Watford Community Housing Trust (202345521)

Background

1. After the resident moved into the property, several repairs were identified. The resident said the landlord missed some appointments to carry out the repairs.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. Missed appointments.
   2. The resident’s complaint.

Our decision (determination)

3. We have found that:
   1. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the missed appointments.
   2. There was reasonable redress in how the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Missed appointments

4. There were problems with 4 appointments for repairs. The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failings.

Complaint handling

5. The landlord did not use all the relevant information during its stage 1 investigation. The landlord made an appropriate offer of redress for the failing.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

6. In her escalation email, the resident said there had been 2 missed appointments. She said the first missed appointment happened on 8 January 2024 when an operative did not attend to fix the radiators. The resident said the second missed appointment happened on 9 January 2024 when an operative did not attend to carry out plastering and flooring works.
7. The landlord’s records show that both these repairs were raised on 9 January 2024. It was unclear from the evidence why the resident thought there were appointments booked for these dates.
8. The landlord’s evidence showed it concluded there was miscommunication with the resident regarding these repairs. It took responsibility for this which was reasonable. It acknowledged the dates as missed appointments.
9. The resident said the third missed appointment was on 25 January 2024 when the landlord sent the wrong tradesperson to attend the appointment. The evidence showed that the landlord sent a plasterer to attend an appointment for a porch repair rather than a carpenter.
10. This error happened as the landlord had selected the wrong trade against the repair. It had selected “wet trades” by mistake which allocated a plasterer to the job instead of a carpenter. The landlord took responsibility for this which was appropriate. It acknowledged this as a missed appointment.
11. The resident told the landlord in her escalation email that she was still waiting on an appointment to be arranged for securing the loft hatch and for the roof to be checked. The landlord took responsibility for this which was appropriate. It acknowledged this as a missed appointment.
12. The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it did not cover loss of earnings. This was reasonable and is in line with our compensation guidance. However, it said that its goodwill gesture policy allowed for £40 compensation to be awarded per two missed appointments.
13. The landlord awarded the resident £80 compensation for 4 missed appointments. This was in line with its goodwill gesture policy and therefore an offer of reasonable redress.
14. Both the resident and the landlord confirmed the resident had received the £80 compensation. The landlord advised it was paid to the resident on the week commencing 1 May 2024.

15. The resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints process before our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) became statutory on 1 April 2024. However, the landlord’s complaints policy, including the complaint definition and timescales, were already compliant with the Code at the time of the resident’s complaint.
16. In her escalation email, the resident had expressed dissatisfaction that a property condition survey was not available to the stage 1 complaint handler. She was also dissatisfied that photographs that she said she had sent the landlord on more than one occasion had also not been viewed as part of the stage 1 investigation.
17. The landlord acknowledged this as a complaint handling failure in its stage 2 response. It awarded the resident £100 compensation. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that this amount was in line with our guidance. This was a reasonable offer of redress.
18. The landlord advised us on 10 September 2024 that the resident did not accept the £100 compensation awarded for the complaint handling failure. Therefore, this was not paid to the resident at the time she received the other compensation awarded in this complaint.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

19. The landlord should ensure it keeps accurate records of its surveys, work orders and appointments. We would encourage the landlord to review the recommendations in our Spotlight Report on knowledge and information management and the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its record keeping to ensure the appropriate operatives are allocated to appointments.

Communication

20. The landlord should ensure it has clear communication with its residents and manages their expectations regarding appointments. We would encourage the landlord to review the key learnings in our Spotlight Report on complaints about repairs. This is to decide if it needs to take any action to improve its communication about appointments.