The Guinness Partnership Limited (202224654)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224654

The Guinness Partnership Limited

11 June 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Repairs, including to the porch.
2. Major works to her property following the roof coming off.
3. Required follow-on repairs.
4. The management of her decant (temporary move).
5. Its handling of her personal belongings during the major works.
6. Staff conduct.
7. A contractor causing damage to her front garden wall.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom house owned by the landlord. The resident lives at the property with her husband, her adult daughter, and her daughter’s partner.
On 18 February 2022, a storm caused severe damage to the resident’s roof, and that of her neighbour’s home. The landlord attended the property on the same day and made the gas and electrics safe. The resident and her family stayed with her son that night and the landlord provided hotel accommodation from 19 February 2022. The landlord raised a job to temporarily cover the roof of the resident’s home on 21 February 2022, which was completed on 22 February 2022.
The resident was transferred to a serviced apartment from 5 March 2022. Significant works were carried out to the property from 7 March 2022 and over the subsequent weeks. The resident was originally meant to return home from the decant accommodation on 15 April 2022. However, following an inspection of the property, this was postponed and the resident stayed in hotel accommodation for an additional 7 nights until 22 April 2022.
Upon her return home, the landlord stated a number of follow on works were required to the resident’s home, but that these could be completed with her in situ.
On 5 August 2022, the resident formally complained to the landlord over the phone. She raised a number of concerns about the landlord’s handling of the major works, of her belongings at that time, and of the outstanding works required. She also raised concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff and contractors, reporting inappropriate behaviour and comments made to her.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 19 August 2022. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint and accepted there were lessons it could learn from it. It set out the following:
1. The surveyor who had visited the resident’s home on 14 February 2022 had been instructed to assess damp and condensation in her bathroom. The landlord had not been advised of any issues with the roof prior to the surveyor’s attendance and therefore they did not investigate it.
2. It had covered the resident’s roof with tarpaulin to try and protect her belongings, but the nature of the damage to her roof made it difficult to keep the property “completely watertight”. The damage to her neighbour’s roof, although similar, had allowed better temporary coverage of their property.
3. It had investigated the resident’s concerns about the conduct of the engineers when they attended her home in February 2022, and it had taken appropriate action.
4. On 3 March 2022, it had assigned an alternative customer liaison officer to the resident’s case following her report of concerns about the conduct of the original officer. The original officer was off work unexpectedly, but would fully investigate the concerns upon her return and take appropriate action.
5. It accepted that the resident arriving at the temporary decant accommodation to find it dirty, without utensils, and with some broken windows would have caused further stress to her. It said it had reported the issue to the company who managed its temporary accommodation and whose responsibility it was to ensure it met expected standards. It apologised and said the company had taken the necessary actions to resolve the situation.
6. It set out its understanding of the timeline concerning the issues with the removal and storage of the resident’s contents. It had informed the resident that she could provide it with the details of her insurers and it would pass them to its insurers, so both could liaise directly with each other.
7. It had changed the locks and key safe to the resident’s property while the works were being completed because she had accessed the property “on a few occasions” against its advice. It stated this was done to prevent the resident from entering the property while it was unsafe for her to be there.
8. The resident had been able to access the garage from the front even if the scaffolding had restricted access from the side entrance. The scaffolding remain in place after completion of the roof works to facilitate other required works.
9. It acknowledged its contractors had accidentally knocked down a wall in the resident’s garden while it removed a skip. It apologised and said it had scheduled its contractors to repair the wall.
10. It acknowledged that the resident felt she had received poor communication from the landlord while the works had been completed. However, it stated that as works were completed, there had been fewer updates to provide. It had found that whenever the resident requested contact, she had received it within its policy timescales.
11. It denied that any delays to the resident providing her insurer with carpet samples had been within its control. It had facilitated the resident’s access to the property when it was safe to do so.
12. It apologised that there had been some delays to the works being completed on time. It said this had been due to the volume of people involved, a resulting “break down in communications”, and issues with contractor availability. It stated that feedback around these delays had been addressed at the time and appropriate action taken.
13. It apologised for its management of the resident’s return home from her stay in temporary accommodation and acknowledged internal communication had been poor. It denied it had failed to arrange for a cleaner to attend to her home prior to her return.
14. It had installed the resident a new bathroom as a gesture of goodwill upon recognising her bathroom was dated. It further offered £100 compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused and £50 to recognise the impact of its poor communication.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaint process on the same day that the stage 1 response had been issued. She said to the landlord that she did not agree with the outcome or its account of events and that she had evidence to dispute its statements. The landlord acknowledged the complaint’s escalation on the same day.
On 13 September 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It set out the following:
1. It was satisfied the stage 1 investigation had been completed “correctly and accurately” and that the outcome had been fair.
2. The officers involved in the stage 1 investigation had the appropriate level of seniority, had sufficient knowledge of the relevant processes, and were the correct people to process the resident’s feedback.
3. It found it had suitably apologised when it had identified failures and offered gestures of goodwill, which it calculated based on the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
4. It agreed that an increased goodwill gesture “seems appropriate” given that several repairs at the resident’s home remained outstanding. It increased its compensation offer to £300, comprised of:
  1. £250 for the stress and inconvenience caused by delays to complete the resident’s repairs.
  2. £50 to apologise for its poor communication.
5. It was committed to completing all outstanding repairs and it was “hopeful” these would all be done by 30 November 2022. It promised to monitor progress and keep the resident updated.
The landlord carried out works to outstanding repair issues over the following months, with these being completed by August 2023. The resident made a second formal complaint to the landlord on 21 November 2023 relating to quality concerns about these works. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 December 2023 responding to concerns about her porch roof, and other repairs. The resident has stated to the Service that she has not received a stage 2 response despite asking the landlord to escalate her complaint.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. She remains unhappy with many aspects of the landlord’s handling of the issues referred to. She would like the Ombudsman to review the landlord’s compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Having considered all the available evidence, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her concerns about repairs, including to the porch, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that are, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. This is unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure.
The resident complained to the landlord a second time on 21 November 2023, and raised concerns about repairs and the workmanship of those recently completed to her home. These repairs included a potential leak through the property’s roof, to the roof of the porch, and to the bathroom basin. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 5 December 2023.
There is no evidence that the landlord has issued a stage 2 complaint response and it has not provided the Service with evidence that this had been formally requested by the resident. The resident has stated to the Service that the landlord informed her it had closed her complaint because the repairs had been completed. She has also stated that the landlord would not accept a further complaint from her. While the Ombudsman has not had sight of any further evidence relating to this, the landlord should ensure that it is responding to complaints appropriately. Any decision not to accept a complaint should be made in accordance with its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). However, it is unclear if the resident had requested an escalation to stage 2 and if the landlord has failed to issue a stage 2 response.
In consideration that this complaint has not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure (ICP) and in the absence of evidence that confirms a complaint handling failure, this complaint is outside of jurisdiction. The resident is advised to ask the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its procedure if she remains dissatisfied with its stage 1 response and/or its related actions thereafter. If the landlord fails to reasonably provide a stage 2 response, or if it fails to write to the resident to confirm its reasons for not doing so, the resident can contact the Ombudsman for assistance. If the landlord provides a stage 2 response or a letter to confirm it will not escalate the complaint, then the Ombudsman may then be able to consider investigating.

Scope of investigation

The resident also referenced that the matters she raised had impacted on her health. The Service sympathises with the resident’s experiences and does not doubt her statements. However, the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether a landlord’s actions or inaction have had a detrimental impact on the resident’s health. This is because it would be more appropriate for a court or insurer to establish causation. The Ombudsman does however consider the distress and inconvenience caused by any identified failings in the service provided by the landlord. We will also assess the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s identified health concerns where appropriate.

Major works to the property following the roof coming off

The resident has an assured tenancy agreement, which confers legal and contractual obligations onto the landlord with respect to completing required repairs. Relevant legislation sets out that the landlord must complete repairs for which it is responsible, within a “reasonable timescale”.
The landlord has provided the Service with its responsive repairs policy, which sets out its approach to meeting its repairs obligations. The policy states that the landlord will complete, or temporarily fix, a repair categorised as “emergency” (for example, if they post an “immediate health and safety risk”) within 24 hours. If a temporary fix is applied, the landlord will return within a “reasonable timeframe to complete the repair”.
The resident complained to the landlord, and told the Service, that on 14 February 2022, the landlord sent a surveyor to assess her bathroom for damp and condensation. The resident stated that during the appointment, the surveyor had pointed out weaknesses or defects in the property’s structure that may affect the roof. She stated that 4 days later, the roof came off as a result of bad weather. She felt the landlord should reasonably have followed up on the issue with the roof. The landlord responded that the surveyor had been booked to assess the bathroom, and had identified issues with the extractor fan and the plastering work in that room. It stated that it had not been advised of issues with the roof and that its surveyor had therefore not investigated this.
The landlord’s response was reasonable. The resident said to the Service the surveyor was broadly qualified and therefore believed that the surveyor had the appropriate expertise to assess her roof. Despite this, it was reasonable that the surveyor carried out an assessment only of the issue that had been reported. A full inspection of the resident’s house and any other issues had not been booked and would likely have needed a larger time slot in the surveyor’s schedule that day. However, it would have been appropriate for the surveyor to have recorded any observations they made about the resident’s roof and requested follow-up work if appropriate. It is however unlikely that the landlord would have been able to assess and resolve any issues with the roof within the following 4 days. Therefore, while the resident’s concerns are noted, the landlord’s response to this particular matter was reasonable overall.
The resident reported that bad weather had caused severe damage to her roof on 18 February 2022, which was a Friday. The landlord’s records show that it attended immediately and ensured the safety of the gas and electric installations. This was appropriate. The landlord then contacted the resident to check her wellbeing and that she had somewhere to stay, and to inform her that it would take further steps to assess the damage after the weekend. The landlord’s records show it had recorded the matter as a “major incident”. This was appropriate handling.
The following working day, on 21 February 2022, the landlord raised an order for the resident’s home to be temporarily covered, which was completed the following day. This was a prompt response, although the Service accepts that the 3 days that had lapsed since the incident had allowed further damage to be caused to the resident’s home. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that, due to the nature of the specific damage to the resident’s home (as opposed to her neighbour’s), it had been difficult to ensure the property was fully watertight. It stated that it had covered the resident’s home with tarpaulin to try to protect the property and the resident’s belongings. The Service appreciates this was far from ideal. However, the landlord has demonstrated it took reasonable steps to manage the issue.
The landlord took a total of around 9 weeks to complete the major works required to the resident’s home. The works were as follows:
1. New roof installed.
2. Removal and replacement of all upstairs ceiling under asbestos regulations.
3. Rewire and full test.
4. New door frames.
5. Full redecoration upstairs.
6. New vinyl floor in the kitchen.
7. New carpets installed (via the resident’s contents’ insurance).
This was a significant volume of work and this was completed within a reasonable timescale. It is to be expected that there may be reasons for short delays but the landlord managed these and completed the works within 2 months of the incident. The Service notes the resident has stated that her neighbour’s roof had been similarly damaged, but that their works had been completed within a week. We do not doubt the resident’s comments, however it would not be reasonable for us to assess the landlord’s actions by comparing them with the situation next door. This is because the property next door was privately owned and neither the landlord nor the Service have been privy to the works that were required. It is appropriate for the Service to assess the landlord’s actions against its legal obligations and its policies. The landlord completed a significant amount of work within a timescale that could be considered “reasonable” and therefore there is no evidence of maladministration arising from its handling of these works.
It is positive to note that the evidence shows the landlord making proactive and reactive communication with the resident. This is demonstrated by it contacting the resident with updates without a need for it to be prompted and responding to her requests for contact within reasonable timescales. There is evidence it arranged daily calls to the resident in the initial aftermath of the incident. There is also evidence of it agreeing a plan with the resident on 16 March 2022 about the frequency of future communication. There is evidence of the landlord ensuring that individual members of staff took ownership of the situation and that it was diligently monitored. There are records that show the landlord instructing that the resident was called to check her wellbeing. There is evidence of good joint-working and oversight between departments and with contractors, with regular meetings and reviews booked in. The landlord has demonstrated it tried to reasonably foresee potential obstacles and mitigate these, and that it responded when it (or the resident) identified areas where its response could have been improved. The Service acknowledges that there is evidence of good practice shown by the landlord in its handling of these major repairs.
The Service also acknowledges that this assessment of the landlord’s actions in those initial 2 months differs from the resident’s own assessment. We further accept that the resident experienced these difficult events in real time and this may reasonably lead to her having her own valid, but different, perception of events. The Service appreciates that the resident was experiencing a significantly stressful time. We would however be unable to find against the landlord on the basis that the works and decant had been necessary. This is because some disruption is unavoidable in these situations if the landlord is to meet its obligations to the resident. The Service requires the landlord to provide evidence that it has met its obligations and acted in a reasonable and appropriate way. The landlord has provided evidence in the form of written records that demonstrate it did act in such a way and these records include internal records that the resident is unlikely to have seen.
The Service accepts that when co-ordinating major works across multiple departments and contractors, there can be logistical problems and things can go in ways that have not necessarily been foreseen. Where there is evidence of a delay, we will consider whether it could reasonably have been avoided, as some delays can be unavoidable. It is also the case that while contractors work on behalf of the landlord to enable it to meet its obligations, errors and poor planning by contractors cannot always be necessarily considered to be within the landlord’s immediate control. What we expect the landlord to be able to demonstrate is that it handled any setbacks competently and took appropriate moves to minimise any avoidable impact on the resident. The Service has not identified any evidence of service failure or maladministration in this phase of events.
The landlord’s records suggest that an appointment had been arranged with the resident to inspect the property with a view to her returning, in the afternoon of 15 April 2024. It stated that the resident went to the property “with the local press” in the morning instead, which had meant it was unable to clean it before her arrival. The resident complained about the delays to her return home and that it had been necessary for her to spend an additional week in temporary accommodation. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had extended the resident’s stay in temporary accommodation to 14 April 2022 on 30 March 2022, having identified additional time to complete the works was needed. On 13 April 2022, the landlord agreed to meet the resident at her property on 15 April 2022 to inspect it prior to her return. Upon the resident advising that she felt significant work remained outstanding, the decision had been made that it would have been inappropriate for her to move back in that day.
While the landlord handled this issue reasonably well, this account does suggest a lack of appropriate oversight of this final phase of the resident’s decant. It should have inspected the resident’s home in advance of cancelling her accommodation to ensure that all works as set out in the scope had been completed and that the property was habitable.
In its response, the landlord apologised for the stress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this delay. It accepted that its internal communication around the extent of the work still needed to the resident’s home prior to her moving back in, had been poor. It offered £50 compensation to recognise this and £100 to recognise the distress and inconvenience. The £100 award was increased to £250 at stage 2. The Ombudsman has considered our Guidance on Remedies, which sets out our approach to putting things right where they have gone wrong. We have considered that given the evidence demonstrating otherwise good levels of communication and project oversight, £300 was a proportionate award to recognise the occasion where these could have been better.

Required follow-on repairs

The landlord had stated that further works required to the resident’s home had been identified as it carried out the repairs. When the resident moved back into her home, it stated that it would carry out these additional repairs with her in situ. These repairs were listed as follows:
1. A new porch roof.
2. New windows.
3. New cladding to the front and back of the property.
4. New bathroom.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord explained that between February and June 2022, extensive repairs had been carried out at the resident’s home. It accepted that there had been some delays to completing everything that was outstanding and that this was because of “a break down in communications”. It explained it had needed to outsource some of the works to contractors and there were issues with availability. It apologised for this, which was appropriate. The Service accepts that coordinating multiple contractors can be challenging and issues with contractor availability are not always within the landlord’s immediate control.
The stage 1 response further stated that the only outstanding works were to replace the property’s cladding and to replace some of the windows. It stated it would be in touch with the resident by the beginning of September 2022 to provide dates for this work to take place. This was reasonable.
However, the stage 2 response issued a little under a month later stated that there were more significant works still required to the resident’s home. As well as the windows and cladding, there was still work needed to the porch roof, skirting boards and to remedy cracks throughout the property. It is unclear if these additional works had been identified since the stage 1 response. The landlord stated it would have completed all outstanding works by 30 November 2022. While it was positive to note that the landlord had made attempts to ensure it could give the resident this deadline, it is also noted that the resident had already been waiting some months for these to be completed.
Despite the deadline given of 30 November 2022, the evidence suggests that the works were not fully completed until August 2023. This was a substantial delay. Having considered the landlord’s records from September 2022 until the following summer, it is clear there were a number of factors that resulted in this delay. The Service acknowledges that the landlord completed some works earlier and that there were issues with contractor and resident availability. We further acknowledge that some works could not be completed until others had been finished. However, that these works took more than a year to fully complete was unacceptable.
It is also concerning to note that internal emails show the landlord’s officers admitting to being “confused” about what the next steps were or should be, nearly 2 months after the works should have been completed. This state of confusion remained evident in the records for some weeks, with the landlord returning requested callbacks to the resident and being unable to communicate effectively with her on the next steps. The Service notes the landlord did have ongoing oversight of the process, with no significant periods of it neglecting the issue. However, it is concerning therefore that the landlord had been ineffective at coordinating the works for significant periods of time. It had also been necessary for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its poor communication.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord wrote to the resident on 30 November 2023 and made a revised final offer of compensation following the completion of the outstanding works. The total offer was £750, comprised of £650 to recognise the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, and £100 to apologise for its “poor communication and failure to keep to [its] promises”. It was positive that the landlord had identified that it would be reasonable to review its final remedy to the resident, and that it did so. However, this investigation will be in line with the Ombudsman’s approach to subsequent offers of compensation made after complaints have completed the landlord’s ICP.
Therefore, the Service will assess how the landlord handled this issue and our related finding will be made based on the landlord’s final complaint response and remedy. It is important to ensure that the landlord fully resolves complaints at the earliest opportunity, including ensuring that any required actions post-ICP are carried out diligently without avoidable failures. The Service cannot speculate on whether the resident’s earlier approach to the Ombudsman had influenced the landlord’s decision to review its final compensation offer. However, we are keen to ensure it is not necessary for the resident to approach the Service in order for the landlord to offer reasonable remedy. The subsequent offer of compensation will therefore only be considered when assessing whether it would be appropriate to order any further financial redress.
There were significant differences between the landlord’s competent handling of the major works that took place between February and April 2022, and the outstanding works it had committed to resolving as part of its stage 2 response. The Service will therefore make a finding of maladministration for this part of the complaint. In its stage 2 response, the landlord committed to carrying out the works within a reasonable timescale and it failed to do so, for reasons that were not entirely unavoidable.
The Service has considered the revised offer of redress the landlord made once the works had been completed. The Remedies Guidance suggests awards of £750 may adequately remedy maladministration or severe maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident over a period of time. Therefore, the Service will not order the landlord to make any further payment of compensation with respect to this complaint issue. However, an order will be made that the landlord reviews this case to identify why the works were not fully completed for almost a year after the stage 2 response.

Decant management

The landlord has provided the Service with its decant policy. The policy sets out its approach to temporarily housing residents where repairs are required to their homes and it is unsafe to complete them with the resident in situ. Such repairs can include major structural repairs, asbestos removal, electrical work, and repairs to external brickwork. The policy states that its “starting point” is to rehouse residents on a “like-for-like basis”
The resident raised a number of concerns around the landlord’s handling of her decant into temporary accommodation. She stated that upon arriving at the serviced apartment on 5 March 2022, she identified some problems, including that it was dirty and was missing crockery and utensils. She also stated that it had been necessary for her to move multiple times in the 9 weeks she was unable to live in her home.
In its stage 1 complaint response dated 19 August 2022, the landlord acknowledged that finding the apartment in a poor state was likely to have caused the resident additional stress. It apologised that the apartment had not met expected standards. It said it was the relevant contractor’s responsibility to ensure that all accommodation offered to its residents is checked prior to arrival and that it meets expected standards. It set out that it had reported the issues to the contractor, who “took necessary actions to put this right”. The evidence does not suggest this issue persisted thereafter. The landlord’s response was reasonable. It had responded to the resident’s report to ensure it was resolved swiftly.
The Service accepts that the landlord had contracted out the provision and management of temporary accommodation to a different company. Should the contractor be competent at its work, it should not usually be necessary that the landlord would have to inspect each unit of accommodation immediately prior to it being allocated to its residents. Therefore, we would not necessarily find against the landlord because the apartment had not initially met standards as it was the contractor who had failed to ensure this in line with its contractual obligations. This had not necessarily been within the landlord’s immediate control, and therefore its response was imperative. In such situations, it should ensure the issues are resolved and take reasonable steps to better manage the contract with the outsourced company to ensure its obligations are met.
However, the Service reminds the landlord that despite the contractor’s failure on this occasion, the landlord has the responsibility to provide appropriate temporary accommodation. Delegating the logistics of meeting this responsibility to another party does not absolve the landlord of this responsibility. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer an explanation of the matter in its complaint response, it should avoid giving the impression that it has outsourced its responsibility to a third party. This is because the resident has a direct contractual relationship with the landlord, not its contractors. The details of any issues in the contract between the landlord and the outsourced company should not be the resident’s concern. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to accept it had the responsibility to provide the resident with suitable temporary accommodation. It could then set out the steps it took to improve its oversight of the relevant contractor and put the matter right. Therefore, the Service finds that the landlord’s response overall was appropriate. However, it should strike a balance between explaining why the issue occurred and giving an impression that it was not its responsibility.
The Service has considered the sequence of the accommodation placements offered to the resident over the 9 week period of her decant. On the night the roof damage occurred, the resident and her family were able to stay with her son for one night. They informed the landlord they would be unable to stay with their son for any longer. The landlord responded by booking the resident and her family into a local hotel. This was an appropriate response. The landlord needed to find suitable accommodation on an emergency basis and hotels can reasonably meet this requirement on a short-term basis.
The landlord identified that the works were likely to take a significant period of time and that it would be inappropriate to expect the resident to live in a hotel without access to kitchen facilities for the entire duration of them. It worked to source the resident a more suitable placement for a longer stay. After 2 weeks in the hotel, the resident and her family were moved into a reasonably sized serviced apartment with kitchen facilities. This was the correct course of action. While an additional move would have undoubtedly caused further disruption to the resident, the landlord had a responsibility to move the family out of hotel accommodation into a more suitable placement. Its decant policy states that it “may move customers into more suitable accommodation” from hotel or bed and breakfast accommodation, where decants are expected to last more than a few days. Such a move was likely to have benefitted the resident and made the following weeks more comfortable.
The end of the resident’s decant was postponed on the day she was meant to return home. This was because it had been identified that the property was not sufficiently ready and requiring the resident to move back in would have been inappropriate. The Service has assessed the landlord’s handling of this matter earlier in the report. However, when specifically considering the landlord’s handling of the decant, this had been an unexpected setback. The evidence suggests that the landlord made enquiries as to whether the resident and her family could return to the serviced apartment they had spent the previous 6 weeks living in. This was appropriate. However, because that booking had ended, the apartment had been allocated elsewhere for another booking. The accommodation provider had been within its rights to do this. The landlord therefore responded to this by booking the resident into another hotel, where she spent an additional week before moving home.
It was undoubtedly unfortunate that the third move had been necessary and it caused further disruption to the resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord handled the situation unreasonably. It accepted its responsibility to provide alternative accommodation as needed and did so. Decants by their nature are unfortunately disruptive by those for whom it has been necessary. The evidence also demonstrates that food allowances were provided for the family at each placement, which was appropriate.

Handling of the resident’s personal belongings during the major works

The resident complained that the landlord and its contractors failed to take adequate care of her personal belongings while the major works to her property were taking place. She raised concerns about the landlord’s contractor who had been tasked with removing and storing her belongings. She stated that her belongings were mishandled while being removed from her home, including a brand new sofa that had been put in the road. There was also an issue with the resident’s insurer getting necessary access to the resident’s belongings while they were in storage.
The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that the contractor it used for the removal and storage of the resident’s belongings was a “storage removal company”. The resident had stated she believed it to be a “recycling and reclamation agent”. The landlord’s internal records state that the contractor was one it had regularly used for these purposes. They also demonstrate that the landlord had offered reassurance to the resident about this concern at the time The landlord has a large degree of autonomy over the contractors it chooses to use to act on its behalf. The Ombudsman would not seek to comment on this unless there is evidence the contractor was wholly inappropriate or unqualified for the jobs contracted to it. In the absence of this evidence, we will assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the contractors’ conduct rather than the choice of contractor itself.
The resident raised concerns on 15 March 2022 about how the contractor was handling her belongings as they were removed from her home. She stated her neighbour had alerted her that they had not been professionally packed and her brand new sofa had been put in the road. The landlord stated in its stage 1 response that it had raised the resident’s concerns with the relevant manager at the contractor. The contractor had assured the landlord that it had taken the “necessary care and actions” to ensure the resident’s belongings were not damaged. It was appropriate that the landlord immediately raised the resident’s concerns with the contractor. It was further appropriate that the landlord offered reassurance to the resident about the contractor and its actions.
The resident made a claim against her contents insurance because of the damage caused to them by the storm. Internal emails sent by the landlord on 28 and 31 March 2022 stated it had been made aware that the resident wished for it to release her belongings to the insurance company. The insurance company wanted to move her belongings to a different location and the landlord was therefore in the process of getting signed authorisation from the resident in order to allow this. This was appropriate. The landlord had been responsible for the resident’s belongings while it was providing storage. It was therefore necessary that it clarified where that responsibility transferred to if the belongings were moved by a third party and that the resident agreed with this.
On 1 April 2022, the landlord emailed the resident and explained it would need written permission from her to release her belongings to her insurer that day. It also explained that its contractor would take photos of the belongings in order to prove their condition prior to handover. The records suggest that the landlord did not receive written permission from the resident until 4 April 2022, which meant there had been a short delay to the handover taking place. While this was unfortunate, it may not have been realistic to expect the resident to provide written permission on the same day she had been asked for it. The evidence suggests that the handover of belongings was arranged for 14 April 2022 and there is no evidence to suggest any further issues with this.
However, an internal email sent on 7 April 2022 suggests the resident had raised a concern that the landlord’s contractor had stored wet belongings with dry belongings. She was concerned this may have resulted in all of her belongings being ruined. The Service is aware that the resident made a successful claim against her contents insurance to cover any damage they had sustained. It is unclear whether her insurer determined that any of her belongings had been damaged by the treatment of them after the storm. There is further no evidence that the landlord mishandled the process of handing the belongings over.
If the resident believed her belongings had been damaged by the landlord or its contractor, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide her with details for how she could make a claim against its liability insurance. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that the resident had said the landlord “would not give [her] a direct contact” for her insurer to speak directly to its insurer. It had instead offered to pass on details of the resident’s insurer to its own insurer so they could communicate directly with each other. It is unclear why the landlord would not give the resident details for communicating with its insurer as this had been a reasonable request. The landlord must ensure it does not unreasonably withhold details of its insurer from the resident as to do so may give the impression it is inappropriately gatekeeping access to its insurer.
The resident had also raised a concern in her complaint about the landlord’s handling of the issue with getting carpet samples from her home in order for her insurer to progress the claim. She said the landlord had caused unreasonable delays to this. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it had to manage the resident’s access to the property during the works as it was a building site and therefore unsafe to allow her in. It had offered to collect the samples for her but said it had needed written permission from the resident in order to this. However, on 6 April 2022, the landlord had managed to facilitate safe access to the property and the resident was able to take the samples. This was reasonable and there is no evidence of failure in the landlord’s handling of this issue.

Staff conduct

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy refers to a code of conduct for its contractors. It says that anyone working in a resident’s home on its behalf is “expected to meet [its] code of conduct”. It states it will monitor how they behave in its residents’ homes and that “in return, we expect our customers to treat our employees and contractors with respect at all times”.
The resident made a number of reports concerning the conduct of the landlord’s employees or contractors working on its behalf during the period the works were being carried out. She stated that during the initial emergency call out, 2 engineers had been laughing about the roof damage, taking photos and uploading them to social media. She further raised concerns that her customer liaison officer had been “dismissive” towards her and made “derogatory comments” to the resident about the fact that she was a social housing tenant.
The Service sympathises with the resident’s reports of her experiences with these individuals and does not doubt her statements. However, our role is not to determine whether the reported behaviours of the engineers and the landlord’s officer were accurate or not. The Ombudsman was not present during these interactions and the exchanges were verbal, not written. Therefore, without corroborating evidence to support the reports, the Service is unable to reasonably conclude what happened. Our remit, therefore, is to assess whether the landlord handled the resident’s reports appropriately and in accordance with any relevant policies and/or procedures.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reports in its stage 1 complaint response dated 19 August 2022. It stated that it had taken action upon receiving the resident’s report of its employee being “dismissive”. It had assigned the resident an alternative customer liaison officer on 3 March 2022. This was an appropriate action to take and demonstrated the landlord accepted the resident’s relationship with the previous officer was likely to have been significantly damaged. This action was therefore a reasonable step to take to restore a positive professional relationship between the resident and the landlord’s representatives. It was likely to have had the effect of reducing any awkwardness or discomfort the resident may have felt around the previous officer following the reported comments. It also showed a commitment to reducing the likelihood of a similar incident occurring, which was appropriate.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord further stated it had raised concerns relating to its engineers to the relevant manager, who had “investigated this with the engineers”. It reassured the resident that “the appropriate action has been taken”. With regard to its own member of staff, the landlord stated they were not currently attending work, but upon their return, it would “complete a full investigation” and that it would take appropriate action.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports was reasonable, but it did not go far enough. It was necessary that it investigated these reports and took appropriate action. The Service would not expect the landlord to provide excessive details about the actions it had taken. This is because the landlord has the right to manage its employees as it sees fit and the Ombudsman assesses the landlord’s actions as a housing provider, not an employer. The landlord must also consider its duty to protect the confidentiality of its employees and it would be inappropriate for it to provide the resident or the Ombudsman with personal information about its employees.
However, the landlord could have gone further to provide the resident with assurance about how it had investigated her reports. It was insufficient that it referred solely to having carried out an investigation, with no specific detail about what investigative actions it had taken. It did not state whether it had interviewed the members of staff involved, or any witnesses. It did not state whether it had assessed its records for any reference to these incidents. The landlord should reasonably have given more detail about how it had investigated the resident’s reports. To fail to do so would have run the risk of undermining the resident’s trust in the process. The landlord could also have explained what action was being taken to prevent a reoccurrence of such issues. Examples of appropriate action could have included providing relevant staff with a reminder of its code of conduct or providing further training.
The Service further notes that the landlord did not apologise to the resident specifically for these incidents she had reported. We accept that the landlord had itself recorded incidents of “difficult” behaviour from the resident during the works. However, such incidents would not have provided any justification for the comments and behaviour the resident reported having received from those acting on the landlord’s behalf. It should therefore reasonably have apologised for the resident’s experiences as she had reported. Its failure to do so was further compounded the aforementioned lack of substance when referring to its investigations. It is unlikely the resident felt her complaint about these matters had been satisfactorily resolved.
A finding of service failure will therefore be made with regard to the landlord’s handling of this matter. The landlord will be ordered to apologise to the resident for her experiences and its failings in satisfactorily resolving this complaint, including that it has been necessary for the Ombudsman to order it to apologise.

A contractor causing damage to the front garden wall

The evidence demonstrates that on 16 March 2022, during the major works, a skip contractor accidentally caused significant damage to the resident’s front garden wall. In its stage 1 complaint response dated 19 August 2022, the landlord apologised for this and stated it had scheduled its contractors to repair the wall and that the landlord “would cover the cost of this”. This was a reasonable response, but it was unclear when the contractors were scheduled to attend to complete this work. It did not refer to this repair when it set out its next steps and the works that were still outstanding. The landlord should reasonably have been clearer about this necessary detail.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 13 September 2022, the landlord indicated that the garden wall repair remained outstanding. It stated that the garden wall would be the final repair it carried out, to ensure there were “no obstructions or opportunities for this to be disturbed whilst we carry out other works”. The landlord further committed to having completed all outstanding repairs by no later than 30 November 2022. This was reasonable.
The evidence suggests that multiple repairs had been subject to delays and repairs had not been completed by the end of November as promised. Records suggest that the front wall had been rebuilt by April 2023, but that the resident had concerns about the quality of the repair and further work had been required to it. The landlord’s position in its letter of 5 December 2023 stated the contractor who had caused the damage “have gone through their insurance company”. It further stated that the landlord would therefore not be completing the work to the wall.
The Service accepts that the landlord’s contractor had caused the damage to the wall and that it was reasonable for the remedial works to be sorted via the contractor’s insurer. However, it is clear there was a significant and unreasonable delay to the wall being rebuilt to a satisfactory standard. It was inappropriate of the landlord to absolve itself of responsibility to ensure the matter was resolved within a reasonable timescale, because the contractor had been working on the landlord’s behalf. The landlord had a responsibility to ensure the damage was put right within a reasonable timescale. It could have considered resolving the matter itself and then subsequently sought reimbursement from the contractor’s insurer. This would have reduced the impact on the resident. It remains unclear whether this matter has been fully resolved. An order will therefore be made to facilitate any outstanding resolution.
Considering the length of time the resident has been waiting for this issue to be fully resolved, it will be necessary for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. The Remedies Guidance suggests that £150 may adequately remedy this issue. The Service accepts the likely impact of the damaged wall has been low, but recognises that it has been necessary for the resident to chase this issue for a significant period of time.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about repairs, including to the porch, is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolved the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about major works to her property following the roof coming off.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about required follow on repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about how it managed her decant (temporary move).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about its handling of her personal belongings during the major works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about staff conduct.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a contractor causing damage to the front garden wall.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified in this report concerning:
  1. Staff conduct.
  2. The damaged front garden wall.
  3. Delays to the follow on works.
2. Make a direct payment to the resident of £150 in financial compensation. This sum is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the garden wall matter being appropriately resolved.
3. The landlord must update the Ombudsman on the current status of the repair to the resident’s front garden wall. If the repair remains outstanding, it must provide the Ombudsman and the resident with an action plan for resolving it, with timescales.
The landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case with a particular focus on the delays to completing the outstanding works referred to in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord must seek to identify the reasons why it took almost a year to complete these works. Where it identifies areas for improvement, it must also provide an action plan designed to implement improvements. The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the review and the action plan within 8 weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should issue a stage 2 complaint response to the resident if she indicates she was dissatisfied with the outcome of the stage 1 response it issued on 5 December 2023. If the landlord does not consider it necessary or appropriate to escalate the resident’s complaint (if this is what she wants to do), it should issue her a letter explaining its reasons for this decision.