First Choice Homes Oldham Limited (202222875)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222875

First Choice Homes Oldham Limited

23 January 2025

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 response to the resident’s concerns about
1. The plaster and painting of the storage room.
2. The flooring
3. Replacement of the window hinge.
4. His email address being blocked.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord since 23 October 2020. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat in a block. The resident sublets the property to a tenant. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
On 31 January 2023 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf to raise a complaint. In summary the resident said that he had been unable to contact the landlord as his email address had been blocked. He also said the following repairs were outstanding:
1. Plaster to the ceiling of his storage room.
2. Paint to the storage room
3. Repairs to structural damage underneath the flooring.
4. Replacement of the window hinge that had been agreed to be replaced some time ago.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. The resident was currently in the latter stages of the forfeiture procedure. This was a legal process which did not allow it to contact the resident. It had made the resident aware of this.
2. It was required to wait until the legal proceedings were complete before it could take any further action. It said that the resident’s email address had not been blocked.
On 10 May 2023 this Service contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf. The resident wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He wanted the outstanding repairs raised in his stage 1 complaint to be completed in a timely manner. He wanted his email address to be unblocked so that he could raise repairs and complaints as necessary.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. In relation to the ceiling plaster and paint this was related to damage following a leak from a neighbouring address into his property. The resident was responsible for works inside his property under the terms of the lease. The resident could claim reimbursement for the works through the building insurance policy.
2. It acknowledged that it incorrectly attended and plastered the ceiling. It also incorrectly advised the resident that it would return to paint it. This was an error, and the job was cancelled it did not charge the resident for the works. It confirmed this and set out its position to the resident on 19 April 2022.
3. In respect of the flooring, it inspected this on 16 March 2022. The inspection determined that the damage was not structural and was related to the floor screed. The screed was the responsibility of the resident in accordance with the lease. It said that it had confirmed its position in an email sent to the resident on 17 March 2022.
4. In respect of the window hinge it had checked its records. It said that the order had been cancelled and it did not know why. It apologised that it had not followed the matter up with the resident. It advised that it had now raised a new order with a target to be completed by 19 May 2023.
5. It apologised that the resident had been unable to contact it by email. It said that it had now rectified the problem and had informed the resident that he could now email it on 28 April 2023.

Post Complaint.

The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and contacted this Service. He wanted the repairs to be completed in a timely manner.

Assessment and findings

The lease states the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and the building including drains gutters and external pipes and will make good any defects affecting the structure. The resident must keep the internal part of the property in good repair. This includes the decorative repair.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the plaster and painting of the storage room.

After completing the landlord’s complaints process, the resident notified this service that there had been further leaks from the flat above which was affecting his property. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, this element of his complaint relates to different leaks and has not been raised and considered through the landlord’s complaints procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. The resident will therefore need to raise any issues he has about further leaks as a formal complaint to give the landlord an opportunity to respond.
The landlord said that the repair to the ceiling of the storage room was first reported in March 2021. This Service has not had sight of any records that support this which is a failing in its record keeping and in its handling of the matter.
In its stage 2 response the landlord evidenced that it had emailed the resident on 19 April 2022 and explained its error. It had also directed the resident to its website so that he could make a claim on its insurance should he wish to which was appropriate. It is acknowledged that the resident has since advised this Service that he does not know how to make a claim on the landlord’s insurance. An order has therefore been made below to ensure that this information is clearly provided to the resident.
The landlord’s explanation of its obligations was reasonable and in accordance with the terms set out in the lease. Its communication of this to the resident was however over a year after it said it had been put on notice of the issue. The records provided to this Service do not show how or if it communicated with the resident prior to this. That it does not is a further failing in its record keeping.
The Ombudsman considers that the above failings amount to maladministration. This is mainly due to the lack of records evidencing when the resident reported the issue and why it took over a year for the landlord to set out its position to the resident. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we are unable to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
Record keeping is a core function of a housing service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its obligations. The failings caused the resident further time and effort having to pursue his complaint further with this Service. This has been considered in the compensation and orders made below.

Landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the flooring.

The landlord set out its position relative to the floor within its stage 2 response. It also evidenced that it had explained this to the resident by email following an inspection in March 2022 which was appropriate. It is acknowledged that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s findings from its inspection. It is reasonable however for a landlord to rely on the expert opinion of its contractor in the circumstances.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was silent on when the issue with the flooring was first raised. The records provided again did not evidence the landlord’s version of events provided in its stage 2 complaint response. This was a further failing in its record keeping which has been identified as an issue earlier in this report.
The lack of records showing when the issue was first raised means that this service cannot fully assess whether the landlord responded in a timely manner. It was evident however that the landlord had responded appropriately. It had inspected the flooring and set out its position in writing to the resident. The failing in its record keeping therefore amounts to a service failure. This has caused further time and inconvenience to the resident in having to pursue his matter further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the replacement of the window hinge.

It is unknown why the window hinge required replacement and why a target date was set. There are again no records to show what had happened. This has been a continued failing throughout this investigation. The landlord failed to provide any further information within its stage 2 complaint response. That it did not was a missed opportunity for the landlord to try to put matters right.
The landlord agreed that it had failed because it had incorrectly cancelled the works order. It apologised that it had not followed this up. It sought to try to put it right by re-ordering the repair. It failed however to consider whether its failing had any impact on the resident. The replacement hinge had been outstanding for almost 18 months which would have caused inconvenience for the resident. There is no evidence to show what if anything was communicated to the resident during this period. The landlord’s failings amount to maladministration and an order has been made for the landlord to pay compensation in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused. Compensation will be considered in line with the Housing Ombudsman’ remedies guidance.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his email address being blocked.

The landlord’s initial response at stage 1 was that the resident’s email address had not been blocked. The landlord did not provide any further explanation as to how it had concluded this. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to evidence what action it had taken to satisfy itself that the email address had not been blocked. That it did not was a failing in its response to the resident’s concerns.
The landlord then changed its position in its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised that the resident had been unable to contact it by email. It said that it had remedied the issue on 28 April 2023. It failed however to explain what had gone wrong. By not considering what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right.
The resident had to spend time and effort having to contact this Service to raise his complaint. He had been unable to alert the landlord to any issues for approximately 6 months which would have caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord failed to consider what impact this may have had on the resident within its complaint response which was a missed opportunity to put things right.
The landlord’s failure to investigate did not show that the landlord had listened to the resident and taken his concerns seriously. This did not foster a good landlord resident relationship. The Ombudsman considers the landlord’s failings as detailed above amount to maladministration. An order has been made below for the landlord to pay compensation and consider how it can avoid these failings happening again in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure. Its complaint policy states it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days and a stage 2 within 20 working days.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 request within its time scales. It is acknowledged that the landlord had said initially that it could not respond due to the fact that it was in the latter stages of the forfeiture procedure. This Service acknowledges that the landlord is restricted in how it can respond where a right of forfeiture has commenced. Although this Service has not had sight of the records relative to the forfeiture procedure the resident has not disputed that this action had been taken.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his email address being blocked did not show any investigation into the issue. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to try to resolve the issue at an earlier stage.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued in accordance with its own timescales. The response went some way to putting the above failing right. It was also able to respond to all of the issues within its stage 2 response as the forfeiture process was no longer in place as it had been resolved.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did show that the landlord had set out its position to the resident in respect of some of the issues. The response overall however, lacked a thorough investigation into how it had handled the issues. It failed to consider whether it had responded within reasonable time frames and whether it had done all it could to resolve matters. By failing to fully investigate what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right. Where the landlord did acknowledge it had failed it did not detail any learning or how it would put matters right.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation and curiosity. The complaint responses failed to put things right, consider redress or provide a meaningful apology. The landlord failed to learn from its mistakes. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the plaster and painting of the storage room.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the flooring.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about replacement of the window hinge.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his email being blocked.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £820 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the plaster and painting of the storage room.
  2. £70 for the stress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the flooring.
  3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about the replacement of the window hinge.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the resident’s concerns about his email being blocked.
  5. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 6 weeks the landlord is ordered to write to the resident to advise how he can make a claim on its insurance. A copy of this letter should be provided to this Service also within 6 weeks.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store the works information accurately which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
2. How it will monitor any follow up action.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.