Stonewater Limited (202116666)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116666

Stonewater Limited

14 September 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 a leak at the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, a housing association.
The property is a bedsit on the lower ground floor.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities noted on its records. The resident has advised this service that he suffers from depression and anxiety.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes. The landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The resident’s tenancy agreement (3.1) sets out that the landlord is responsible for keeping the walls, floors and ceilings in reasonable repair and working order.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it aims to:
1. Deliver all non-emergency repairs, defined as those that do not pose a threat to the safety of residents, their homes or their communities, within a maximum period of 28 days from receiving notification.
2. Ensure that its customer promise, “we’re proud to make things personal. If it matters to our customers, it matters to us” is embedded across its repairs service and that all of its colleagues and supply chain partners reflect its customer promise whenever delivering a service to its customers.
Its complaints, compliments and comments policy (complaints policy) says it will accept complaints in any way that they are reported. A standard form is made available through its website for completion by residents should they choose to use it.
The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 2 working days, providing a full response within 10 working days. It aims to respond to stage 2 complaints within 10 working days of the request being received.
Its compensation policy sets out that discretionary payments can be made in line with its policy. It says that the terms of its tenancy agreements require customers to access to their homes for repairs which may result in having to take time off work. Therefore, it will not compensate for loss of earnings.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance sets out that the Ombudsman would not generally propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a complainant for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment while repairs are carried out. However, there may be circumstances when it is appropriate to make an order that a landlord pays compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out good practice that member landlords should follow in order to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. Section 6 sets out expectations around landlords ‘putting things right’. This states “where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Section 7 relates to continuous learning and improvement and says “a positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents.”

Summary of events

It is noted that the resident has stated that he considers that the issues raised in his complaint caused a deterioration in his mental health. However, it is beyond the expertise of this service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the leak and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
On 18 May 2021 the resident reported a leak which was reportedly coming from the property above. It caused plaster to come away from the ceiling and wall in the hallway. It is unclear as to how the landlord responded; however it is noted that the resident expected a surveyor to attend the property on 26 May 2021. In anticipation of the appointment, the resident booked time off of work in order to be available. However, he received a voicemail the day before to say that the surveyor would not be attending “due to unforeseen circumstances.” The resident reported this was a financial loss to him of approximately £65.
The voicemail added that an all-day appointment had been booked in for 8 June 2021. The resident again booked time off work to facilitate the appointment, but this was also cancelled which the resident says resulted in a further financial loss of approximately £130.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint via the landlord’s website on 18 June 2021. He also contacted the landlord on 24 June 2021 to follow up on the leak. In response, the landlord advised that the work had been allocated to its contractor who had left a voicemail for the resident to cancel its last appointment. It advised the resident that the contractor would contact him within the “next couple of weeks” to arrange a new appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2021 to chase up its response to his first complaint. He had received an auto response which said it would contact him within 10 working days, and this had not happened. The landlord apologised for the delay which it said was due to a back log. The next day, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it had been unable to locate his complaint on its system. It apologised and asked him to resend his complaint. It said it was usually notified if the website was down, so it was unsure what had gone wrong.
The resident sent a copy of his complaint to the landlord on 13 July 2021 to set out his dissatisfaction in relation to the two failed appointments on 26 May and 8 June. He was also dissatisfied about the telephone call he had with the landlord about the ongoing works. He reported that he felt the call handler was “very unprofessional” and had an “uninterested manner.” He also raised the landlord’s failure to respond to his formal complaint. He requested that:
1. The hallway be repaired so he could paint it.
2. The landlord offer compensation for the financial loss he had sustained.
3. The landlord apologise for its “incompetent and inadequate” handling of the repair and associated complaint.
The resident also contacted his MP on 13 July 2021 to ask for her assistance in resolving his complaint about the leak.
The landlord’s internal communication, dated 19 July 2021, set out the following:
1. A works order was raised on 18 May 2021 with an initial appointment booked for 25 May. The contractor was not able to attend because it was diverted to attend to emergencies. A new appointment was made for 8 June. The landlord could not get through to the resident, so it left a voicemail to provide the update.
2. Due to sickness the contractor was also unable to attend on the new date. It had tried to contact the resident the day before to notify him but was unable to make contact. A further voicemail message was left to advise of the cancellation.
3. The works were allocated to a sub-contractor. Having been chased by the landlord, it attended the property on 6 July to survey the works. The contractor had not provided it with a quote for works, and it said it was chasing this information.
4. It said that the ceiling contained asbestos. It had contacted a contractor to provide a quote and confirm dated for attendance. It said that following the asbestos removal date being confirmed, it would be able to provide a date for the plastering works.
5. Since the contractor’s initial attendance there had been a delay due to the order being sat at “follow on variation order” which had not been picked up. The works did not require a variation as they were under the cost threshold.
Internal records dated 20 July 2021 showed that the earliest a plasterer could attend was 29 July. It confirmed that the asbestos contractor was able to attend on 28 July. The resident confirmed his availability to the landlord on 21 July.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2021, when it:
1. Apologised for the “poor level of service” in relation to the plaster repair to the ceiling.
2. Confirmed that its contractor cancelled several appointments due ill health. It had left voicemails for the resident to advise him accordingly. It apologised for the inconvenience this caused. It confirmed the works had been allocated to a sub-contractor.
3. Apologised for the “flippant attitude” the resident experienced over the phone. It said the matter was being addressed directly with the call agent.
4. Said it had identified an internal process which had caused further delays, specifically in relation to communication between the contractor and sub-contractor. It said weekly meetings were in place to prevent further delays in relation to approval of works.
5. Confirmed that the repair to the ceiling had been provisionally booked for the 28 July and 29 July.
6. Apologised for the delays in completing the works and the inconvenience this had caused. It offered compensation of £200 to cover:
  1. £130 for the financial loss endured as a result of the delays in appointments.
  2. £35 for the poor level of service received by its call handler.
  3. £35 for the poor level of communication received from the landlord and its contractor.
The resident replied on the same day to accept the offer of compensation, confirming that it covered is financial loss. He also clarified that he did receive the voicemails left by the contractor but that they were too short notice for him to cancel the time he had booked off to be provide access.
The resident said that having contacted his local MP, the plastering was carried out 29 July 2021. The resident was told that the plaster had to dry for a few weeks before it could be painted.
The landlord’s internal email of 2 August 2021 confirmed that the works were complete. The landlord considered whether it would be reasonable to agree to redecorate the new plaster as part of its complaint resolution. It subsequently raised a works order on 11 August 2021, to paint one wall in the hallway.
The landlord contacted the resident on 12 August 2021 to advise that redecoration would take place on 31 August. Having booked a further day off, the resident received a call from the contractor that morning to advise that it would not be attending. The resident reported a financial loss of £130.
The landlord’s repair logs dated 2 September 2022 evidence that it intended to investigate a possible leak from the shower of a property above.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 September 2021. It apologised for the time it had taken to reply to his request and for the contractor “letting him down.” It offered the resident a £50 decoration voucher and £130 for the inconvenience of another cancelled appointment.
On 16 September 2021 the contractor attended to redecorate however, he found that:
1. The leak in the flat above had not been repaired.
2. The wall and ceiling in the hallway were still wet and could not be painted.
3. It was likely that the plastering would need to be redone.
The repair log shows that on 16 September 2021 the landlord raised a works order to investigate and rectify a leak coming into the resident’s property.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 17 September 2021. He repeated the content of his stage 1 complaint, adding the events that had taken place since, including the missed appointment on 31 August. He requested that:
1. The landlord issue him with a decorating voucher to do the painting himself.
2. The leak in the property above be repaired.
3. The wall in the hallway be replastered if necessary and redecorated.
4. The landlord offer compensation for time, trouble and inconvenience.
5. The landlord apologised.
The landlord’s records show that it opened up a new complaint as the previous one had been closed. However, it was escalated to stage 2 of the complaints process because it was about the same issue.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint on 7 October 2021, as follows:
1. It apologised for the frustration caused by the length of time it had taken to complete the repairs to the ceiling, saying it had taken “far too long.”
2. It acknowledged that the resident had experienced a series of delays and “no show” appointments by the contractor culminating in the cancellation of the appointment scheduled for 31 August.
3. It acknowledged that in addition to the delay in repairing the ceiling, the resident had experienced financial loss due to missing work. It acknowledged the detriment caused by associated stress and worry.
4. It said it had investigated each instance thoroughly to understand what had gone wrong and how it could learn from it.
5. It said its contractor had not been able to confirm why it called the resident on the morning of 31 August to cancel the appointment, adding that all its operatives were available. It said this would be reviewed further as part of its contract management process.
6. It apologised that appointments were missed due to ill health and that it could not reach the resident so left a voicemail for him. It said it had identified a communication issue between the contractor and its sub-contractor which had exacerbated the problem. It noted that the contractor had been in touch with the resident to apologise directly.
7. Regarding the attendance on 16 September, it said that the operative was concerned that the leak from the property above had reoccurred. This transpired not to be the case, and a further inspection on 21 September, revealed the plaster was dark in places simply because it was thicker and on a cold surface. It apologised for the delay, but it wanted to a rule out a further leak. It said the final work would be completed on 7 October as agreed with the resident.
8. It apologised that the resident did not feel listened to by its team and confirmed it had picked this up directly with the call handler. It also said it was in the process of implementing training with its front-line staff on the importance of embedding its customer promise into its engagement with customers.
9. It offered the resident £435 compensation, broken down as follows:
  1. £325 for the financial loss the resident had experienced.
  2. £35 for the poor level of service received by the call handler.
  3. £75 for the poor level of service he had received from the landlord and its contractor.
The resident accepted the landlord’s offer and called it on 15 October 2021 to chase payment. The landlord’s records show the payment was processed on 18 October.
On 16 November 2021 the resident contacted this service to request that we investigate his complaint. He said that:
1. Despite making appointment to access his property on 7 different occasions, 5 resulting in a nonattendance, the landlord had failed to resolve the leak.
2. He taken time off work, which resulted in him being issued with a written warning as well as incurring financial losses.
3. The wall had been re-plastered but never decorated as promised.
4. The leak which caused the wet wall was not resolved.
5. He wanted the wall to be repaired and decorated.
6. He wanted compensation to be paid for:
  1. The problems caused with his employer which put his job at risk.
  2. The detriment caused to his mental health, he suffered from severe depression and anxiety. He had taken time off work and was referred to occupational health because of this.
  3. Loss of earnings partially compensated for already.
  4. A written apology from the landlord and its contractor.
  5. A guarantee it would not use that contractor again.
The resident contacted this service again on 3 February 2022 to say that the leak remained unresolved despite numerous appointments. He was dissatisfied about the amount of compensation offered by the landlord due to the loss of earnings, problems it had caused him at work and the impact on his mental health. Following contact from the resident, this service asked the landlord and resident to consider mediation.
The landlord’s internal records, dated 10 February 2022, noted that:
1. It could arrange for its contractor to investigate a further leak.
2. Once the leak was resolved the contractor would complete any redecoration works.
3. The contractor would visit the property above the resident to investigate any potential leak.
4. It would post inspect the works.
5. It could not provide another contractor due to the location of the property, as it did not have another contractor working in that area.
It communicated the information above to this service on the same date.
We communicated the landlord’s response to the resident on 10 February 2022 as above, adding that it also believed its offer of compensation was reasonable. The resident responded the following day to say that he did not wish to accept the landlord’s proposal and asked for his case to be moved to formal investigation.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord raised a works order to investigate and rectify the leak coming into the resident’s hallway. Its internal records show that it contacted the resident on the same day to discuss the ongoing leak and historic repairs. It subsequently asked its contractor to attend as soon as possible. When it spoke to the resident on 24 February he said the contractor had not contacted him and it said it would chase them up.
The resident contacted this service on 4 March 2022 to say that:
1. Due to the leak his carpet has now been damaged which he had reported to the landlord on 21 February 2022.
2. A surveyor inspected the property above on 4 March 2022 and identified the probable cause of the leak.
The landlord’ continued to investigate the resident’s reports of a leak during June and July 2022. On 7 July the landlord concluded that marks on the ceiling were a result of a previous leak from the property above which had now been fixed. Therefore, a works order was raised for redecoration only.
The resident contacted this service on 14 September 2022 to report that the leak was ongoing and he had reported the disrepair to the council that day. An entry on the landlord’s repair logs dated the same day refers to a video it had seen which showed water running down “very fast.” It described the hallway walls and ceiling as “drenched” and raised an order for a multi trader to inspect.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 September 2022 to advise that due to “inaction” by the landlord he had to escalate his complaint with this service and environmental health. He had thought that the leak originated from the property above but had recently found out that the property was in fact empty. He now believed that it occurred when another upstairs neighbour used the taps in their bathroom. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had not considered this.
The landlord opened a second stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2022. It said it aimed to reply by 12 October. It wrote a further letter to the resident on 14 October to say that it required an extension and would reply by 26 October.
The landlord issued its second stage 1 complaint response on 27 October 2022, as follows:
1. It apologised for the ongoing leak, and for the “frustration and distress” this had caused.
2. It said that as part of its learning, its contractor had reviewed its processes with a particular focus for the planning team to address situations such as this.
3. It acknowledged that the process has taken far longer than expected and apologised. It had expected its contractor to flag that the cause of the problem was ongoing and that timescales were not being adhered to.
4. It said as a second part of its learning it was working with its contractor to create an agreed flag, so that it was informed as soon as possible to significant delays and issues relating to a repair.
5. It said it was confident it had now sourced the location of the leak and that it has addressed the long-term leak.
6. It confirmed outstanding plastering works had been arranged to take place on 2 November.
7. It confirmed that it took too long to raise this new complaint because it should have raised a stage 1 complaint when it received the resident’s email of 11 July.
8. As a third part of its learning, it had sought advice from this service on how to respond to a complaint which is already under investigation. It had responded accordingly and had a dedicated team member who oversaw complaints made to this service.
9. It concluded that its service “fell below its service standards at times.” It said its communication “should have been clearer and regular” and that it could have provided more support.
10. It offered further compensation of £750:
  1. £250 for our complaint handling.
  2. £350 for the delays in our repairs service.
  3. £150 for our communication.
11. It offered to reimburse the cost of the resident’s damaged carpet.
The resident replied to the landlord on 1 November 2022 to say that the leak had not been resolved. He was dissatisfied with its response because it had not captured the detriment caused to his mental health. He said it had caused depression which was due in part to him having to resign from his job. He could not understand why the surveyors that had attended his home had not ensured the works were followed up. He requested that the landlord:
1. Move him to a property in a different location and cover the removal costs.
2. Pay him £5000 compensation for the detriment caused.
3. Compensate him for the damage to his carpet.
He asked that the landlord escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the process if it was not able to comply with his requests.
The landlord issued its second stage 2 complaint response on 18 November 2022, as follows:
1. It apologised for inaccuracies in its stage 1 complaint response. Its contractor had informed the landlord that it been to the property to complete a repair that would fully resolve the leak. It was aware that there were numerous visits and that although repairs were carried out, they were not at the source of the leak causing damage in your property.
2. It said it was working with the contractor to ensure it sent more experienced operatives to address complex repairs that had already had multiple visits and not yet been able to resolve successfully.
3. It apologised for the multiple visits that had failed to successfully repair the leak which had an adverse impact on the resident. It said that with leaks of that nature it needed to undertake a “trial-and-error approach” to locate the root cause which could take time.
4. It said it needed to improve its approach to capturing re-occurring and multiple repairs requests at blocks, to see if there was a wider issue rather than focussing on a single repair or repeat visits while the issue was still a problem.
5. The original surveyor that had visited the property was no longer employed by the landlord and therefore a follow up visit was not planned as it should have been. It apologised for this error.
6. It said it was having weekly meetings with the contractor to identify situations and missed opportunities to make sure it did not happen again.
7. On 14 November the contractor had begun the process of ‘attending site’ with a range of operatives to complete a thorough investigation into root cause of the leak.
8. It originally thought that the leak started from a tank on the second floor, however, it had pinpointed the issue, and made temporary repairs to the leak at the root cause. This was to prevent any further damage until it organised a total repair.
9. It said that once it had received confirmation that the repair was complete, it would be in touch to organise repairs to the damage caused and the mould. It repeated its offer to replace the affected carpets once the repairs were carried out.
10. It said it was happy to enter into discussions about the resident’s request to be moved and went on to outline his options. It asked the resident to confirm his preferred option so it could be progressed.
11. It reiterated its apology and information provided about the delay in raising the stage 1 complaint.
12. It made a revised offer of compensation of £1350:
  1. £250 for itscomplaint handling.
  2. £500 for the delays in its repairs service.
  3. £150 for its communication.
  4. £200 for failure to meet commitments.
  5. £300 for distress the experience has caused.
13. It apologised for the inconvenience caused which it said it fully recognised as being “unacceptable.” It said it hoped that its new approach to embedding new processes would capture and prevent the same mistakes being made again in the future.
The landlord’s repair logs show that the leak was ongoing between November 2022 and March 2023. It concluded that there could be a leak to the pipes in the property above when the resident used their basin. The landlord intended to investigate any faulty pipework.
On 16 February 2023 the resident emailed this service to say that the hallway had still not been repaired and the landlord had informed him the ceiling contained asbestos. Due to the long-term issues with the condition of the hallway the resident was concerned he had been in contact with asbestos. The resident also called the landlord to make a complaint about being exposed to asbestos.
The landlord issued its third stage 1 complaint response on 14 March 2023, as follows:
1. It confirmed that its contractor attended on the property on 6 March and removed the damaged area in the ceiling which contained asbestos.
2. Its contractor was due to attend on the 24 March to investigate the cause of the leak and repair. Following this visit a contractor would then attend to reinstate the ceiling.
3. It apologised for the delays in repairing the leak. It also apologised for the lack of communication and missed appointments.
4. It apologised for any issues the resident had experienced with the specialist contractor involved in the removal of asbestos. It said it would discuss the situation directly with the contractor as a way of finding solutions and making sure the same mistakes were not repeated in future.
5. In recognition of the ongoing inconvenience caused to the resident the landlord offered compensation of £450:
  1. £150 for the delay to the repair.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience he had experienced.
  3. £150 for poor communication.
The landlord’s repair logs dated 8 March 2023 show that, following inspection, the wet room in a flat above was no longer leaking and had been repaired 7 months prior.
The resident emailed the landlord on 24 March 2023 to report that the contractors who were on site that day were unable to replaster the hallway and communal hallway because they were too wet. In response, the landlord opened a third stage 2 complaint.
The landlord issued its third stage 2 complaint response on 12 April 2023, as follows:
1. It had identified the root cause of the leak, found to be the flooring area in the property above.
2. It said its contractor attended site on 16 January 2023 to check the flooring works which took place in the property above on 9 and 10 January 2023 had been effective.
3. On 23 January 2023 the contractor arranged a follow up check on the pipe work above, following reports that the leak was still occurring after the 10 January 2023.
4. During visits on 16 and 23 January 2023 the communal area walls and walls inside the resident’s property appeared dry. Unfortunately, due to the ongoing diagnosis and investigation of the leak, it had not been able to complete the final works by 31 January as originally estimated. It apologised for the ongoing inconvenience this delay caused.
5. A specialist asbestos removal company attended the property on the 6 March 2023, and removed the damaged ceiling in preparation for the ceiling reinstatement. An appointment had been made to ‘make good’ the inside of the property on 11 April 2023.
6. On 8 March 2023 the contractor attended again to try and identify the source of the leak which was now only affecting the communal wall area. It attended again on the 24 March 2023 to prepare the walls of the hallway and the wall in the flat for plaster. Unfortunately, the outside wall in the hallway was soaking wet and required a dehumidifier to dry out.
7. The contractor made arrangements to return to finish off skimming the ceiling and wall, but needed to wait for the outside hallway wall to dry out before any further work could commence.
8. Works had been carried out to the flooring to stop the water ingress into the property, and the ceiling repairs had commenced.
9. It understood that the water ingress was now coming from a pipe that was encased in the concrete floor and was working to isolate its location with minimal damage and disruption. A plumbing and construction specialist had been instructed to complete this work. It would provide an update on the work following a visit on 11 April 2023.
10. It would contact the resident on 14 April 2023 to progress his request for a management move. It said it aimed to provide an outcome on this request by the 24 April 2023.
11. It offered further compensation of £500:
  1. £200 for the delay to the repair.
  2. £150 for the inconvenience.
  3. £150 for the poor communication.

Events post internal complaints procedure

The resident emailed this service on 1 August 2023 to say that the landlord had offered him a move to alternative accommodation. He said he had accepted the offer “out of desperation to get out of the wet and asbestos ridden flat.” He was dissatisfied with the property he had been offered. He remained dissatisfied about the amount of financial compensation he had been offered by the landlord for the “mess” he had been living in for the past 3 years, which had been “very detrimental to his mental and physical health.”

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s response to the leak

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep the property in a good state of repair and to complete repairs in a reasonable time. The resident first reported the leak on 18 May 2021. Despite numerous visits by various contractors the leak was still ongoing in March 2023, 22 months later, which was unreasonable.
It is accepted that leaks in blocks can be difficult to trace, and it was not unreasonable of the landlord to adopt a ‘trial and error’ approach. However, it did not comply with its repair response times as set out in its policy. In addition, it was inappropriate of the landlord to delay unreasonably in considering alternatives when previous repairs had not resolved the problem. The protracted process had a significant detrimental impact on the resident in terms of his financial situation, mental health, frustration, time and trouble and inconvenience.
On 18 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the delay was due, in part, to inexperienced operatives being assigned to jobs. This was because they lacked the necessary skillset to be able to investigate and resolve the leak. While it was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this, it is unclear how this occurred. The landlord is responsible for ensuring it employs qualified operatives who can fulfil its repair obligations. It would be appropriate to have measures in place to monitor performance and use the feedback to ensure it provides an effective repairs service to its residents.
It was around this same time that the landlord committed resources to assigning multiple, experienced and specialist contractors to trace and fix the leak. However, this critical step was unreasonably delayed until 18 months after the leak was first reported. Furthermore, the leak continued after this step took place with a further visit by another specialist contractor arranged for 11 April 2023.
The landlord identified communication issues between its contractor and sub-contractor. Its first stage1 complaint response it said that weekly meetings were in placeto prevent further delays in relation to approval of works. This was put in place to address poor communication between the contractor and sub-contractor which, it said in its stage 2 complaint response, had also led to some missed appointments. It is unclear why the issues persisted given the action that the landlord had taken. Given that they did, it would have been reasonable of the landlord to reassess its approach.
In its second stage 1 complaint response, dated 27 October 2022, the landlord reported that communication issues with its contractor were a barrier to effective resolution. It had relied on the contractor to feedback that the problem was ongoing which it had not done. It said that measures had been implemented to ensure this did not reoccur in the future which was an appropriate response.
It is concerning that in the same response the landlord said that the leak was fully fixed because this transpired to be incorrect. In the second stage 2 complaint response, dated November 2022, the landlord apologised for the inaccuracy, saying it had based this statement on information provided by its contractor. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and apologise. However, the error suggests that the landlord was not fully aware of the situation, and this would have been concerning for the resident. The leak had been ongoing for 18 months by this stage and this was the second time the resident had been through the internal complaints process.
The landlord is responsible for ensuring the property is maintained to an appropriate standard and it follows therefore, it was responsible for monitoring the situation to ensure the matter was resolved. That it did not do so was unacceptable because this caused lengthy delays which created further distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident.
The landlord identified failures in its own communication with the resident throughout the complaint processes. It acknowledged that it failed to keep in contact with the resident to provide him with updates about its attempts to remedy the substantive issue.
Videos seen by this service show that the leak was significant, with water pouring down the wall. As far into the process as 14 September 2022 the landlord noted that water was running down “very fast” leaving the hallway walls and ceiling “drenched.”
The landlord has been open about its failures in resolving the leak. On 7 October 2021 it said “it is not at all unreasonable to have expected this work to be completed promptly and I am so sorry that we have let you down.” Transparency, honesty and apologising are an important part of effective complaint resolution. However, as stated in the Code it is crucial that the process leads to an improvement in service and resolution which did not happen this this case. The resident reports that the ongoing situation took its toll on his mental health, to such an extent that he said it affected his relationship with his employer.
The leak was not fixed, and the landlord admitted multiple shortcomings in its service to the resident. The impact on the resident was significant. He did not know when the situation would be fully resolved, creating uncertainty and distress. He experienced inconvenience by having to chase the landlord, and later this Service, to try to resolve the situation. He was also experienced time and trouble in having to allow access for multiple appointments.
The landlord arranged for the resident to move to alternative accommodation in August 2023. It offered the resident compensation throughout the 3 complaints processes, totalling £2215. It also issued the resident with a £50 decoration voucher. The compensation comprised of:
1. £455 cancelled/missed appointments.
2. £35 poor service from a call handler.
3. £375 poor communication.
4. £700 repair delays.
5. £200 failure to meet commitments.
6. £450 distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that it will not pay compensation for loss of earnings for attending repairs appointments. Similarly, our remedies guidance does not usually expect landlords to compensate residents however, it does say that this may be reasonable were appointments are repeatedly missed or fail to resolve the repair issue. It was therefore, appropriate of the landlord to use its discretion to offer compensation for loss of earnings given the circumstances.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not contain guidelines within the policy as to how much compensation can be offered and in what circumstances. Part 6.4 of the Code states that factors to consider in formulating a remedy can include, but are not limited to, the:
1. Length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. Frequency with which something has occurred.
3. Severity of any service failure or omission.
4. Number of different failures.
5. Cumulative impact on the resident.
6. Resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
The evidence shows that the landlord continually reviewed the level of compensation offered to the resident. This was appropriate. It was also able to provide a detailed breakdown of what compensation it offered, at what stage and why. This demonstrates that it took into account factors listed above, including duration, frequency, the resident’s circumstances and cumulative impact. Therefore, this investigation considers that its formulation of the remedy was reasonable.
The landlord has acknowledged and identified its failings in this case which were significant. However, throughout its complaint process it has taken the following steps to ‘put things right’ by:
1. Offering appropriate levels of compensation as the case evolved.
2. Providing explanations for what happened
3. Offering apologies where it was appropriate to do so.
4. Restoring the resident’s position by moving him to alternative accommodation in the area of his choosing.
Therefore, this investigation considersthat while the landlord’s handling of the situation could reasonably have been improved, it has recognised the impact of the resident and has taken proportionate steps to put things right. As such, an offer of reasonable redress has been made in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

When the resident made his stage 1 complaint, on 18 June 2021, he received an automatically generated acknowledgement response. It was only when he chased the response on 6 July that the landlord realised it did not have a copy of the complaint which appeared not to have pulled through from the website. This does not appear to have been a failing by the landlord but an issue with the system for which the landlord appropriately apologised. The resident subsequently had to go to the time and trouble of resubmitting his complaint almost a month after he had originally done so.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 July 2021, 27 working days after the complaint was made and 17 working days over its response target. This was due in part to the technical error for which the landlord apologised. Furthermore, it advised it had investigated the fault and was taking steps to make sure it did not occur again. Therefore, the landlord responded appropriately to the incident and subsequent delay.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that complaints should be closed after 15 days if there is no further contact from the resident. Therefore, in closing the stage 1 complaint the landlord complied with its policy.The decision to open the complaint at stage 2 was a departure from the landlord’s policy. However, this was not unreasonable given that the complaint related to the same issue and the situation had not changed drastically since the stage 1 response.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued on 7 October 2021, 18 working days after the complaint was made and 8 working days over its response target. The landlord has not provided an explanation and the delay was therefore unreasonable.
The resident made a second stage 1 complaint on 11 July 2022 however, it was not acknowledged by the landlord until 28 September. It said it aimed to issue its response by 12 October. On 14 October it wrote to the resident to extend the target date to 26 October. The email notification was sent after the response was due. This was not an appropriate way to keep the resident updated, becoming an apology for not having done something rather than a proactive notification of upcoming delay.
In its response the landlord confirmed that it took too long to raise this new complaint. This service has not seen a copy of the resident’s email dated 11 July however, the landlord does not dispute that there was a failing on its part. It took 58 working days to raise the complaint which was unreasonable. Although it apologised for the delay it did not provide the resident with an explanation as to why this had occurred which was unreasonable.
In its second stage 1 complaint response it said that it had located the source of the leak and was “confident” the issue had been resolved. The resident disputed this, saying the leak was very much an ongoing issue. Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that throughout the complaints process a landlord “must carefully manage the expectations of residents and not promise anything that cannot be delivered.” The landlord was open and transparent with the resident by acknowledging its failings and the detriment caused to the resident. However, it failed to provide accurate information in its complaint response and failed to remedy the substantive issue.
Section 7 of the Code states that the Ombudsman “encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.” The resident’s dissatisfaction was considered by the landlord 3 times via its complaints procedure. The evidence shows that the landlord identified a number of learnt lessons to enhance the service it offers to residents going forwards. However, it is concerning that this learning did not produce effective outcomes for the resident in this case which was a failure.
The complaint handling failures in this case amount to maladministration. In its second stage 2 complaint response the landlord offered the resident £250 for its complaint handling failure in its second stage 1 complaint response. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took into account the complaint handling failures identified in this report in the first stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. There is also no evidence that the landlord acknowledged and took into account the poor handling of the extension to the complaint response in the second stage 1 complaint. Therefore, an order has been made to pay the resident £150 in addition to the £250 that has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

Under paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in relation to its handling of the leak at the property which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The level of compensation offered to the resident, acknowledged the landlord’s delays, lack of timescales, poor communication and poor service. It also reflected the level of distress, inconvenience, time and trouble and financial loss caused to the resident, by the landlord’s repair failure to the leak. It recognised it failings, and the impact these had on the resident, and took action to put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord made reasonable redress.
The landlord did not adhere to the timescales set out in its complaint policy. It missed opportunities use the internal complaints process as an opportunity to ‘put things right’. It continued to make mistakes as it progressed through the process until ultimately moving the resident to alternative accommodation.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £150 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
2. Apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in the case.
The landlord is to evidence compliance to this service with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord should:
1. Review the failings identified in this report which relate to complaint handling and carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with its complaints policy and sections 6 and 7 of the Code. The date and content of the training should be shared with the Ombudsman, also within 6 weeks.
2. Share details of the training given to the relevant teams to embed its customer promise into its engagement with customers as referred to in the stage 2 complaint response of 7 October 2021. This information should be shared with both this service and the resident. If this action was not taken, the landlord should do this within 6 weeks of the date of this determination.