The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited (202210032)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210032

The Industrial Dwellings Society (1885) Limited

28 March 2024

 

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2007. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident’s daughter who resides in the property brought the complaint to this Service on behalf of the resident. For clarity, this report refers to both the resident and the resident’s representative as ‘the resident’.
  2. On 10 August 2022, the resident complained to the landlord and this Service that she had contacted the landlord several times about the state of the property. She complained that multiple maintenance staff visited the property with the intention to make significant repairs. This correspondence did not detail which repairs were required but the landlord’s repair notes show that it carried out repairs to a leak in the bathroom on 19 August 2022 and 14 September 2022, and routine repairs to the kitchen on 3 October 2022. The landlord’s repair notes show an order to carry out decorations to the bathroom on 3 October 2022.
  3. The bathroom repairs were complete on 28 December 2022. The resident remained unhappy with the repair delay and contacted this Service because the landlord had not replied to her complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 27 February 2023, 27 March 2023, and 11 April 2023 requesting it to provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident.
  4. On 18 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It confirmed that the repairs had been complete but agreed that it did not communicate effectively with the resident through the repair process. It apologised for the repair delay and repeated visits from its contractor and offered £500 for distress caused to the resident.
  5. The resident remained unhappy and on 23 April 2023 she advised that the landlord had not addressed incomplete works which left hazards in the property. She reported that work was incomplete on the bathroom floor, sink, and toilet and that a wire was exposed where the landlord removed a cabinet. She reported that the landlord had left broken wall tiles which caused a hazard. She also reported that a kitchen sink pipe was broken. She advised that the hazards in the property caused injury to members of the household and her mental distress was not considered in the landlord’s complaint response.
  6. On 05 May 2023, the landlord surveyed the property and on 22 May 2023 it provided its stage 2 complaint response. It upheld the complaint. It apologised if walkways had not been kept clear by its contractors. As a resolution to the complaint the landlord advised that it had surveyed the property with a new contractor and provided a scope of works it aimed to complete by the beginning of July 2023. It acknowledged the resident’s reports of hazards in the property but felt that £500 was a reasonable compensation offer.
  7. The resident remained unhappy, and on 23 May 2023 asked this Service to investigate the complaint. She did not feel an apology was an adequate response to her reports of health and safety breaches. She felt that the compensation offer was not appropriate for the landlord’s service failures and negligence. She felt the landlord did not consider the missed appointments in its compensation offer. She advised that they were unable to use 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, and the kitchen because of the landlord. As a resolution, the resident wanted a review of the compensation offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation. 

  1. The resident referred to injuries caused to occupants of the property because of the landlord’s negligence, alleging that the landlord left hazards in the property when completing the repair. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on the resident’s health and wellbeing. The resident should seek legal advice if she wants to pursue a personal injury claim. This Service has considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.

  1. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep in good repair and proper working order internal walls and floorings, and installations including basins, sinks, and toilets.
  2. It is not disputed that there were failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests. The landlord acknowledged these failings, apologised, and offered compensation for distress caused to the resident.
  3. When a landlord has accepted a failing, it is the role of this Service to consider if redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. When assessing this this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The evidence shows that the work in the resident’s bathroom was rescheduled 3 times and took almost 3 months between 3 October 2022 and 28 December 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay and explained that throughout this period it changed contractors, there was confusion over the type of floor it would put down, and a disputed incident where its contractor did not access the property to complete repair.
  5. After the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response the resident complained that the landlord did not complete some of the bathroom works and it was left in a hazardous condition. Based on the evidence, this was the first notification by the resident that she was unhappy with the bathroom repairs. The landlord arranged a survey of the property and agreed to complete further repairs as part of its stage 2 complaint response. These were reasonable steps for the landlord to take when it became aware of outstanding repairs.
  6. This Service recognises that the resident reported that she could not use 1 bedroom, 1 bathroom, and the kitchen because of the landlord’s failures. The evidence shows that the landlord responded to reports of a leak in the bathroom and completed repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. It also responded to a further report of a leak in the kitchen sink. It is reasonable to conclude that the resident did not have access to the bathroom and kitchen during these repairs, however, the evidence shows the repairs were complete within reasonable timescales. The routine repairs to the kitchen were raised on 7 September 2022 and complete on 3 October 2022. The bathroom repairs were complete in 1 day. The landlord cannot reasonably be responsible for loss of these amenities while it was carrying out the repair.
  7. Outside of the repair times there is no evidence that the resident did not have access to these rooms or amenities. There is no evidence that the resident reported to the landlord that she could not make use of these rooms. As such, this Service cannot reasonably find that the landlord is responsible to compensate for the loss of the rooms.
  8. The landlord acknowledged that it had not communicated the bathroom repair delays effectively between 3 October 2022 and 28 December 2022 and offered compensation to the resident for distress caused throughout this period. It also advised it is working more closely with its contractors to improve its repair service.
  9. The landlord acted fairly in acknowledging its mistake and apologising to the resident. It put things right by surveying the property and completing further repairs, committing to improving its repairs service, and offering £500 compensation for the distress caused.
  10. The compensation award was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance. The landlord offered compensation that the Ombudsman considers was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident in relation to the landlord’s failings.
  11. For the reasons set out above, the landlord has made redress to the resident which, in this Service’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily. The measures taken by the landlord to redress what went wrong were proportionate to the impact that its failures had on the resident.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. The landlord will acknowledge and log a complaint within 3 working days. At stage 1, the landlord will investigate and respond to the resident within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. It will review the complaint and contact the resident within 2 working days. After this they will provide a formal written response within 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate the complaint to the Ombudsman.
  2. The landlord defines a complaint as “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by IDS, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents.” This aligns with the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 August 2022 that she was writing to make a formal complaint about repairs to her property. After this correspondence the landlord completed repairs, however, there was no complaint acknowledgement. This represents a service failure.
  4. The resident complained to the landlord 2 further times in December 2022 and this Service contacted the landlord 3 times between 27 February 2023 and 11 April 2023 before it provided a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s complaint handling was inappropriate. It did not adhere to its own complaint policy or the Code. This caused a delay of 8 months since the resident first registered a complaint on 10 August 2022, and the landlord providing a stage 1 complaint response on 18 April 2023.
  5. After it provided its stage 1 complaint response, the resident advised that she was not happy with some of the bathroom works and that it left the bathroom in a hazardous state. It is reasonable to conclude that the landlord’s complaint handling failures allowed its repairs to fail, which caused further detriment to the resident.
  6. This caused inconvenience to the resident and time and trouble in bringing her complaint to this Service. Based on the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that the landlord would not have escalated the resident’s complaint through its procedure without the intervention of this Service. The landlord did not acknowledge this failing in its complaint response which demonstrates a lack of learning.
  7. For the reasons above, this Service finds there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord failed to appropriately identify, acknowledge, and escalate the complaint through its complaint’s procedure. This caused time, trouble, and inconvenience to the resident. Compensation has been ordered in line with the Housing Ombudsman Remedies Guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered with the landlord’s response to the resident’s repair requests.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. It is ordered that the landlord pay compensation of £300 to the resident for time, trouble and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its complaint handling.
  2. It is ordered that the landlord complete a review of this case to identify any learnings that can be made to improve its complaint handling process.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence to this Service that it has complied with the above order within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord provide training to all customer facing staff to ensure that complaints are identified and escalated appropriately through its complaint’s procedure.
  2. If it has not already done so, it is recommended that the landlord pay the resident the compensation of £500 previously offered. The finding of reasonable redress was made on the basis of this offer.