9 December 2020. It is not clear to this Service what was inspected nor is it clear what the outcome of the inspection was.
On 16 December 2020, the contractor confirmed that it was not responsible for repairs to the communal boiler or the underfloor heating system. The following day an internal email confirmed the resident was on the housing register and provided the band and bedroom need she was eligible for. However, it is not clear to this Service if the information was relayed to the resident at that time.
On 5 January 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord to confirm that both the electrician and tiler had attended that day and the repairs to the bathroom light and wall tile had been completed. She said that she was still waiting for repairs to the bathroom flooring, the front door, and the underfloor heating. The landlord contacted the contractor and maintenance team for an update on the outstanding repairs. In addition it asked the contractor why the work was only completed that day when it understood that an appointment had been made for 23 December 2020. In relation to the fire door, the landlord explained that it understood that a request to replace it had been made in May 2019.
Evidence provided by the landlord showed that the resident telephoned the landlord to request a call back and update on the outstanding repairs on 18 January 2021, 22 January 2021 and 25 January 2021.
The landlord contacted the contractor on 26 January 2021 for a response to the email sent on 5 January 2021. The contractor apologised for its delay responding and suggested that in future the landlord send emails to the general email address rather than individual operatives. The contractor explained that due to staff illness the appointment booked for 23 December 2021 had to be cancelled and rearranged for 5 January 2021. It advised that an order had been raised with its subcontractor to quote for the flooring and that they would contact the resident directly. In a follow up email, the landlord asked for the request for a replacement fire door to be actioned as soon as possible. In response, the contractor said that it had checked its systems that it had no record of a works order for a replacement fire door at the property. It added that it had attempted to contact the resident directly on the number provided but it was constantly engaged. Notes on the landlord’s system for the same day also showed that the residents telephone number was engaged.
The same day the resident said that she was still experiencing issues with the underfloor heating which was affecting both hers and her children’s health. She explained that in order to keep warm she was using a fan heater, which she moved from room to room. She added that she wanted to transfer to an alternative property but she had been removed from the housing transfer list.
Notes provided by the landlord showed that on 12 February 2021, it noted that both itself and the landlord had failed attempts at contacting the resident on the number provided. It confirmed that a cold call would take place the following day.
A week later the landlord wrote to the resident to explain that following the complaint raised about the fire door and bathroom repairs, both itself and the contractor had attempted to contact her on separate occasions but had not been able to get a response. It asked the resident to make contact within 7 days or it would assume that she didn’t want to proceed with the complaint.
On 1 March 2021, the resident telephoned the landlord for an update on the complaint. Landlord notes showed that it returned the call a week later. During the conversation the resident explained that the outstanding issues included repairs to the bathroom floor and front door. She said that a contractor had been booked to attend on 5 March 2021 to fix her toilet but arrived later than she had anticipated and consequently she refused access.
In an email exchange between the landlord and the contractor on 11 March 2021 the contractor explained that the bathroom floor tiles were ceramic and not its responsibility to replace, consequently that works order had been rejected. With regard the fire door, it said that it would arrange for its own carpenter to visit the property the following day to inspect the door.
The resident contacted the landlord on three separate occasions between 17 March 2021 and 22 March 2021 regarding the complaint and outstanding repairs. She said that she hadn’t heard from the landlord for some. In addition she reported that the boiler hadn’t been working for three days.
On 22 March 2021, the EMA contacted the resident for additional information regarding the boiler, so that it could arrange for its contractor to attend. The resident responded that she had made an appointment with the landlord’s contractor for another (new) repair and had also asked it to resolve the outstanding repairs. The EMA responded copying in the landlord and explained that it would arrange for its own contractor to investigate the issues with the heating and hot water and asked the landlord to cancel the appointment the resident had made with the landlord’s contractor.
A week later, the resident emailed the landlord to confirm that a contractor had attended to fix the toilet and cracked floor tile in the bathroom. She said that neither job had been completed due to the contractor not being able to source the part for the toilet or the matching tile. She explained that the faulty toilet and issues with the heating in the property were having an impact on her utility bills and on her children’s health.
The resident emailed both the landlord and the EMA on 3 April 2021 to report that she had no hot water and the boiler was leaking. Then on 7 April 2021, she wrote to the landlord listing the following outstanding and new repairs:
1. Cracked tile in bathroom
2. Leaking toilet
3. Damaged front door
4. No heating/hot water
5. Leaking boiler pipes
The resident explained that rather than resolving the repairs, the list was getting longer. She repeated that the issues were impacting on her both on her health and finances. She added that she had attempted to contact the landlord several times to discuss the complaint and outstanding repairs but no one returned her calls.
The landlord’s records appear to show that the issue with the hot water was resolved on 4 April 2021.
The landlord’s records show that on 23 April 2021, in response to the request made on 11 March 2021, the fire risk assessment team rejected the works to the door. The notes further showed that an appointment had been made for an operative to attend on 6 May 2021.
On 26 April 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, explaining she hadn’t received an update on her outstanding repairs. She said that the boiler had been fixed but that there was still an issue with the underfloor heating in the property and she had been told that it was the responsibility of the EMA to resolve. The resident added that the bathroom tile hadn’t been replaced and neither had the taps. In addition she confirmed that a contractor had measured the front door but had no further update on this. The landlord’s repairs records appear to confirm that photos and measurements of the door were taken on 8 April 2021.
In an email from the EMA to the resident on 5 May 2021, it confirms that the initial job to fix the hot water was complete, but there were ongoing issues with the thermostats which would need to be investigated further.
Following contact from this Service, on 1 June 2021, the landlord confirmed it had attempted to contact the resident but had not been successful. It explained that the contractor had written to the resident requesting details of any outstanding repairs. It also said it would advise the resident that her complaint was being considered at stage one of its complaints process.
According to landlord’s notes dated 8 June 2021, an appointment was made for an operative to attend the property on 17 June 2021. The notes also showed that the resident rearranged this appointment for 23 June 2021. She emailed the landlord on 29 June 2021 to complain that the contractor had arrived at the property without her prior knowledge and she explained this was the second time it had happened. She refused access as she explained that she needed the door replaced not just the lock fixed. Notes showed that she refused access on two further occasions explaining that the door needed to be replaced.
As well as the replacement door the resident also explained that the bathroom floor tile need to be replaced as it was a hazard. She said that if the landlord was unable to replace the tile like for like it would need to replace the whole floor.
In an email to the landlord on 26 July 2021, the contractor said following several no access and refused appointments by the resident it had been able to measure the door and would request a quote and approval from the fire risk assessment team. With regards the broken tap and floor tile, it explained that an appointment had been made to fix the tap that afternoon, but it would not replace the floor tile as it did not replace ceramic tiles. In response the landlord said that notes suggested the fire risk assessment team had previously denied approval for a new fire door. It also asked the contractor to confirm dates it was refused access by the resident and for a copy of the inspection report dated 9 December 2020.
The landlord responded to the residents stage one request on 27 July 2021. In a prefix to the response, the landlord explained to this Service that its failure to respond in a timely manner at stage one was in part because it did not want to provide a response until it felt confident it could address all the issues, but also due to delays following failed access attempts.
In its response, the landlord explained that it understood the resident’s complaint to be about:
1. Outstanding works to replace a fire door, which the resident belies is not fit for purpose.
2. Incomplete bathroom works.
The landlord apologised for the delay in responding at stage one of its complaints process and for the delays in dealing with the repairs. The landlord explained that in relation to the request for a replacement front door, it noted that a request had been raised in May 2019, but that a supervisor had attended that same month and assessed the door as being in good standard and no further works necessary. It further explained that when the resident raised her complaint on 18 November 2020 there had been some confusion over who was responsible for the door. It was agreed that as there were no planned works for a door replacement it would need to be repaired by the contractors, who attempted to contact the resident on various occasions to arrange an appointment. The landlord apologised that it took until 11 March 2021 for it to realise that an appointment had never been made to repair the door. It acknowledged that this was not acceptable. The landlord noted that after several failed attempts to attend the property, the visit took place on 22 July 2021 and measurements had been sent to the appropriate team to provide a quote.
The landlord confirmed that it had been advised on 15 December 2020, that the EMA was responsible for the repairs to the heating but that it failed to relay this information to the resident, and for that it apologised. The landlord also apologised for the missed appointment on 23 December 2020.
In respect of the bathroom floor tiles, the landlord confirmed that it had instructed the contractor to quote for the replacement tile, but this was rejected as it did not fall within its remit. The landlord apologised to the resident that it did not appear that she had been notified of this decision. The landlord explained that it is not within its policy to maintain custom fittings which extends to floor tiles, unless there is a safety concern. To that end it explained that it would make the area safe/undertake partial repairs in line with its standards. It confirmed that the contractor would carry out a patch repair or polysafe flooring to replace the tiles, but a full replacement would not be offered.
With regard the repairs to the bathroom taps, the landlord noted that this had not been included as part of the original complaint but that after failed attempts to contact the resident a planned appointment was attended and the taps would be replaced. The landlord acknowledged that the resident did not want a like for like replacement and explained that an upgrade to a different type of tap would be recharged to the resident.
The landlord accepted and acknowledged both service and communication failures, which resulted in unnecessary delays and apologised for the inconvenience caused. As a resolution and as a goodwill gesture, the landlord offered £375 compensation, which it calculated as follows:
1. £75 for complaint failure
2. £50 for service failure
3. £50 for communication failure
4. £100 for delay to door repair
5. £100 for the inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident chasing the repairs and complaint
The landlord proposed the following action plan:
1. The resident to confirm if she wanted to accept the like for like tap.
2. The resident to confirm how she wanted to proceed with the tile repair.
3. The landlord to request an update from the contractor for the works to the door every Tuesday and to provide an update to the resident by the Friday of each week.
The landlord suggested that the action plan should commence on 10 August 2021 to allow the contractor time to make arrangements and book appointments
On 28 July 2021, the resident escalated the complaint, she stated that the action plan should have been put in place when she originally complained in November 2020 and she didn’t understand why the landlord had issued a second stage one response when it had already issued one.
The same day the EMA contacted the resident in relation to the heating at the property and explained that it would arrange for a contractor to attend to resolve the issues.
The landlord acknowledged the escalated complaint on 4 August 2021 and responded on 25 August 2021. It confirmed that they had discussed the original complaint and that they had also had additional discussions in relation to the heating and hot water and the resident’s request to be moved.
The landlord explained the additional elements to the complaint were not raised as part of the original complaint and consequently had not been fully investigated as part of its stage two response. It explained that the heating and hot water was not within the landlord’s remit and consequently the resident had been liaising with the EMA which was the correct process. In respect of the resident’s request to move, the resident should discuss this with her housing officer, which she had done. The landlord explained that it could not offer a move to another property as an outcome to a complaint.
In respect of the bathroom floor tiles, the landlord reiterated that the tiles currently in the bathroom are no longer available and were not the standard fitted by the landlord. Consequently, it could not offer to replace like for like. It explained that its policy stated that when custom fittings are installed in a property, the landlord would not be responsible for the repairs or maintenance of them. It could not agree to the resident’s request to be provided with a selection of tiles to choose from and if the resident wanted custom fittings she would be charged for these. It reiterated the offer made in its stage on response.
In relation to the tap, the landlord noted explained that it would be replaced like for like and it could not fulfil her request for an upgrade.
The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint in relation to the door and confirmed that a quote for the door had been provided and signed off and that once the door was ready the contractor would contact the resident directly to arrange a date for fitting.
The landlord reoffered the compensation offered at stage one.

Post complaints process

On 13 January 2022, the resident explained that repairs were still outstanding:
1. Measurements had been taken to replace the front door but up until that date it still hadn’t been replaced
2. The bathroom light was not working and although she had booked an appointment for a repair, the contractor arrived two days later than planned and failed to fix it.
3. Bathroom floor tile had not been fixed
4. Hot water and heating only working intermittently
Following contact with this Service on 24 July 2023, the resident stated that there were still outstanding repairs. She explained that from the original complaint, the front door had not been replaced and the hot water and heating still didn’t work as it should.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. Be fair
2. Put things right
3. 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 .

Landlords policies and obligations

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and its repairs policy, the landlord is responsible for heating and hot water repairs. Whilst the maintenance of the communal heat network is managed by an EMA. The resident has a contract with the landlord and consequently it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure it works closely with the managing agent to ensure it provides a satisfactory service. Likewise, where a landlord uses an external contractor for repairs, it must ensure that it liaises appropriately with that contractor to ensure its policy objectives are met.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the timescales for responding to repairs. It states that emergency repairs will be responded to within 24 hours. It specifies that an emergency repair includes the report of no heating or hot water between 31 October and 1 May. The landlord will only consider the lack of hot water in the summer months an emergency if it decides that the resident is a priority due to their vulnerability. Whilst the landlord does not specify a time scale for dealing with routine repairs, it says that it aims to complete them as quickly as possible. This Service would expect routine repairs to be completed within one month, but accepts that some may take longer if specialist equipment is needed.
The landlord further sets out its repair responsibilities in relation to floor coverings and explains that the resident is responsible for the maintenance of floor coverings unless they were provided by the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord may carry out the repair in order to make the property safe.
Landlords are responsible under the Regulatory Reform (Fire Safety) Order 2005 for ensuring the safety of their tenants and making sure that their properties are fire safe. Landlords are also required to carry out periodical risk assessments in the common areas and ensure they comply with fire safety standards. Landlords and freehold owners of residential buildings have a legal duty to ensure that a fire risk assessment is carried out to identify and remove any fire risks and hazards or to reduce these as far as possible. Under Article 17 of the 2005 order, there needs to be a suitable regime to maintain fire safety equipment. This includes fire doors.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process, responding at stage one of its complaints process within 10 working days. The landlord explains that its stage two process comprises of three options: a compensation review; a complaint review; or a senior manager review. The outcome the resident is seeking will determine the most appropriate route. Apart from the compensation review, which will be decided within 10 working days, the landlord aims to provide a response at stage two of its complaints process within 20 working days.
The landlord has a compensation policy which sets out its approach to making goodwill and compensation payments. Compensation may be paid where the landlord recognises that it has failed in its service delivery. It lists its service failures as:
1. Missed or failed appointments
2. Not delivering services in line with published standards
3. Not following policies and procedures
4. Failure and delays undertaking repairs
5. Quality of repair

The landlord may also consider an award of compensation where the resident loses use of an amenity such as heating or hot water.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the heating and hot water.

In respect of this complaint, the resident made the landlord aware of an issue with the heating in the property at least as early as 14 October 2020 and expressed further concerns in December 2020, whilst also explaining that the hot water worked intermittently.
The landlord sought advice from its contractor in respect of repairing responsibilities for the heating and was made aware that the EMA was responsible for the communal boiler and that the resident would need to contact them directly. The landlord was also aware that its contractor would not attend to underfloor heating. However, there is no evidence to suggest that this information was passed to the resident in a timely manner. Nor is it obvious to this Service at what point the resident became aware of this. Poor communications and poor record keeping resulted in the resident having to chase updates and any agreed actions, which caused frustration and inconvenience.
In January 2021, the resident further expressed concerns with the underfloor heating and said that she was using a fan heater to stay warm. Yet, there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord actioned this concern.
Evidence provided suggests that there was no real progress in respect of the resident’s reports of problems with the heating and hot water until 19 March 2021, when the resident reported that the boiler was leaking and that it had not worked for three days. At this point the EMA became involved and arranged for its own contractor to assess the boiler. The landlord failed to be proactive or customer centric in its approach and left the resident and her child with intermittent heating and hot water for a significant period through the winter months. The landlord failed to take into account the impact of this on the resident and her household. Furthermore, the landlord failed to meets its own service level agreement as outlined in its repairs policy, which is a significant failing.
On 26 April 2021, the resident told the landlord that the boiler had been fixed but that she still didn’t have any heating. This Service acknowledges that the landlord was operating relationships with two different organisations in respect of the heating and hot water. The landlord is ultimately responsible for ensuring that its residents have access to a functioning heating and hot water system and consequently should have adopted a more proactive approach in dealing with the resident’s concerns and should have communicated better with the resident. Instead the resident was left to chase updates and send numerous emails in an attempt to ensure her family had uninterrupted access to heating and hot water. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident and this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the heating and hot water.

The landlord’s handling of the replacement fire door at the resident’s property.

The resident explained that in 2019 she had been told that her front door was not fit for purpose as a fire door and this formed part of her formal complaint. The landlord has provided evidence that it considered the request to replace the fire door in May 2019, and on inspection advised that it was a good standard and that no further works were required. However, there is no evidence that this information was passed to the resident at the time.
Prior to the resident making a formal complaint, an internal email confirmed that there was no program to replace the fire door at that property and that any repairs would need to be completed by the contractor until such time that there was. However, this information was not passed to the resident and consequently the resident continued to pursue a definitive response to her request.
The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to raise a works order for the door repairs until March 2021, approximately five months after the resident had raised it. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the door was inspected in May 2019, given that the resident had expressed further concerns, the landlord should have acted quickly to assess the safety of the door so that it could assure the resident that it was compliant. In failing to do so caused the resident unnecessary distress. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlords handling of the replacement fire door at the resident’s property.
Throughout the period of the complaint, the landlord itself was unsure who was responsible for the door repair/replacement and failed to monitor progress of it. This is not acceptable and demonstrates poor record keeping. A responsible landlord must be in control of its repairs service at all times so as to avoid unnecessary delays and poor service delivery. As outlined in the knowledge and information spotlight report published by this Service in May 2023, the Ombudsman expects landlord’s to maintain clear and detailed records so that they can provide efficient and effective services and to ensure that any decision or actions taken are based on good quality information. Communication with residents can be improved when staff are able to access all relevant and up to date information, allowing a good understanding of the issue.
In its stage one response the landlord confirmed that it had taken measurements for a replacement fire door and requested a quote for the works. In its stage two response dated 25 August 2021 it stated that the quote had been signed off and the following stage was for the door to be made. The resident was told that the contractor would make contact to arrange a suitable time and date to fit the new door.
This Service has been in recent contact with the resident who has advised that the door has not yet been replaced. This is not acceptable, the landlord assured the resident that the door would be replaced and in failing to do so has failed in its service delivery.

Landlord’s handling of the repair of floor tiles in the resident’s bathroom.

The resident reported a cracked floor tile in her bathroom and explained that it was potentially a safety hazard and in response the landlord asked its contractor to provide a quote for replacement.
The landlord has acknowledged that it failed to notify the resident in a timely manner that the contractor had closed the request as it was outside of its remit to replace ceramic tiles.
In its stage one response, the landlord explained that floor coverings were the responsibility of the resident, unless there was a health and safety issue. To that end, it offered to undertake a partial repair in order to make the area safe, but would not agree to replacing all the tiles. The tenancy agreement and repairs policy is clear that residents are responsible for maintaining floor coverings within the property. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the communication in respect of this part of the resident’s complaint was poor, on balance there is no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to floor tiles in the resident’s bathroom. This is because it was reasonable for the landlord to refuse the resident’s request to replace the whole floor and the landlord offered an appropriate remedy.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The evidence suggests that the landlord delayed the response as it was awaiting repairs to be completed. However, the landlord needs to ensure that it does not allow complaints about repairs to stay open indefinitely whilst waiting for them to be completed. This runs the risk of residents being blocked from escalating their complaints should repairs continue to be delayed. The Ombudsman’s position is that a response can normally be sent detailing the landlord’s assessment of the service provided so far and its proposed plan to put things right. Progress of this plan should still be monitored even if a complaint response has already been sent. It was unreasonable to delay the stage one response and in doing so was of detriment to the resident who spent time pursuing the complaint.
In its letter acknowledging the resident’s stage one complaint, the landlord stated that it wanted to make contact with the resident weekly. However, evidence has shown that the landlord failed to do this. On several occasions the landlord failed to return the resident’s calls and failed to keep the resident updated. The proposed communication plan was not implemented resulting in the resident spending time chasing a response. This is likely to have damaged the landlord and resident relationship as the resident would have felt ignored and not listened to.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord sent the resident a letter stating that it would close her complaint as it had not been able to contact her. The letter added that if the resident did not respond within seven days it would assume that she no longer wanted to proceed with the complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 1 March 2021, concerned that she had not had an update in respect of her complaint. The landlord has provided notes clearly showing that the resident remained in regular contact with the landlord. As soon as the landlord realised that there were issues contacting the resident by telephone it should have sought an alternative method of remaining in contact so that it could have fulfilled its proposal to remain in contact weekly.
It is not clear to this Service if the complaint was indeed closed at that time but it is certain that following contact with this Service the landlord accepted the same complaint on 1 June 2021. It did not respond to this complaint at stage one until 27 July 2021, which was 173 working days after the original acknowledgement and 41 days after 1 June 2021.The landlord failed to respond to the resident within a 10 working days as set out in its policy, which was of detriment to the resident who spent an unnecessary amount of time chasing a response to the complaint. In addition. the landlord failed to comply with the complaint handling code and consequently this Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In its stage two response, the landlord stated that it was not responding to the issues raised in relation to the heating and hot water as it said it did not form part of original complaint. However, the resident raised the issue of the heating and hot water on 15 December 2020, when the landlord contacted her to discuss her complaint. It is therefore reasonable to assume that the landlord accepted this as part of the complaint. Whilst the landlord did mention the problem with the heating and hot water in its stage one response and apologised for failing to keep the resident properly informed, this Service does not find that the landlord’s offer of redress adequately compensates the resident for all the failings identified. The landlord was wrong to refuse to review the complaint regarding the heating and hot water as part of its stage two response.
In all aspects of its complaint handling the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor and a significant failing in its service delivery. Evidence showed that the resident regularly contacted the landlord for updates to the repairs and for a response to her complaint, but the landlord often failed to respond in a timely way. Whilst this Service acknowledges that the landlord noted there was an issue with contacting the resident by telephone, the landlord was not proactive in establishing a reason for this. The landlord should have sought to find a more reliable method of communication so that it could ensure the resident was kept updated regularly. It failed to do this and this was of detriment to the resident who had no effective or open dialogue with the landlord which subsequently led to unnecessary delays.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the heating and hot water.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlords handling of the replacement fire door at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to floor tiles in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to keep the resident properly informed of the repairing responsibilities of the EMA and contractor, which led to unnecessary delays in dealing with the issues identified. This was of detriment to the resident and her family who reported having to use alternative means of heating.
The landlord once again failed to act in a timely way to investigate and resolve the door repairs, subsequently causing the resident unnecessary distress.
The landlord is within its rights to refuse a repair for which it is not responsible.
The landlord failed to respond in a timely manner to the resident’s complaint and failed to communicate effectively with the resident in order to achieve a speedy resolution.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a letter of apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1575, which includes:
  1. £375 originally offered to the resident in the stage one response.
  2. An additional £300 for the delay to the door repair and the resident’s time and trouble chasing a response.
  3. £600 for the distress and inconvenience resulting from delays in resolving the issues with the heating and hot water.
  4. £300 for poor complaint handling.
3. Contact the resident to establish what repairs remain outstanding and develop a clear action plan to resolve the outstanding repairs. Any repairs required must be agreed within 20 working days and dates set for completion.
4. Contact the resident within 20 working days with a date for the fire door replacement.
5. Review its contractual arrangements with the EMA and its own contractor to ensure similar issues are resolved as quickly and effectively as possible. The landlord must provide written evidence of this review to show compliance with this order.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to self-assess against the complaint handling Code, and in particular consider whether its three option approach to responding at stage two complies with the code.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within the timescales requested.

Recommendations

If not already done so, self-assess against the spotlight on knowledge and information management report published by this Service in May 2023 and consider implementing a knowledge and information strategy to ensure the landlord maintains useful and relevant data in relation to its services, contractors and residents