Your Housing Limited (202127504)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127504

Your Housing Limited

23 January 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 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 handling of:
    1. The repair of the resident’s front door lock, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this.
    2. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord of a flat in an assisted living scheme. She is recorded by the landlord as having mobility issues listed on her support plan as a vulnerability.
  2. The resident first reported to the landlord that her front door lock required repair on 30 November 2021, and its operative attended this on the same day. The lock was adjusted as an interim solution, and the operative requested that further work be raised for a new suited lock to be fitted to permit her, her carer and others to access the property with a single key. On 3 December 2021, a new job for a 21-day routine repair, and a repair order for a custom suited lock, were raised by the landlord, when it also recorded that it had fitted a temporary non-suited lock.
  3. The resident nevertheless began complaining to the landlord that she was dissatisfied with the length of time that this was taking, and the risk to her health and safety of being locked in her property again during an emergency as she had been during its operative’s initial attendance, on 6 and 7 December 2021.She added that this was an urgent issue that it had so far not dealt with appropriately ,as its operative had been a joiner instead of a locksmith, and that she required a manager’s visit, apology, a reimbursement of the costs of her calls chasing it and damages for the stress that this had caused her from it. The landlord therefore responded to the resident on 8 December 2021 by apologising for the delay, and it explained that a new job order had been raised, which it aimed to complete within 21 days.
  4. The resident’s further stage one complaint to the landlord of 3 February 2022 expressed her dissatisfaction that her front door lock repairs were still outstanding, for which she requested the installation of a suited lock, following its earlier fitting of a temporary non-suited lock on 3 December 2021.She also again asked for the reimbursement of the cost of her chasing telephone calls to it, and reported being told by it that its job to install a suited lock had been cancelled but not recorded as such, and that its manager was unavailable to speak to her, for which she chased it again on 20 February 2022.
  5. The landlord’s subsequent stage one complaint response of 22 February 2022, following it noting that it had called her on the day before, confirmed that it had scheduled contractors to perform the front door lock repair on 4 March 2022. It added that it had chased the manufacturers of the lock to see if the order for this could be expedited, and that it would contact her again by 7 March 2022 to ensure that all of her issues had been resolved, agreeing to then discuss the reimbursement of the costs that she had incurred with her.
  6. However, the resident informed the landlord of her dissatisfaction with its stage one complaint response on 24 February 2022, disputing that it had called her on 21 February 2022, and stating that it had previously cancelled front door lock works in December 2021 without an explanation or informing her. She then complained to it again on 7, 9 and 25 March and 5 and 7 April 2022 that it had missed an appointment and failed to call her as agreed on 4 and 7 March 2022, respectively, for which the repairs remained outstanding and she reiterated her previous requests to it. The resident explained that this had caused her particular stress, as she felt that her life was at risk because the emergency services would have been unable to access her property if she could not unlock the front door.
  7. On 8 April 2022, the landlord therefore installed a key safe at the resident’s property with a spare key, in response her concerns of the day before regarding access to the property in the event of an emergency. The suited lock was subsequently installed there but she chased it on 13 April 2022, and she submitted another complaint to it on 12 May 2022, when she stated that the lock had been fitted but sought £2,000 from it for its handling of the repair ,for which she chased it again on 15 June 2022. However, the landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response indicated that the suited lock repair was completed on 20 June 2022.
  8. Following a request from this Service after we were contacted by the resident, the landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 10 August 2022. It apologised for the lack of responses to her following its stage one complaint response, and the resulting distress and inconvenience. The landlord also apologised for the service failures which led to the delay of the resident’s front door lock repair, and for any upset that this had caused her. It therefore offered her £500 total compensation broken down as being for:
    1. Her time and trouble including compensation for telephone calls with £50;
    2. Its lack of communication with £100;
    3. Its service failure for its lack of a response to her stage one complaint with £100;
    4. Its service failure for its delay in completing the repair with £100;
    5. Its delayed complaint responses with £100;
    6. Her inconvenience with £50.
  9. The resident then complained to this Service, as she was dissatisfied with the amount of compensation offered in consideration of her costs, time and trouble in chasing the landlord, and her resulting distress and inconvenience from this and the risk to her life that she reported. She added that she had been told that it had spare suited locks in her assisted living scheme, which could have been used to repair her front door lock sooner, and she continued to seek £2,000 total compensation for this, broken down as:
    1. £1,000 for her costs;
    2. £1,000 for her distress and inconvenience.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. It is of concern that the resident has reported experiencing ill-health as a result of the landlord’s handling of the repair to her front door lock. While we do not doubt her comments about the effect of the case on her health, this Service is unable to determine liability or award damages for ill-health because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so, and so this is outside the scope of this investigation to consider. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident, and we have recommended below that she receive the landlord’s public liability insurance details to enable her to make a claim to it for the damages that she reported to her health.

The repair of the resident’s front door lock, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this

  1. On 30 November 2021, the resident first reported an issue with her front door lock to the landlord. After an operative visited on the same day within its repairs policy’s 24-hour emergency repair timescale, to ensure safety and security when there is a serious risk to residents or their properties, a second job order was raised on 3 December 2021 for a 21-day routine-repair job under the policy, for repairs that posed no immediate risk. The landlord’s records also showed that there was an interim repair performed on 3 December 2021, and that the temporary non-suited lock was left functional while a custom suited lock was ordered.
  2. The landlord ought to have communicated clearly to the resident that the suited lock needed to be ordered, and that there would be a delay while it was awaiting the delivery of this part. This would have prevented her from having to complain and chase it for updates on this from 6 and 7 December 2021 onwards, which caused her unnecessary time and trouble. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord rang the resident on 8 December 2021 to apologise that the repairs process had not been explained to her and for the ongoing delay.
  3. The resident submitted a further complaint on 3 February 2022, which she had to chase again on 20 February 2022, and led her to discover that the previous repair order had not been raised. The landlord therefore then placed an order for the custom suited lock, and it requested the order be expedited from the original delivery date of 4 March 2022. It was appropriate that it informed the resident of this is its stage one complaint response, as an explanation for the cause of the delay, however it failed to apologise for the further delay that she had experienced.
  4. It was also not appropriate that the landlord offered no further communication to the resident prior to it subsequently missing the repair appointment of 4 March 2022. It ought to have cancelled the appointment when the lock did not arrive, to prevent any more inconvenience to her. Instead, the resident described waiting for its operatives to arrive and perform the repair, without notice of their non-attendance, and this was a failing on the part of the landlord’s communication, as well as of its repairs service, which led to further inconvenience to her.
  5. The landlord later explained to the resident that the appointment had been missed as the custom suited lock order had not been authorised, and this therefore had not been delivered. This was the second time that the repair had been delayed due to it incorrectly raising a job order, or not authorising a repair, which highlighted a recurring issue with its handling of repairs.
  6. The landlord has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs with regard to their handling of prolonged outstanding repairs, and of their communication with residents on the status of these. This is in order to seek to ensure that they order repairs correctly and communicate promptly and regularly to prevent its repair and communication delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
  7. The resident’s suited front door lock repair was subsequently completed by the landlord, and the resident reported that the repair was completed on 12 May 2022. This was 160 calendar days after it had raised a 21-day routine repair for this under its repairs policy, and so this was a delay of 139 calendar days after that timescale before the repair was completed, which was a failure in its service. The landlord therefore subsequently acknowledged and apologised for this delay in its final stage complaint response.
  8. Furthermore, the resident reported to the landlord from 6 and 7 December 2021 onwards that she had concerns regarding the lack of access to her property in the event of an emergency due to the outstanding suited front door lock. It is noted that she has mobility issues listed as a vulnerability, and she has emergency pull cords in the property. It was therefore not appropriate that the landlord’s stage one response did not address this, as she had raised a valid safety concern which it should have investigated.
  9. It was instead only after the resident had then raised this concern again on 7 April 2022, after doing so before on several other occasions, that the landlord installed a key safe at her property, which housed a spare key to grant emergency access to the property. This installation by it was appropriate, as it addressed her concerns about safety, however it should have addressed this sooner and reassured her about her safety when she had initially raised this.
  10. The landlord’s final stage complaint response therefore appropriately acknowledged the above failings on its part, and apologised to the resident for the distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result of the delayin it performing the repair. It also offered £300 total compensation to her for its failings in its handling of the repair, its lack of communication, and her time and trouble, including compensation for having to make chasing telephone calls to it and her overall inconvenience.
  11. This was within the range of compensation recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident. This was also in line with the landlord’s compensation amounts procedure, which suggests payments of up to £50 for service failure for delays to repairs, up to £100 for a resident’s time and trouble, up to £100 for communication failings by it, and up to £100 for distress and inconvenience.
  12. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord offered the resident the maximum amount of compensation recommended by its compensation amounts procedure for its communication failings, and that it awarded a higher amount than the maximum recommended for delays in completing a repair. This highlighted that it understood the extent of its failure to both communicate with her and the impact of the delay in performing the repair, which it attempted to redress with its other failings proportionately under the procedure. Therefore, the landlord has been recommended below to re-offer the resident the compensation that it previously awarded her for this, if she has not received this already.

The associated complaint

  1. In line with its customer feedback policy, a complaint is defined as any expression of dissatisfaction made about the standard of service of the landlord. It is expected to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days, to final stage complaints within 15 working days, and to agree any extensions to this with the resident.
  2. The resident began complaining to the landlord at stage one of its complaints procedure on 6 and 7 December 2021. It nevertheless only accepted the complaint on 3 February 2022, and issued its stage one complaint response to her on 22 February 2022, which was a 43-working-day delay in its response that was unreasonable. The landlord should have instead responded to the complaint promptly, and communicated any delays to and agreed any extensions with the resident, as outlined in its customer feedback policy.
  3. Following its stage one complaint response, the resident contacted the landlord again from 24 February 2022 onwards to express her dissatisfaction at its handling of her case. Furthermore, she continued to complain to it about this on 7, 9 and 25 March, 5 and 7 April and 12 May 2022, because it was not responding to her communications.
  4. The resident also chased the landlord on 13 April and 15 June 2022, seeking an update on her complaint and compensation for the delay in it responding to this. She described how, in chasing it, she had experienced time and trouble that had additionally had a financial impact on her from the cost of doing so. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint to the final stage of its complaints procedure at this time, and this was contrary to its customer feedback policy’s requirement for it to accept and escalate complaints when residents advised it of their dissatisfaction, and so this was another failing by it.
  5. Following a request from this Service, the landlord’s subsequent final stage complaint response was issued on 10 August 2022, and this was therefore 114 working days after the complaint was originally escalated by the resident on 24 February 2022, with no extension agreed with or delay communicated by it to her. This 99-working-day delay, resulting from its failure to escalate and respond to the complaint promptly, caused her significant unnecessary time and trouble, and breached its customer feedback policy. Moreover, this was contrary to this Service’s complaint handling code’s prohibition against outstanding issues such as repairs obstructing access to or unreasonably delaying the landlord’s complaints procedure.
  6. The landlord’s final stage complaint response nevertheless offered £200 total compensation to the resident for its poor complaint handling, which was broken down into £100 for its lack of response to the stage one complaint, and another £100 for its overall delayed complaint responses. This was within the range of compensation of up to £100 recommended by its compensation amounts procedure for a lack of communication and delays in resolving complaints, as well as that recommended by this Service’s remedies guidance from £100 for failures that adversely affected the resident.
  7. This was reasonable, as the fact that the resident was impacted and inconvenienced by complaint handling delays was recognised by the landlord with proportionate compensation, in line with its compensation amounts procedure and this Service’s remedies guidance. Therefore, it has been recommended below to re-offer her the compensation that it previously awarded her for this, if she has not received this already. While the resident has requested the reimbursement of £1,000 costs that she incurred as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling delays, no details or evidence have been provided to justify it paying such costs, and so it has been recommended below to invite her to provide these to it, for it to consider and respond to her about.
  8. When a landlord is at fault, it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what it will do to prevent the same mistake from happening again. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident and offered her financial compensation in recognition of its complaint handling delays, however it failed to show how it would prevent similar future mistakes. It has therefore been recommended below to review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its customer feedback policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in her case from occurring again in the future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily, in respect of the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The repair of the resident’s front door lock, and the subsequent offer of compensation for this.
    2. The associated complaint.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Re-offer the resident the £500 compensation that it previously awarded her, if she has not received this already.
    2. Review its staff training needs with regard to their handling of prolonged outstanding repairs, and of their communication with residents on the status of these, in order to seek to ensure that they order repairs correctly and communicate about them promptly and regularly to prevent its repair and communication delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    3. Review its staff’s training needs regarding their application of its customer feedback policy, and of this Service’s complaint handling code at https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/landlords-info/complaint-handling-code/, in order to ensure that these are followed to prevent its complaint handling delays in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
    4. Provide the resident with details to enable her to make a public liability insurance claim to its insurers for damages for the personal injury that she reported to her health.
    5. Invite the resident to provide it with details and evidence of the £1,000 costs that she described incurring from its complaint handling delays, for it to consider and respond to.