Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Curo Places Limited (202224336)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224336

Curo Places Limited

30 May 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:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports that her property was cold and draughty.
    2. Response to the resident’s request for repairs to the rendering on her property as well as the driveway and wet room, and its decision to appoint a single point of contact.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, of a house.
  2. The resident raised a complaint on 5 January 2022 about the landlord’s response to her reports of draughts from the external walls and that her property was not heating effectively. On 12 January 2022 the resident added that she had been asking the landlord to identify where the draughts were coming from for 3 years. She raised questions about the accuracy of the property’s Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) and said that her windows were due to be inspected in 2024 however, the date had been delayed.
  3. The landlord undertook inspections of the property in during February 2022 and temperature and humidity monitors were left at the property for a period of 2 weeks. Following this, an independent organisation conducted a thermal imaging survey on 21 March 2022.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2022. In regard to the windows, the landlord stated that following an organisational review, the programme for window inspections had changed to 2026 and then again to 2029. The landlord said that it was working to a 30-year programme and that there was a 30-year life span on windows. The landlord also provided a summary of works that it would carry out which included extracting and refilling the cavity wall insulation. It said that once these works were complete, another thermal imaging survey would be carried out.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint on the same date. She stated that the windows in her property were not fit for purpose and required replacing or refitting due to the cold coming through. The resident also raised that a proper response should be provided regarding what was required to remedy the cold in the property.
  6. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued on 25 April 2022. The landlord stated that the thermal imaging survey had identified that the insulation had settled in some areas. In regard to the temperature and humidity monitoring, the landlord advised that the data had shown anomalies which indicated that the heating was being used on an ad-hoc basis. The landlord explained that it had offered the resident remote sensors to be installed to track the boiler use and record temperature and humidity levels.
  7. The landlord stated it would take the following actions in response to the complaint:
    1. Remove the old cavity wall insulation and refill.
    2. Seal around any gaps such as waste pipes, sockets and doors. This work was scheduled to take place on 11 May 2022.
    3. Service all windows internally and externally.
    4. Add remote sensors to the boiler system to assess functionality.
  8. The landlord also offered the resident £350 compensation in recognition of the time and impact on her.
  9. The resident escalated her complaint and the landlord issued a stage 3 response on 4 May 2022. The landlord stated that the date for the cavity wall insulation to be refilled was yet to be confirmed. It said that it would seal around any gaps, and that the windows would be serviced and any sealing or adjustments carried out once the cavity wall insulation had been replaced. The landlord again offered the resident remote sensors to assess the functionality of the boiler. It also said that £360 compensation had been offered and accepted, which was made up of the £350 offered at stage 2 and an additional £10 for a missed appointment. The landlord acknowledged that there had been delays which had led to the resident losing trust in the landlord.
  10. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman in September 2022. She stated that the cavity wall insulation was replaced without identifying why the old insulation was wet. The resident stated that the landlord had agreed to do various work which had not been done. She also raised dissatisfaction regarding the delays to the window replacements. 
  11. The resident raised a new complaint on 21 October 2022. The resident raised some of the same concerns that she had raised in her January 2022 complaint, including about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and heating in her property. The resident stated that the landlord appeared to be against finding the cause of the damp in her property. The resident also raised new complaints in relation to being appointed a single point of contact, regarding the landlord’s handling of required repairs to the external rendering and driveway and that the landlord would not replace her toilet seat. The resident also complained that the landlord told her to remove her washing machine and dryer from the wet room, despite previously advising her she could use it as a utility room.
  12. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response was issued on 10 November 2022. The landlord did not address the complaints that were duplicates of those that were dealt with previously, which included the cold and draughts in the resident’s property.
  13. The landlord stated that due to the volume of emails from the resident and the landlord’s difficulty in managing this, a single point of contact was the most productive way to communicate with the resident to prevent previously experienced communication issues. The landlord stated that the external drill holes had been properly filled and that the rendering would be painted during the next round of cyclical works. It advised that repairs to the driveway and toilet seat were the resident’s responsibility. In relation to the wet room, the landlord said that it had a strict consent process which must be followed, and staff have an obligation to address any concerns when visiting residents. The landlord stated that the resident could proceed with an application for consent for the changes. The landlord advised that a further thermal imaging survey would be conducted to review the impact of the work.
  14. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022. She stated that her single point of contact had advised that they were unable to look at the case any further back than April 2022, and so the resident was required to supply her with the relevant documents. The resident again raised that the cavity wall was not left to dry before the insulation was replaced, and she stated that the rendering should be made good, in accordance with her tenancy agreement. The resident also said that her tenancy agreement stated that the landlord was responsible for maintaining access to her home and that the only way to access her home was through the driveway. In relation to the wet room, the resident said that if the staff member she had discussed this with had told her to request consent, then she would have done so.
  15. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 5 January 2023. The landlord stated that the resident’s point of contact was permitted to access the complaint records on the system, but their intention was to start from a ‘clean slate’ and discuss issues they could take forward from that point onwards.
  16. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman on 11 January 2023.
  17. The resident raised a new complaint to the landlord on 16 May 2023 following an email she received from the landlord on 12 May 2023 about the second thermal imaging survey that took place in January 2023. The resident complained that the landlord had refused to accept the findings of the thermal imaging surveys. She stated that the landlord had also refused to investigate why the cavity wall insulation was wet or to inspect the soakaway outside the property, which the resident stated was causing damp.
  18. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 30 May 2023. The landlord explained why certain work requested by the resident would not be completed. It also listed various work that it had completed and stated that it would inspect the soakaway next to the outside wall. The landlord stated that it had tried multiple ways to investigate the cause of damp and cold in the property.
  19. The resident escalated her complaint on 31 May 2023 and again raised issues regarding air ingress and making good of the rendering. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 October 2023. The landlord apologised for the delay in the stage 2 complaint being allocated for investigation and offered the resident £100 compensation. The landlord maintained that the best way to investigate the humidity levels was to install the remote monitors, which the resident had previously declined. In relation to the resident’s outstanding issues, the landlord stated an offer had been made for 2 senior staff members to visit her to discuss her concerns and make an assessment of any resolutions to the issues raised.
  20. The visit took place on 21 November 2023 and the landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023 with the conclusions reached on the issues raised. The landlord concluded that there was no evidence of concerning humidity levels or damp and mould. Some recommendations for works were made which included installing a vent, a larger radiator in the hallway, a thermostat purchased by the resident, the remote monitoring devices and shaving off the bottom of internal doors to allow air movement. The resident accepted some of these recommendations but refused the monitoring devices.
  21. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 1 February 2024 and stated that her complaint was mainly about the extreme cold in her home, and that she had recently arranged for another survey which showed that the external walls and downstairs floor was very cold. The resident stated that she had spent over £1500 buying thermostats, thermostatic radiator valves (TRVs) and 2 dehumidifiers. She stated that she had managed to get the radiators warmer throughout the property, but the external walls and floor remained cold.
  22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 March 2024 with a further final review of the complaint. It apologised for the delay in the stage 2 response being provided and offered the resident £100 in recognition of this. It also acknowledged a delay regarding the appointment for a surveyor to inspect the soakaway issue, as well as subsequent delays in scheduling the necessary works. It offered the resident an additional £100 to remedy this. The landlord stated that it had upgraded the hallway radiator and installed 3 TRVs. However, it stated that it was unable to agree on all of her repair requests.
  23. On 28 March 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had repaired the soakaway issue. However, she stated that the landlord refused to have the property independently inspected to identify why cold was entering the property and had ignored a thermal imaging survey she had paid for. The resident stated that the landlord should arrange for an independent engineer to conduct a survey to find out the cause of the low temperature in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident stated that she has had issues with heating her home since moving into the property in 2017. It is noted that the resident has made previous complaints about issues in the property and that she had previously raised a legal disrepair claim. It is acknowledged that the resident raised a complaint in April 2021 however, this was not escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process and will therefore not be considered as part of this investigation. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure.
  2. This investigation will only consider the 3 complaints outlined in the background section, which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The first of the 3 complaints was made in January 2022, and the scope of this investigation will therefore begin in November 2021 when the resident again reported issues with her boiler. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, which states that this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable timeframe, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
  3. In recent communication with the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about the age of the rendering and that there has been no maintenance of this in 75 years. She stated that this was likely to be contributing to the cold inside the property. The resident does not appear to have raised this point previously, and the landlord has therefore only considered the decision not to re-paint the rendering within its complaint responses. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, as outlined above, this complaint will not be considered as part of this investigation because it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident can raise this as a new complaint if she wishes to pursue this matter. She may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied once the complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her property was cold and draughty.

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it will use a systematic approach to determine the cause and remedy of damp, mould and condensation. The policy does not include timescales for when the landlord will respond to repairs reports.
  2. The resident reported to the landlord that her heating was not reaching more than 17 degrees in both November and December 2021, and an operative attended on both occasions to conduct an inspection. The notes from the 21 December 2021 inspection state that a fault was diagnosed, the thermostat was replaced and the heating then reached 19.5 degrees. The notes state that advice was given to the resident about how to use the heating. The evidence indicates that the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe to these reports, and that it made efforts to investigate and resolve the issue. However, the resident reported that the problem with heating the property was not resolved.
  3. The resident raised a complaint on 5 January 2022 about the landlord’s response to her concerns about cold and draughts in the property, and in relation to the delay in carrying out window upgrades. The landlord acted appropriately by attending on the same date and carrying out a function and safety check of the boiler. The notes of this inspection state that no issues were identified.
  4. The landlord conducted an inspection of the property on 1 February 2022. The resident stated that during this visit, the operative informed her that there was no cavity wall insulation in the property and they agreed that the property was cold. While it was appropriate that a further visit took place to inspect the issue, no contemporaneous notes of this inspection have been provided to the Ombudsman. The landlord should ensure it maintains a clear audit trail of repairs and inspections. As a result of this visit, the resident stated that she was informed that the landlord would arrange an independent inspection and that the cavity wall would be put right.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 8 February 2022 and said that she had heard nothing about the actions that would be taken following the 1 February 2022 visit. A meeting was arranged for 16 February 2022 for the landlord to discuss the matters with the resident and to advise on what action it would take going forward. This indicates a delay of approximately 2 weeks before an update on next steps was provided. While this was not excessive, it would have been best practice for the landlord to proactively contact the resident to give an update. This was a shortcoming by the landlord.
  6. The landlord’s surveyor conducted an inspection of the cavity wall insulation on 22 February 2022, which was an appropriate action to identify any issues. The surveyor identified that cavity wall insulation was present, but that it was possible that there were areas that may be void or where settlement of the material may have occurred over time. Following this visit, monitoring devices were left at the property for approximately 2 weeks so that the landlord could monitor the temperature in the property. These actions indicate that the landlord was making efforts to investigate the resident’s reports that the property was cold.
  7. The resident reported that the temperature monitoring equipment showed that, regardless of how high she had her heating, the temperature consistently remained around 15 to 16 degrees and humidity between 65 to 75 in the areas near external walls. The resident stated that the heating was working but that the heat was lost through the external walls.
  8. The surveyor wrote to the resident on 11 March 2022 and stated that the data from the temperature monitoring indicated fluctuations in temperature which were consistent with the heating being used on an ad hoc basis, which they said was not conducive to effective temperature and humidity control. The surveyor explained the impact air temperature can have on humidity levels. It was reasonable for the surveyor to explain this in response to the resident’s concerns.
  9. The landlord proposed the installation of alternative devices which would monitor the boiler and would allow it to assess whether the performance of the heating system was impacting on the humidity levels in the property. The resident declined the monitoring system due to concerns that the landlord would blame her for the ongoing issues in the property. She also raised concerns that this would enable the landlord to adjust the temperature of her boiler remotely.
  10. The evidence reflects that the landlord has offered the remote monitoring to the resident multiple times. The landlord has provided explanations as to why it proposed this as an appropriate next step to investigate the cold and humidity in the property, and it informed the resident that the devices do not allow it to remotely control her heating.
  11. The Ombudsman appreciates the concerns raised by the resident in relation to the monitors, and it is acknowledged that she felt the heating itself was not causing the problem. However, the landlord acted reasonably by providing an explanation as to why this was believed to be an appropriate next step, as well responding to the concerns she had raised. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord is required to take a systematic approach to diagnose issues, and it is possible that the data from this monitoring would have led to follow-up investigations.
  12. The landlord arranged a thermal imaging survey which took place on 21 March 2022. This identified a number of thermal faults due to draughts from various sources and that the cavity wall insulation had possibly settled or degraded. In its 31 March 2022 stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would assess and repair draughts and extract and refill the cavity wall insulation. However, no dates were provided for when the works would take place.
  13. Within the stage 2 response, dated 25 April 2022, the landlord reiterated the actions it stated it would do within the stage 1 response and in addition, that it would service the windows in the property. It also said that the planned window upgrades would be delayed until 2029. While it was appropriate that the landlord arranged a service of the windows, it is unclear why this action was not listed in the stage 1 response. Given that the wider programme had been delayed, this may have offered some reassurance that the windows would be inspected.
  14. Within the stage 3 response, the landlord offered the resident £360 compensation in recognition of the time and impact on the resident. It is noted that there were delays in the landlord’s surveyor attending initially and that no action had been taken to seal gaps, which was an action set out in the stage 1 response. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when there has been a failing by the landlord that adversely affected the resident and was therefore reasonable to remedy the impact of the delays in the landlord taking action.
  15. The evidence indicates that the cavity wall insulation was removed on 20 May 2022. The resident wrote to the landlord on the same date and stated that the extracted insulation was wet, and that the soakaway next to the external wall was causing damp and high humidity.
  16. On 1 June 2022, the resident raised that some of the works listed in the landlord’s complaint responses had not been done, including sealing gaps and servicing the windows. She also raised that the cavity wall was not allowed to dry before the new insulation was put in. The resident further contacted the landlord several times between June and August to obtain an update regarding the outstanding works. However, there is no evidence to indicate that any action was taken until September 2022 when the landlord carried out the remedial works and arranged for the windows to be serviced. This was a failing by the landlord.
  17. The landlord should ensure it completes outstanding repairs in a timely manner, and that it provides regular updates to residents about when work will take place. The evidence indicates that some of the repairs were not completed within a reasonable timeframe following the complaint responses. The landlord did not provide timely updates to the resident and she was required to chase the landlord to obtain responses. Further, there is no evidence to indicate that the landlord responded to her concerns that damp was being caused by the outside drainage. The landlord ought to have considered whether an inspection of this was required and communicated its decision to the resident.
  18. The landlord acknowledged the delays and offered the resident an additional £50 compensation. While this indicates that the landlord had made some effort to put things right, the amount offered was insufficient remedy the distress and inconvenience caused by this failing. A further £150 compensation has been ordered below to remedy the impact of the failing identified. A total amount of £200 is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for when the landlord has made some attempt to put things right, but the compensation offer was not proportionate to the failing identified in our investigation.
  19. It is noted that the resident contacted the landlord several times to raise concerns that the cavity wall was not allowed to dry before the insulation was replaced. The resident also raised this matter in her 21 October 2022 complaint. The landlord stated that it would not deal with this matter as it had already been considered as part of the previous complaint responses. However, within the stage 2 response, the landlord said that it had checked with the surveyor and the work to the cavity wall was carried out under the correct regulations. Given the concerns raised by the resident, it would have been prudent for the landlord to offer a more detailed explanation regarding this matter in order to properly address the issues raised. This was a shortcoming by the landlord which may have caused frustration to the resident.
  20. The September 2022 window inspection identified that the windows had been poorly installed and maintained and it was recommended that they should all be replaced. The landlord installed new windows on 9 December 2022, which was an appropriate action in response to the report and in order to address the issue of cold in the property. It is noted that approximately 3 months elapsed between the inspection and the window installation. This delay appears to have been due the time taken for the windows to be manufactured, which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, there is a lack of clear evidence to indicate whether the resident was regularly updated regarding when the windows would be fitted. The landlord ought to have communicated with the resident to provide updates. This indicates a failing by the landlord to properly communicate with the resident, which may have caused her distress as she did not know when the windows would be fitted.
  21. After the outstanding works were completed, the landlord arranged a further thermal imaging survey which was carried out in January 2023. The resident contacted the landlord and raised that the survey had identified various instances of air ingress, including around the newly installed windows. She provided the recording of the survey and compiled a document that set out details of the survey. However, it appears that the surveyor did not complete a written report setting out their findings, and the Ombudsman is therefore unable to confirm exactly what works the surveyor said should be carried out. The landlord ought to have communicated with the surveyor to obtain a written report which detailed any recommended works. This should have been done in order to gain clarity on recommended repairs and to ensure the landlord maintained a clear audit trail of its response to the issue. This suggests a record keeping failure by the landlord.
  22. As a result of the findings of the survey, the windows were adjusted on 2 February 2023. The evidence also suggests that a heating engineer attended on 17 February 2023 and concluded that the thermostatic value of the radiators passed their inspection. These were appropriate actions to check that the radiators were working correctly.
  23. The landlord emailed the resident on 14 February 2023 and stated that there was no requirement for the property to be totally free from draughts. The landlord again offered the remote monitors and stated that this would allow it to ascertain the levels of heat and humidity generated within the property, and how quickly the heat dissipated once the heating had turned off. In a further email dated 3 March 2023, the landlord referred to a February 2022 housing health and safety rating system inspection in relation to the cold which found that there were no actionable hazards identified in the property.
  24. The resident stated that the landlord was ignoring the findings of the thermal imaging survey. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 May 2023 and responded to each of the issues raised within the document she had compiled following the survey. While the landlord had responded to the resident previously about the survey findings, it had not responded to each of the requested repairs. It was appropriate for the landlord to set out its response to the points raised, however this ought to have been done sooner. This indicates a shortcoming by the landlord which may have given the resident the impression that the landlord was not listening to her concerns.
  25. In its 12 May 2023 response, the landlord set out which of the works it had already done, the works it had agreed to do and the works it declined to carry out. In its 30 May 2023 stage 1 response, the landlord outlined the various works that it had carried out following the second thermal imaging survey. The landlord also detailed why it had refused to carry out certain works. This was reasonable.
  26. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s concerns that the landlord had declined to carry out some of the works requested as a result of the second thermal imaging survey. However, the landlord is entitled to follow the advice of its appropriately trained staff in order to make decisions about whether certain works would be effective in addressing reported issues. The evidence shows that the landlord did undertake several repairs following the survey, which was appropriate. While not all of the requested repairs were carried out, it is evident that they were considered, and the landlord provided a rationale for why most of the repairs would not be undertaken. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
  27. As proposed in the October 2023 stage 2 complaint response, the landlord conducted a visit to the resident’s property on 21 November 2023. This was a reasonable action in order to try to address the outstanding issues. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 November 2023 stating what actions it would or would not take in relation to requested repairs. It also stated that it had not identified concerning levels of humidity, damp and mould in the property.
  28. The landlord inspected the soakaway in June 2023 and it was identified that works were required. In the October 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a delay in completing these works, and that compensation would be considered once they had been completed. It is unclear exactly when the repairs to the soakaway were carried out. However, in the revised stage 2 response issued on 26 March 2024 the landlord offered £100 compensation for delays in organising an appointment for a surveyor to inspect the soakaway and delays in scheduling the necessary works.
  29. The evidence indicates that the resident began reporting concerns about the soakaway in May 2022, and she stated her belief that this was contributing to the damp and high humidity in the property. It is unclear to what extent the drainage issues have caused issues in the property however, the evidence indicates that there was a failing by the landlord to deal with the resident’s reports about the soakaway. It is unreasonable that more than a year had elapsed between the resident’s initial reports and the inspection that took place in June 2023. There appears to have been further significant delays in the repairs taking place following the inspection. The landlord did not acknowledge the extensive delays in responding to this matter, and the compensation offered is insufficient to remedy the inconvenience caused. A further £300 compensation has been ordered below to remedy the impact of this failing. As stated above, this is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failings which the landlord attempted to put right, but where the offer was not proportionate to the failing identified. The amount ordered also takes into account the impact caused due to the length of time the resident had been reporting these issues for.
  30. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord is in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  31. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the delays in addressing these matters, and she incurred time and trouble in contacting the landlord to request responses to the outstanding issues. In order to put things right, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £450 in recognition of the impact of these delays. As stated above, the landlord has already offered the resident £50 for the remedial repairs delays and £100 for the delays in inspecting the soakaway. As such, the total amount of £600 for the failings identified is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for failures by the landlord that have adversely affected the resident.
  32. The landlord should also ensure it learns from complaint outcomes. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to conduct a review and establish whether any measures can be put in place to ensure reported repairs are dealt with in a timely manner ging forward.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the rendering on her property.

  1. The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep the exterior of the property and any common parts in a reasonable state of decoration. Further, it states that the landlord’s workforce or contractors will clear up after repairs have been carried out.
  2. The resident complained that the cream rendering on her property had been left with large holes filled with dark cement. She stated that this ought to have been made good, as per her tenancy agreement.
  3. Within the stage 2 complaint response dated 5 January 2023, the landlord stated that the drill holes had been properly filled and that the render would be painted during the next round of cyclical works, but that it could not provide estimated timeframes for this. In the 24 October 2023 stage 2 response, the landlord maintained this position and stated that the cyclical programme was due to take place in 2026.
  4. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding the decoration of the render, the decision to address this as part of the cyclical works appears reasonable. Landlords must make decisions based on what is efficient and economical in the circumstances. The landlord confirmed that the holes were properly filled, and it was therefore not a required repair to maintain the functionality of the property. As such, the landlord has responded reasonably, and the Ombudsman has not identified any failing regarding this part of the complaint.

The landlord’s decision to appoint a single point of contact.

  1. As part of her 21 October 2022 complaint, the resident stated that the new point of contact that she was assigned in April 2022 informed her that they were not allowed to consider events prior to April 2022. The resident stated that she had been required to supply documents to the single point of contact herself. The resident also said that the landlord had assigned her a total of 19 different points of contact.
  2. In its complaint responses, the landlord explained that a single point of contact had been assigned in order to better manage the volume of contact from the resident. It advised that this was not to provide barriers to the resident, but to prevent communication issues. The landlord advised that all of the resident’s previous complaints records were available on its system, but its intention was to ‘start from a clean slate’ and discuss issues that it could take forward from then on. The landlord apologised if this was not properly communicated to her.
  3. The evidence suggests that there was miscommunication that led to this complaint and the landlord responded sufficiently to reassure the resident that staff members do have full access to previous complaints. Further, given the volume of communication and the various issues that the resident has raised, the landlord’s rationale for appointing a single point of contact appears reasonable. Landlords are entitled to communicate via these means in order to more effectively manage their resources and aid smooth communication.
  4. The Ombudsman accepts the resident’s frustration regarding the high number of single points of contact that have been assigned to her. The background to the case is extensive and each new point of contact would need to spend time familiarising themselves with the complaint. While the landlord should endeavour to provide consistency, the high number may be unavoidable due to staff turnover and the need to allocate work effectively between staff and teams. Therefore, this does not represent a failing in the landlord’s service.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the driveway.

  1. The resident’s conditions of tenancy states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the garden tidy and rubbish free and that the landlord is obligated to keep access paths in reasonable repair.
  2. The resident complained that weeds and vines grow on her driveway and that this should be the landlord’s responsibility to maintain because it provides access to her home. She stated that the vines had caused her to trip and bang her head. The resident also stated that an occupational therapist visited the property and contacted the landlord to request repairs due to the driveway being a trip hazard.
  3. The landlord stated that it was not responsible for the maintenance of the resident’s driveway. It provided appropriate advice regarding submitting a personal injury claim for the resident’s head injury. However, in the stage 2 response dated 24 October 2023, the landlord stated that the driveway would be inspected during the visit to her property, and this inspection took place on 21 November 2023. Following this, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that there were no obvious trip hazards on the driveway and therefore nothing for it to resolve.
  4. The conditions of tenancy do not refer specifically to driveways, and there is therefore ambiguity regarding whether a driveway would be classed as a garden or an access path. However, the removal of plants or weeds would usually be the responsibility of the resident and would not fall under the landlord’s responsibility to maintain access paths. The landlord’s decision to conduct an inspection of the driveway was reasonable to determine whether there was a safety hazard. As the landlord determined that there were no trip hazards at the time of its inspection, it was not required to do anything further regarding this aspect of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s  request to use a wet room as a utility room.

  1. The resident’s conditions of tenancy states that the resident may make improvements, alterations and additions as long as written consent is first obtained from the landlord.
  2. In her October 2022 complaint, the resident stated that she was given verbal permission by a member of the landlord’s staff to put her washing machine and dryer in the wet room. The landlord emailed the resident on 13 October 2022 and told her to remove the items from the wet room, and that it had no evidence that permission had been sought or granted for these alterations to be made. The landlord stated that the individual she had spoken to was no longer a member of the landlord’s staff, but they had been asked about this matter and stated that they recalled asking the resident not to put electrics in the wet room. The resident complained that she felt bullied by the landlord, and that if she had been told to get consent then she would have done.
  3. Within the complaint response, the landlord apologised if the communication regarding this matter came across as bullying and stated that it had a strict consent process that must be followed for alterations.
  4. Members of the landlord’s staff should ensure they provide accurate information to residents about such matters. In this instance, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to determine whether the resident was given incorrect information by the staff member as there is no independent evidence of this discussion and the resident and staff member have given different accounts of what was said. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s frustrations regarding this matter, the evidence indicates that the landlord was acting in line with its processes when instructing her to remove the washing machine and dryer from the wet room. It was also reasonable for it to speak to the staff member concerned in response to the resident’s concerns about what she was told. There were no failings by the landlord regarding this complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s customer complaint procedure states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised the first complaint on 5 January 2022 and the landlord issued the stage 1 response on 31 March 2022. There was therefore a delay of approximately 50 days outside of the required timescales, which the landlord did not acknowledge. The resident requested to escalate her complaint on the same date, and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 25 April 2022 which was within the stipulated timeframe. At stage 2, the landlord offered £350 compensation in recognition of the time and impact on the resident. However, it did not indicate whether this included the impact of the delay in providing the stage 1 response.
  3. The landlord sent a third stage response on 5 May 2022. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code sets out our expectations of landlords’ complaint practices. The Code states that landlords should operate a 2-stage complaint handling process, to ensure the complaint process is not unduly long and that residents are not delayed from seeking a resolution via the Ombudsman. It is noted that the landlord’s complaint policy dated October 2022 states that it has a 2-stage process, which indicates that its policy has since been updated in line with the Code.
  4. The resident raised the second complaint on 21 October 2022 and the landlord issued a stage 1 response on 10 November 2022. As such, there was a minor delay of 4 days outside of the required timeframe. The resident escalated her complaint on 10 November 2022 and the landlord sent its stage 2 response on 5 January 2023. There was therefore a delay of approximately 17 days. Whilst any delay would cause some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, this delay was not excessive.
  5. The resident’s third complaint was raised on 16 May 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 1 response on 20 May 2023, which was within its 10-day timeframe. The resident escalated the complaint on 31 May 2023 and the landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated on 1 September 2023. The stage 2 response was issued on 24 October 2023, which was approximately 78 days in excess of the timeframe stipulated. The landlord acknowledged this delay and offered the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused.
  6. The landlord offered reasonable redress for the delays in the 2023 complaint response. However, it did not offer redress for the identified delays in the 2022 complaint responses, which amounts to a failing by the landlord. The resident incurred time and trouble due to chasing the landlord for the complaint responses, and an additional £100 should be paid in order to remedy this failing. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as referenced above which suggests awards in this range where there has been a minor failure in the service provided by the landlord which it did not appropriately acknowledge.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports that her property was cold and draughty.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for repairs to the rendering on her property, driveway and wet room, or regarding its decision to appoint a single point of contact.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure regarding the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident an additional £550 compensation, made up of:
    1. £450 associated with the landlord’s handling of the reports that the property was cold and draughty.
    2. £100 for complaint handling.
  2. This amount is in addition to the £610 which has already been offered as part of the 3 complaint responses. The landlord should pay this to the resident if it has not already done so.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a review of the failings identified in this report with regards to the resident’s concerns that the property was cold. It should establish whether any measures can be put in place to ensure that repairs are inspected and completed in a timely manner. The outcome of any such review should be provided to the Ombudsman.