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

ForHousing Limited (202224951)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224951

ForHousing Limited

6 February 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 handling of the resident’s reports of the following defects in her property:
    1. Flooding in the garden.
    2. Repairs to the toilet.
  2. The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident owns and occupies the property, which is a 2-bed new build house with a garden, under a shared ownership agreement with the landlord since 17 March 2018. The defects liability period concluded on 30 March 2019.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 12 October 2021 about the landlord’s response to her reports of flooding in her garden and said that she had been reporting the issue for 2 years. The resident also raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repairs to her toilet.
  3. The stage 1 response was issued on 23 March 2022. The landlord stated that no issues of flooding were reported during the 2-year defect period. It also stated that gardens did not fall under the National House Building Council (NHBC) warranty and would therefore be the responsibility of the resident to remedy. The landlord also said that a drainage repairs job had been completed on 15 July 2021. It found that there was miscommunication with the resident regarding whether the job had been completed which the landlord apologised for. In regard to the toilet repairs, the landlord stated this would be the resident’s responsibility as the defects period had ended. However, it said that an error was made by sending an operative to repair the toilet. The repair could not be completed as a tiler was required, and the landlord agreed that the job would be re-attended. 
  4. The resident escalated her complaint and stated that a joiner had attended her property that morning and explained that various further work was required to the toilet and the tiling around the toilet. The resident said that she had had to live with a hole in her bathroom for months, and the matter had caused her stress and anxiety for over 3 years. She also said that she had received no communication about her garden.
  5. The stage 2 response is dated 26 August 2022. The landlord referred to a panel review meeting that took place which concluded that the initial complaint investigation had offered clarity on the flooding situation. It also stated that a repair was to be completed to the resident’s bathroom tiles, which the panel concluded was a fair conclusion. The landlord stated that the panel found that it was unreasonable that repairs to the toilet scheduled for 13 April 2022 had not been delivered. The landlord said that a further appointment on 30 June 2022 identified that the toilet required replacement, and the repair had been partially carried out but that a further appointment had been arranged for this to be completed. The landlord offered £700 compensation for the delays and upset caused to the resident.
  6. The resident raised her complaint with the Ombudsman in January 2023. She stated that there were still issues regarding her toilet and the tiling in the bathroom, and that she had reported issues with the toilet 3 months after she moved in. The resident also requested evidence regarding drainage repairs that the landlord said had taken place.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. The resident stated that she wanted to be reimbursed for loss of earnings due to taking 7 days unpaid leave to accommodate appointments that were not attended, or where an operative attended but did not have the correct materials. The landlord’s compensation policy states that financial redress may be offered if actual financial loss is suffered as a result of the landlord’s action or inaction. The policy states that any loss incurred should be supported by proof. It does not specifically refer to offering compensation for loss of earnings. The landlord did not consider whether the resident should be compensated for loss of earnings within its complaint outcomes.
  2. In general, the Ombudsman would not propose a remedy of compensation to reimburse a resident for their time off work, loss of wages or loss of employment whilst repairs are carried out. While such works will inevitably cause some inconvenience, residents are responsible for providing access for repairs to be carried out as needed. However, the Ombudsman will consider whether any compensation offered sufficiently takes into account the inconvenience caused.

Flooding

  1. The landlord provided the Ombudsman with a record of the reported defects. This shows that the resident reported various snagging issues with the property on 15 May 2018, which was within the defects period. The list of reported defects does not include flooding to the garden. It is noted that when the resident raised her initial complaint in October 2021, she said that she had been raising the issue for 2 years. This suggests that the resident began reporting this in late 2019, which would have been outside of the defects period.
  2. The evidence indicates that the resident made contact with the landlord on 4 March 2020 to request a home improvement form to erect a shed in her garden. She reported that she wanted to put gravel down due to the garden being waterlogged. The landlord stated that this matter was not raised as a defect.
  3. The resident made further contact on 12 August 2020 and reported flooding in her back garden. Internal emails sent by the landlord during August 2020 state that although a number of defects were raised during the defect liability period, it could find no reference that the resident had reported flooding within this period. It was therefore advised that any required works to the garden would not be classed as a latent defect under the new build guarantee and would be the responsibility of the leaseholder to resolve. The landlord stated that it advised the resident via email to make a claim through NHBC as the property was outside of the defects period. This email has not been provided and it is unclear whether the resident pursued a claim.
  4. The landlord reasonably concluded that the resident did not appear to raise the issue within the defects period, and that the NHBC warranty did not cover gardens. However, while there was no requirement for the landlord to carry out repairs to the resident’s garden, the landlord ought to have undertaken some enquiries given that a repair may have been required in a communal area.
  5. The landlord raised a repairs job in relation to this matter on 25 January 2021. The repairs records state that a drain on a communal path was overflowing and causing flooding to the resident’s garden. The repairs description states that the landlord had been trying to get the developer to attend regarding this issue since the previous year. This therefore suggests that the landlord may have taken some action regarding the issue since the resident’s 2020 reports, however no evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman in relation to such communication with the developers. Appointments were cancelled on 2 occasions before an operative attended on 15 July 2021.
  6. Within the complaint outcomes, the landlord stated that the resident had been wrongly informed that the repairs had been completed on 15 July 2021. It stated that further work was required, but that the repairs job had not been updated accordingly. The resident questioned what repairs had taken place when operatives had attended to repair the drains, given that there are no drains within the area. However, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that repairs did not take place on 15 July 2021 because there was an issue relating to land ownership. The landlord ought to have explained this to the resident, along with an explanation about any required repairs that had been identified. There appears to have been a failing by the landlord to provide clear and accurate information to the resident.
  7. After the resident raised her complaint on 12 October 2021, the landlord noted that it was unable to re-raise the works because the land ownership needed to be considered. The landlord has provided an internal email sent during October 2021 which indicates that some actions had been taken to establish what repairs were required and who would be responsible for the completion and ongoing maintenance of any additional drainage.
  8. The email states that the maintenance company attended with a drainage contractor in either December 2020 or January 2021, and it was reported that land drains were required. The landlord has provided no evidence of this drainage inspection. The email evidence indicates that that the matter would be escalated to a senior manager for a decision to be made on how the resolve the issue. It is unclear whether this happened, or what the outcome was.
  9. The landlord’s complaint responses failed to address the resident’s specific concerns that the flooding was caused due to a lack of suitable drainage in communal areas. The landlord ought to have provided accurate information to the resident in a timely manner about who had responsibility for any such repairs. The email evidence provided to the Ombudsman indicates that the landlord has undertaken enquiries regarding this matter, and it seems to acknowledge that there is a drainage issue. While it appears that there was some consideration by the landlord regarding whether it would install additional drainage, it remains unclear whether a senior staff member assessed if this work should be completed. The failings identified amount to maladministration by the landlord. 
  10. The landlord provided emails to the Ombudsman dated 29 June 2023 which state that enquiries were being made regarding certain properties that were affected by alleged drainage issues, including the resident’s property. No further update has been provided and it is not known whether any action has been taken as a result of these more recent enquiries. However, the resident informed the Ombudsman in January 2024 that part of her garden was still flooded.
  11. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  12. The resident has experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the lack of clarity from the landlord regarding required repairs. She has incurred significant time and trouble in pursuing this issue. The resident also stated that she has incurred costs for works undertaken in the garden to get it to a useable standard.
  13. The Ombudsman is unable to make an assessment of the condition of the garden or the works that may be required and costs associated with this. However, we have made an order below for the landlord to facilitate a claim to its liability insurers should the resident wish to pursue this.
  14. Consideration has been given to the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor response to the resident’s reports. In order to put things right, the landlord should pay the resident £400 compensation in recognition of the failings identified. This amount is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for financial redress, which suggests amounts of £100 to £600 where there has been a failure which adversely affected the resident.
  15. As the matter remains ongoing, the landlord should take action to provide the resident with clarification as to who is responsible for carrying out any repairs to the area in question. If the area is owned by the landlord, it should consider whether it will carry out any recommended works. An order has been made in this regard below.

Toilet repairs

  1. The defects document reflects that the resident reported an issue with the toilet within the defects period. The document states that on 15 May 2018, the resident reported that the toilet in her upstairs bathroom was not secure.
  2. The landlord raised a repairs job on 25 May 2021, following further reports that the resident’s WC was ‘loose’. A contractor attended the resident’s property on 16 June 2021. The notes of this visit state that the resident said that the issue had occurred before and that the tiles had needed to be removed to fix the problem. The contractor advised that a floor mounted pan should be fitted to stop the issue from happening again.
  3. Within a letter to the landlord, the resident said that after she initially reported issues with the toilet in 2018, a plumber repaired the toilet, but it became loose again. No records have been provided regarding the 2018 repair.
  4. The evidence suggests that the landlord did repair the issue when it was reported within the defects period. Although the same issue occurred again in 2021, this was identified outside of the defects period, and it would have been the resident’s responsibility to repair. However, it is clear that the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend in 2021, and it is reasonable that the landlord took responsibility for this repair going forward. As such, it should have carried out the repair in good time.
  5. The landlord has provided the relevant records which reflect that multiple repairs appointments were scheduled over an extended period before the repair was completed. The evidence indicates that repairs could not be completed due to operatives not having the correct materials, or because trades professionals were not sent on the same date which was a requirement for the job to be completed. There also appears to have been lengthy gaps between some repairs appointments which contributed to the overall delays in completing the repair.
  6. Within the stage 2 response, the landlord stated that during an appointment on 3 February 2022 it was identified that the works were bigger than expected and could not be completed during this appointment. The repairs record in relation to this appointment states that a plumber was required in order to take off the toilet pan and basin. Some work was carried out on 17 March 2022, and the job was scheduled to be completed on 13 April 2022 however the contractor did not have the correct tiles for the job. A further appointment took place on 30 June 2022 and the operative identified that a new toilet needed to be fitted. It is unclear why the requirement for a new toilet had not been identified previously. This is likely to have caused significant frustration to the resident given that more than a year had passed since the initial repairs appointment in June 2021. An operative attended again on 30 October 2022 and noted that the required work was raised 5 months prior but had not been done.
  7. Within its final complaint response, the landlord stated that the tenant panel found that it was unreasonable that the work that had been agreed on 13 April 2022 had not been delivered. It said that the repairs were partially completed on 16 November, and that a further appointment had been scheduled to finish the work. The landlord stated that the panel would like to offer the resident £700 compensation for the delays and upset caused. It also stated that it was working with the repairs and maintenance company to improve the process for multi-trade and follow on repairs, and that any further appointments will be made prior to an operative leaving a property.
  8. A further appointment took place on 19 November 2022 when the majority of the work was completed. However, in January 2023 the resident raised that the new tiles did not match, and that her toilet seat was falling off. On 28 February 2023 a plumber attended the resident’s property and renewed the toilet seat.
  9. On 19 January 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the toilet pan was cracked and that the replacement tiles did not match the original tiles. It is unclear whether the resident has previously raised with the landlord that the toilet pan is cracked. Therefore, the landlord has not responded to this point. In terms of the tiles, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that the tiles were special order items and that in order to match the existing tiles, more time was required to obtain these. The evidence reflects that in January 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the new tiles did not match. These issues were raised after the stage 2 outcome and the landlord has therefore not had the opportunity to respond within the complaints process. It is open to the resident to raise these matters as a new complaint via the landlord’s complaint process.
  10. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has offered suitable remedies in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  11. It is clear that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience due to the considerable delays in completing the repairs to her toilet. She has incurred substantial time and trouble as a result of the multiple appointments that were scheduled to carry out the repairs, many of which did not result in the work being completed. The evidence also indicates that the extent of the required work was not identified until several months after the initial repairs appointment took place. The resident also reported that a hole was left in her bathroom wall for several months, which would have caused significant frustration. While it is clear that disruption was caused to the resident, it is noted that she had access to an alternative toilet within the property.
  12. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for financial redress recommends amounts between £600 and £1000 for failures that had a significant impact on the resident. The amount of compensation offered by the landlord is therefore in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance. It is clear that the resident has been adversely affected, and the amount offered is reasonable redress for the failings identified.
  13. The landlord also stated it would review its repairs process. It is evident that there were various failures regarding the repairs appointments, and it is therefore necessary for the landlord to assess what went wrong and make changes to mitigate these in future. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s redress policy states that its process for handling complaints has 3 distinct stages. The first response stage focusses on identifying and agreeing an appropriate remedy to the complaint within 2 working days. If a remedy cannot be reached, the complaint will be progressed to stage 1, and an investigation will take place within 10 working days of the escalation of the initial complaint. The policy states that stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 21 working days of escalation where a complaints panel is required.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 12 October 2021 and the stage 1 response was issued on 23 March 2022. The landlord therefore responded approximately 102 days outside of the timeframes stipulated in its policy for providing a first response and a stage 1 response. This amounts to a failing by the landlord.
  3. The resident’s escalation request is undated, and it is therefore unclear when this was submitted. The landlord emailed the resident on 31 May 2022 and stated that the complaint should be escalated to the next stage as the landlord had been unable to resolve the complaint. A note made by the landlord on 5 August 2022 states that contractors would be attending to complete the work and it had agreed with the resident to delay the complaint until this visit had taken place.
  4. The landlord’s stage 2 response letter is dated 26 August 2022. However, the letter makes reference to a repairs appointment that took place on 16 November 2022. It therefore appears that the letter is incorrectly dated, and it is unclear exactly when the outcome letter was sent.
  5. It is difficult to calculate the delay in providing the stage 2 response given that the resident’s escalation request is undated, and the date of the stage 2 letter appears to be incorrect. However, it is clear that the landlord confirmed that the complaint would be escalated in April 2022, and the stage 2 was sent in November 2022. This reflects a significant delay, outside of the 21-day timescales set out in the landlord’s policy.
  6. It appears that a delay had been agreed with the resident while the outstanding repair was completed. However, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that a landlord can delay the stage 2 response, but that this should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. It is clear that the delay exceeded this timeframe.  
  7. The landlord failed to comply with required timescales at both stages of the complaint. This amounts to maladministration by the landlord. The landlord also failed to respond to the resident’s request to be compensated for a loss of earnings. In order to remedy the complaint, the landlord should pay the resident £300 compensation in recognition of the significant delays in providing the complaint outcomes. The landlord should also review its handling of the resident’s complaint and identify any learning to ensure this issue does not occur again.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s reports of flooding in the garden.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress regarding its handling of repairs to the toilet.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord should pay the resident a total of £1400, inclusive of the £700 already offered (which can be deducted from this total if already paid). The additional £700 is made up as follows:
    1. £400 for failures associated with its handling of the resident’s reports of flooding in her garden,
    2. £300 for complaint handling failures.
  2. The landlord should write to the resident and the Ombudsman to clarify who is responsible for the area where additional drainage may be required. If necessary, the landlord should arrange for a drainage contractor to attend so that a further inspection can take place and any required repairs can be identified. If the area is owned by the landlord, it should consider whether it will carry out any recommended works and clearly communicate this decision to the resident, along with timescales for any work that will be carried out. The work should then be completed within these timescales.
  3. The landlord should facilitate a claim to its liability insurers should the resident wish to pursue this.
  4. The landlord should review its handling of the resident’s complaint and identify any changes that should be put in place to ensure that it complies with the timeframes set out in its redress policy.
  5. The landlord should evidence compliance with these orders to this service within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should send the Ombudsman the review of its processes for handling repairs and explain any changes that have been implemented to prevent the identified failings from happening again.