Sovereign Housing Association Limited (202210706)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210706

Sovereign Housing Association Limited

2 August 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. Repairs to the property following a leak.
2. A request for adaptations.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a two-bedroom house. The tenancy started on 26 January 2015. The resident lives at the property with her 4 children.
The landlord’s records state that the resident is partially sighted and 2 of the resident’s children have disabilities.

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that the ongoing repairs have impacted on her mental health and also on her child’s physical 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 has reported new repair issues which include, problems with the boiler and plaster falling off the bedroom ceiling. This investigation focuses on the resident’s complaint regarding repairs outstanding following a leak in the property in December 2019, as this was considered in the landlord’s complaint process. This is because this Service expects residents to exhaust a landlord’s complaints procedure before the Ombudsman can consider the complaint. The resident may refer back to the landlord to make a new complaint or progress any ongoing matters through its 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. This obligation is confirmed in section 3 of the tenancy agreement.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy say that emergency repairs should be responded to within 24 hours and responsive repairs within 28 calendar days.
The Equality Act 2010 imposes duties on landlords towards resident’s who have 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 categorise major adaptations as costing over £2,500, but not limited to, provision of lifting aids, stair lift installation and level access showers. Its states non-urgent minor adaptations will be completed within a maximum of 6 months from the date of the occupational therapist assessment. Further to this, simple aids costing less than £500, the landlord will arrange, pay for, and complete within 20 workings days.
Following a request for an aid and/or adaptation, the landlord will take into account an occupational therapist assessment report and quote for works. The aids and adaptations team will then assess whether it is a minor or major adaptation.
For all major aids and adaptations, it will usually require a resident to apply to their local authority for a disabled facility grant (DFG) to cover the cost of the aids and adaptations recommended by an OT assessment. It will, where reasonable, offer assistance in making the application and work with the local authority to achieve the best solution for the resident.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints procedure which states:
1. At stage one the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days and provide a formal response within 10 working days.
2. At stage 2, the landlord should acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a full and final response within 20 working days following a full investigation of the complaint.

Summary of events

On 28 December 2019, the landlord attended the resident’s property to fix a loose floorboard on the landing. Whilst repairing the floorboard a nail went through a heating pipe, causing a leak which led to water going through the ceiling.
The landlord initiated a repair to replace the landing floor boards on 30 December 2019 following the leak. The same day the resident reported that the family had no running hot water or heating. As such, the landlord provided heaters. The resident reported that following the leak cracks had appeared in the downstairs hallway.
On 17 January 2020, the landlord raised a routine repair to the resident’s downstair hallway walls and ceiling following the leak in 2019.
In February 2020, the resident reported that cracks had appeared on the upstairs walls.
On 14 February 2020, the landlord replaced the floorboards in the third bedroom and on the upstairs landing.
On 5 March 2020, the landlord patched repaired the ceiling under the stairs following the leak and stain blocked all of the hallway ceiling.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 5 August 2020 regarding outstanding repair work required. This included:
1. That following a leak, cracks had appeared on the downstairs walls in the property.
2. The floors were unsafe due to gaps between the floorboards.
3. The stairs and landing carpets had been damaged by the water leak.
4. The banister had come away from the wall.
5. The window frame in one of the bedrooms had come away from the wall causing damage to the wall.
The landlord replaced the resident’s child’s bedroom door on 16 August 2020 following damage to the door causing a split.
The landlord’s surveyor completed a survey of the resident’s property on 27 August 2020. The survey identified:
1. Cracks in the living room and in the kitchen following the leak in December 2019.
2. Tiles had fallen off the walls in the upstairs toilet and bathroom.
3. Hairline cracks at the junction of walls in the upstairs rooms of the property.
4. The surveyor recommended that the landlord monitor the property for any structural changes causing the cracks to grow.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 16 October 2020. The information provided by the landlord stated that it closed the complaint as works had started and it was in regular contact with the resident. The landlord did not issue a formal written stage one complaint response at this point as it said it had resolved the complaint.
On 17 October 2020, the landlord completed outstanding work on the upstairs flooring and fixed the bedroom doors which had dropped following the leak.
On 20 November 2020, the landlord replaced the resident’s front door.
The landlord raised a routine repair on 26 January 2021 to make the flooring on the landing safe. Also, to make sure the electrics were safe following the leak. The landlord attended on 11 February 2021 to check the electrics and replaced a socket in the kitchen.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 4 February 2021 and ensured the flooring was safe on the landing.
On 11 February 2021, the landlord raised a routine repair to lay carpet in the living room.
On 15 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord as plaster had been coming off the walls. The landlord checked whether the kitchen ceiling contained asbestos and did not find any evidence.
An occupational therapist completed an assessment on 17 March 2021. The adaptations recommended included:
1. The bath needed to be moved so bathing aids could be added such as a chair.
2. The grab rail in the bathroom needed to be replaced.
3. Lighting to be added to the alley way, so the family could safely access their car in emergencies.
4. Grab rails needed to be added in the garden so the resident and her family could safely access the garden.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 April 2021 to request a disabled adaptation following the OT assessment to install a handrail in the garden. The handrail was installed on 4 May 2021.
The landlord attended the resident’s property on 17 May 2021 to measure for grab rails in the bathroom and toilet and to ascertain whether she wanted two grab rails installed.
Following the OT assessment, the landlord raised a repair on 20 May 2021 to move the bath away from the wall to allow the bath seat to sit in the bath correctly.
On 8 June 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property and replaced the resident’s carpet in the living room.
On 11 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident regarding outstanding repairs. The resident said she was unhappy that only one adaptation had been completed from the OT recommendations. The resident said the bathroom was not in a good state of repair and this was impacting on her child’s asthma, as the bricks in the bathroom were exposed. The resident explained that the bathroom needed tiles not exposed brick as it was easier to clean with disabled children.
The resident also said that plaster was coming off the walls and ceiling and when her child had a seizure the plaster was falling on her bed at the same time. Further, that she had replaced kitchen white goods, due to leaks on the floor and the floor was uneven causing a tripping hazard to her children. The resident asked the landlord for a copy of her previous complaint which was closed and she requested a stage 2 complaint response.
On 16 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her previous complaint. The resident said it should not have previously closed at stage one of its complaint process as she was told it was being reopened and investigated.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property and moved the bath to allow for a bath seat to go in the bath correctly.
On 24 June 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to confirm its contractor would be contacting her directly to arrange a survey for outstanding work.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 2 July 2021 and provided a quote for the repair work. The contractor provided the quote to the landlord on 4 August 2021.
The landlord contacted the resident on 6 August 2021 to discuss the resident’s complaint. The landlord apologised for the delay in completing outstanding work and confirmed it had received quotes which it was reviewing. The landlord apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to apologise for the continued delay in starting repair work. The landlord confirmed that due to its procurement process it had to obtain a further 2 quotes for the repair work which caused a delay.
The landlord added lighting to the alley way alongside the resident’s property on 23 August 2021.
On 26 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to obtain an update on the repair work. The resident said her bathroom was deteriorating and the shower had stopped working. The resident said she had been cleaning up sharp pieces of plaster which were on the toilet floor. She went on to say that this had been impacting on her mental health and she was washing her disabled child using a bucket.
The landlord responded the same day and apologised that she had not received an update. The landlord confirmed it was in the process of obtaining 2 further quotes and until received, the work could not progress.
On 2 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to say she was going to raise another complaint regarding the bathroom and the OT requested work. The resident said the OT requested the work on 17 March 2021 and it was not acceptable that this had not been carried out. The landlord responded the same day to say it was in the process of obtaining quotes for the work. The landlord reiterated that it was unable to progress work until 2 quotes had been received.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord emailed its contractor to urgently progress the repair work.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 22 September 2021 to confirm the work required. This included the fan in the kitchen needed repair, flooring needed welding, and replacement doors were required for the utility and living rooms. The landlord confirmed it had fitted a new bath, added light to the alley way next to the house, and had re-tiled the toilet and bathroom.
The landlord said based on the view of its contractors, plastering and redecoration of the whole property was not required. The landlord agreed that the bedroom doors needed to be planed at the bottom, so the doors closed without getting stuck on the carpets. The landlord confirmed that in the bathroom it had replaced the floor, painted the ceiling, fixed the skirting boards, and repaired the door frame. It also plastered the walls in the toilet and repaired the toilet floor. It had completed all OT requirements which included fitting the correct size bath.
On 30 September 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed the repair work that was outstanding. This included work in the kitchen, living room, hallway, bedrooms, and utility room. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on the same day and agreed to consider her repair list. The landlord also confirmed that outstanding repair work had been arranged.
On 6 October 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property and completed a further survey. The survey noted that some repairs remained outstanding. The landlord confirmed it had arranged the fan repair, kitchen floor welding and repairs to the doors to the utility room and the living room. The landlord confirmed it had inspected the ceilings downstairs and it found no evidence of asbestos. Therefore, all downstair walls did not need replastering or repainting. The landlord confirmed that the bedroom doors were attached so no work was required. It stated that the UPVC front door frame had a trim fitted, but it needed to add a silicone trim to make it look neater. The landlord said it would organise any outstanding repairs, this included adding stain block to patches of walls.
The resident responded the same day to say she disagreed with the survey and was happy to send in photographs that showed repair work remained outstanding. The resident said the photographs showed that the flooring did need replacing and the wall on the stairs was cracked. Also, the light fitting needed to be replaced as it was hanging by two wires. The resident went on to say the upstairs had large cracks between the walls and the ceiling which had been confirmed as asbestos. Additionally, the window frame in the third bedroom was not connected to the wall.
On 11 October 2021, the landlord filled in the cracks to the walls and it agreed to plaster the walls on 6 December 2021.
On 20 October 2021, the landlord fixed a repair to the kitchen floor as it had previously been laid too close together.
The landlord completed carpentry work on 30 November 2021. This included that the landlord:
1. installed a new living room door
2. applied ply flush to the resident’s front door
3. added a doorknob to the toilet door
4. adjusted the bi-fold doors to the bathroom and toilet
5. fixed the door frame in the first bedroom.
On 6 December 2021, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out repair work. This included the landlord:
1. completed patch repairs with stain block on the hallway ceiling downstairs
2. repaired the small crack in the hallway ceiling upstairs and patched repaired
3. repaired upstairs cupboards from leak damage
4. repaired a 100mm hole behind the bedroom door.
On 17 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about outstanding repairs. The landlord agreed to arrange an inspection of the property.
On 1 February 2022, the landlord visited the property to establish what repair work remained outstanding. The landlord found:
1. grab rails needed to be installed in the bathroom
2. the front door needed repairing to make it more secure
3. replacement door required for utility room.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 February 2022. The landlord said:
1. following the landlord’s visit, initial works were revised from the information initially provided by an external contractor
2. it had completed the initial works following the resident’s initial complaint
3. further repairs reported by the resident had been raised and programmed in. This included replacement doors to the utility room and living room
4. it apologised for the time taken to complete the work and the outstanding repairs.

Post complaint

In correspondence with this Service the resident reported that some repairs remained outstanding. The landlord confirmed it added a grab rail to the resident’s toilet on 22 August 2022 following its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute resolution principles are to:
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.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property following a leak

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on a landlord to maintain the structure and exterior of a property. In accordance with this obligation the landlord was required to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak into the property and to put right any issues it identified which were its responsibility.
It is understandable this remains a concern to the resident, particularly as the resident advised this has greatly impacted on her and her family. This Service recognises the distress caused to the resident by the issue.
The evidence provided to this Service shows the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in December 2019 to fix a loose floorboard. Whilst the contractor was repairing a floorboard a nail was drilled through a heating pipe causing a leak. The records show that this subsequently caused the gas boiler to stop working, leaving the resident with no heating or hot water.
The resident reported that the leak caused damage to the walls in the property causing cracks in the upstairs hallway wall and downstairs walls. Additionally, that the leak caused damage to the stairs and landing carpets and caused the door frames to come away from the walls. This then led to the banister coming away from the wall and a window frame in one of the bedrooms coming away.
The repair records provided to this Service do not contain sufficient information on how the landlord initially resolved the leak or the type of leak. The limited information available to this Service shows the landlord attended the property out of hours the same day of the leak. At this time, the landlord checked the electrics were safe and supplied heaters as the resident had no access to heating. The evidence confirms the landlord reinstated the water the following day. Due to the lack of available records this Service has been unable to determine whether the leak was unseen or the whether the leak was significant.
The records show it took the landlord 8 months to complete a structural survey of the damage to the property following the leak. This Service notes that it was reasonable for the landlord to allow a period of time after a significant leak to allow the property to dry out. This would not have prohibited an inspection to take place earlier. This Service would have expected the landlord to be more proactive in completing an earlier survey. Had it done so, the landlord would have understood the condition of the property and the impact of the leak sooner.
The survey that took place on 27 August 2020 identified the leak had caused damage to the walls both upstairs and downstairs in the property. Further to this, the leak had caused damage to the tiles in the bathroom which had come away.
From the evidence provided to this Service, the landlord raised a number of repairs over 2 years following a leak in the resident’s property. The records show that the landlord replaced the damaged flooring/carpet on the landing on 4 February 2021. Also, the landlord replaced the damaged carpets in the living room in June 2021. Further to this, the landlord completed repair work to the damaged walls both upstairs and downstairs on 11 October 2021.
The landlord took over one year and 2 months to start repairs in the property. This Service has not seen any evidence that the leak remained unresolved or that any significant period of time was required to allow the property to dry out. This is not reasonable and this Service has not seen any reasons as to why the repairs were delayed. This is not in line with the landlord’s obligations to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days. This is not reasonable and suggests that the landlord was not taking the repairs seriously. As such, this only sought to exacerbate the resident’s time and trouble chasing the landlord for updates and for action.
This Service would expect the landlord to have demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns and survey reports in August 2020 seriously. Particularly given the resident and her children are vulnerable and the resident had been clear throughout her communication with the landlord that the damage caused to the property was impacting her children’s physical health conditions. This Service has not found any evidence that the landlord assessed any form of risk that the outstanding repairs were having on the resident or her family. Further to this, the landlord did not have any consideration for any reasonable adjustments it could make to support the family regarding the work. In doing so, the landlord failed to have due regard for its responsibilities under the Equality Act 2010.
This Service notes that the resident also requested repairs to the banister and the window frame in the third bedroom in her initial complaint to the landlord. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show it raised a repair of the banister. This is also not in accordance with its own repair policy to keep in touch with residents and update residents on the progress of repairs.
In correspondence with this Service, the landlord confirmed it had completed repair work to re-tile the bathroom. However, there is no evidence of this on the repair records as to when this may have taken place. Therefore, this Service cannot draw conclusions on the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom walls or banister. The landlord’s standard of record keeping is unsatisfactory.
The landlord completed a further survey of the property on 6 October 2021. The landlord did not identify that the third bedroom window needed any repairs. The survey did not identify that all rooms needed to be replastered or decorated. The landlord said the majority of repairs requested by the resident were not caused by the leak. With this in mind, it was reasonable for the landlord to only carry out repairs it was obligated to in its repair policy.
Although the landlord acknowledged its repair delays on 6 and 20 August 2021, it would have been good practice for the landlord to acknowledge and apologise for its delays earlier in the process. This Service would also expect the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations and outline clear timeframes of when repairs would be completed. Additionally, this Service would also expect the landlord to provide reassurance that it was listening to the resident and being proactive. As this was not the case, this left the resident having to contact the landlord for an update causing the resident unnecessary time and trouble.
In conclusion, the landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident regarding progress of repairs to the property following a leak in December 2019. Additionally, the landlord was not proactive in completing repairs and this left the resident waiting too long for repairs to take place. Therefore, the landlord failed in its service delivery and failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This is maladministration.
The landlord apologised for the delay in completing repairs in its stage 2 complaint response. However, it did not provide a clear explanation in its response as to the reason for the delay. Further, it did not provide clear timescales for outstanding repair work.
The apology provided by the landlord is not sufficient to put things right. Therefore, this Service has made orders to remedy the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble the resident has put into having repairs resolved.

The landlord’s handling of a request for adaptations

The Equality Act 2010 states that landlord’s have a duty to make reasonable adjustments for resident’s 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 give due regard to whether the adaptations were reasonable and proportionate.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that an OT made recommendations to the landlord on 17 March 2021. The recommendations indicate that the landlord was required to make minor adaptations to the property to support the resident and her children. However, there is no evidence of the landlord formally assessing if the adaptations were ‘urgent’ or ‘non- urgent’ as per its adaptation policy. Had the landlord reviewed the recommendations in line with its policy it would have been clear with the resident what timescales it was working towards. This indicates a failure by the landlord to follow its own policy.
The records show the landlord completed adaptation works to the bath on 17 June 2021. This included moving the bath so the resident could add bathing aids. The landlord also added grabrails to the garden on 4 May 2021. Records show that the landlord also added lighting to the alley way on 23 August 2021. Taking this into account, the landlord met its 6-month timescale stated in its policy for completing non-urgent minor adaptions.
This Service has found the landlord did not replace the grab rail in the bathroom until after issuing its stage 2 complaint response. This was not reasonable as a grab rail in the bathroom would play an important role in allowing the resident and her daughter to use the bathroom more safely. As such, the landlord did not meet its aid and adaptation policy obligations.
The failure of the landlord to take any steps to progress the works from the end of March 2021 to August 2022, when it completed the adaptation for the grab rail, indicates it did not treat the adaptation works with sufficient urgency. The landlord’s lack of contact with the resident is also indicative of poor communication. This left the resident having to contact the landlord for an update.
The landlord was aware that both the resident and 2 of her children have disabilities. As such, the landlord was aware that the resident’s daughter needed grab rails to safely access the bathroom. Despite this, there is 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 is evidence of 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 5 August 2020. Just over 2 months later, the landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 16 October 2020. This Service notes that the landlord’s stage one complaint response was based on a verbal response. This is not in line with the Code, which states to provide a written response at each complaint stage. This Service also notes that the landlord did not provide updates to the resident during this time or provide any reason for the delays. The Code requires a landlord to keep its residents regularly updated regarding progress. The landlord failed to do so. In all the circumstances, this Service finds that the landlord’s delay in provision of its stage one response was unreasonable and contrary to its own policy and the Code.
Over 10 months later on 11 June 2021, the resident requested that the landlord progress its complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. 10 days later the landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to progress to stage 2. 8 months later the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 15 February 2022. This Service has found that the landlord did not provide any updates during this time or provide a reason for the delay in providing its stage 2 response. There was a significant delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response and this is unreasonable. Additionally, its stage 2 complaint response did not clearly state that it was its final response. Further, it did not provide a detailed explanation of the decisions at this stage or acknowledge its complaint failings. This is not in line with its own policy and that of the Code to detail any remedy offered to put things right.
There is a clear failure in the landlord not providing its stage one and stage 2 complaint response in a timely way. Further, the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s request to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord provided any explanation for the delays.
The landlord’s significant delays in providing its stage one response adversely affected the resident and caused her unnecessary time and trouble requesting a response. The failure to provide a written response, as well as the delay led to a missed opportunity for the landlord to identify, address and learn from the failings identified above.
The landlord also failed to identify its complaint handling failings. At both complaint stages the landlord did not acknowledge its delays nor did it apologise. The landlord did not offer any redress for the time and trouble or distress and inconvenience caused to the resident being left in the complaint process for too long. This is not in line with the Code. If something goes wrong a landlord should acknowledge this and put things right by way of remedy. In addition, the Code is clear that landlords should apologise for any failings identified and provide an appropriate remedy to reflect the extent of its service failings. This includes but is not limited to providing an apology and where appropriate financial remedy.
The significant delay and the landlord’s lack of effective communication is maladministration. This Service orders that the landlord pay the resident compensation to adequately reflect the avoidable inconvenience arising from its complaints handling failings and apologise to the resident for those it previously did not acknowledge.

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 maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were significant delays in the landlord completing repairs to the property following a leak in the property in December 2019. The landlord failed to provide regular updates and did not keep accurate repair records. The landlord did not complete repairs in accordance with its own repair policy.
The landlord failed to appropriately communicate with the resident regarding adaptations. The landlord did not offer any support to the resident when it delayed fitting adaptations. Additionally, it did not add grab rails to the bathroom within its agreed timescales which further inconvenienced the resident and her family.
There was a delay in the landlord providing its stage one complaint response and the landlord failed to provide a written complaint response at this stage. This is not in line with the Code. There was also a significant delay in the landlord issuing its stage 2 complaint responses. This was not reasonable and not in line with what this Service would expect. Further it is not in line with the landlord’s own complaint policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of the report the landlord will:
1. Apologise to the resident for failings identified in this report.
2. Contact the resident and ensure that any ongoing issues are identified. If any further repairs are required, the landlord should agree an action plan and dates for completion.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £1,500 which is comprised of the following:
  1. £600 for distress and inconvenience caused by delays to repairs to the property and completion of adaptations.
  2. £600 for time and trouble in chasing the landlord on repairs and adaptations.
  3. £300 to reflect its failings in the handling of the resident’s associated complaint.
4. Review its record keeping processes and provide an action plan to advise how it will improve the recording of repairs between its customer relationship management system (CRM) and repairs management system.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord take the following action:
1. The landlord should take steps to ensure its staff have up to date training on Equality Act duties and applying reasonable adjustments.
2. 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 surrounding its general record keeping.
3. Review its complaints policy to bring it in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code with emphasis on providing written responses at each stage of its complaint process.