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

Beyond Housing Limited (202303044)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303044

Beyond Housing Limited

24 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. handling of repairs to the property.
    2. response to the resident’s concerns about the use of the rear access path.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a 3-bedroom house. The tenancy commenced in July 2020. The resident lives with his partner who has depression and anxiety and 2 children one of whom has autism.
  2. Between April 2022 and February 2023, the landlord attended the property unannounced on at least 3 occasions concerning repairs. In June 2022 it inspected the resident’s kitchen and identified various repairs. Later that month the resident asked how he could claim compensation for multiple repairs promises that the landlord had not followed through with and added that operatives were turning up to the property without prior notice. In response, the landlord signposted to the resident to its insurers.
  3. In February 2023 the resident complained to the landlord. He raised concerns that his neighbours were encroaching into his garden and that numerous repairs remained outstanding. On 23 May 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response. In summary, it said:
    1. It had attended the property on 24 February 2023 and noted it had completed a number of repairs since the resident moved in.
    2. It had addressed the outstanding repairs including a kitchen renewal and repairs to the kitchen worktops.
    3. It had contacted the resident’s neighbour regarding the overgrown conifer and arranged for it to be cut back after ‘nesting season’.
    4. It would offer a total amount of compensation of £2,111.86 which included £1,125 for the time and inconvenience regarding the outstanding repairs, £500 for the time and inconvenience regarding external works/privacy and £125 for the inconvenience caused by not providing 24 hours’ notice for visits.
  4. In the resident’s escalation request of 17 June 2023 he said that the landlord had informed him in a previous complaint response dated April 2022 that the kitchen worktops did not need repairing nor the kitchen sink replacing. He added that the operatives had attended the property on multiple occasions without prior notice. He said that when he moved in, the landlord informed him that he would have private access to the rear. He said that this later changed to shared access with the landlord removing the dividing fence which in his view affected his privacy and security. As a resolution, he wanted further compensation which included £3,000 in respect of the boundary access issue.
  5. The landlord issued its final response on 5 July 2023. It increased its offer of compensation to £2,361.86 comprising of an additional £125 for misinformation from departments and an extra £125 for not providing 24 hours’ notice for visits. In declining his request for £3,000 compensation regarding the boundary issue, the landlord stated it had already exceeded its compensation guidelines and had installed a 6ft fence on the shared access boundary to protect his privacy.
  6. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said that the landlord led him to believe when viewing the property that the rear access was for his sole use. He said that the kitchen was substandard, and surfaces were damaged beyond repair and that it had taken the landlord over 2 years to rectify the issue. He added that he has a disabled child, and operatives would consistently turn up at the property unannounced. As a resolution he wanted compensation of £6,311.86 for the time, stress and inconvenience caused.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In the resident’s referral to this Service, he said that there was damp and mould throughout the house. While the Ombudsman does not underestimate the distress caused by this, the resident informed the landlord in his escalation request that he was not seeking compensation for damp and mould. Furthermore, this Service notes that the landlord issued a stage 2 final complaint response in May 2024 in respect of this issue. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s response, he can ask this Service to investigate this complaint.
  2. The resident has informed this Service that the property was in a state of disrepair when he moved in in 2020. He added that the landlord had provided incorrect information about access to his rear garden when he viewed the property. Under the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this investigation has not considered any specific events prior to April 2022. The assessment will therefore focus on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports from April 2022 up to the landlord’s final response in July 2023.
  3. The landlord issued a final response in April 2022 regarding similar complaint issues. The resident has asked this Service to investigate how this complaint was handled. There is evidence that the landlord provided the resident with referral rights to our Service, yet this complaint was not brought to the Ombudsman for investigation. The Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure. In view of this, this Service will not be assessing the landlord’s April 2022 final response.

Handling of repairs in the property

  1. The landlord’s repair policy states that a routine repair will be carried out at the next available appointment and that it will aim to attend as soon as possible. It states that it will normally give the resident at least 24 hours’ notice for any appointment unless it is an emergency.
  2. The landlord does not dispute that there were failings in its handling of this matter. Where the landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances and offered appropriate redress. In considering this, the Service assesses whether the landlord’s actions were in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. In the resident’s escalation request he said that the landlord told him in its April 2022 final response that the kitchen worktops did not require repair and that it did not need to replace the kitchen sink. He added that he had to escalate these matters to the landlord’s chief executive and requested £1,500 compensation to resolve this matter. The landlord’s final response did not dispute the resident’s assertions. Indeed, it confirmed that after its April 2022 response, it agreed to renew the kitchen. However, it declined the resident’s compensation request, suggesting that it had already offered the maximum amount of compensation, in line with its compensation procedure.
  4. The landlord’s internal records stated that it visited the property on 7 June 2022 and found that the kitchen had 3 different types of doors and 2 different types of units. It added that some of the units were water-damaged and swelling. While it is unclear when the landlord renewed the kitchen, which may indicate issues with the landlord’s record keeping, it is reasonable to conclude that the resident’s kitchen was in need of repair and had been for a number of months before the matter was finally resolved. Furthermore, it does not appear that any temporary repairs were carried out to the kitchen before its renewal. This was a failure on the part of the landlord who should have carried out any necessary repairs in line with its policy. Moreover, from the stage 1 response, it appears the renewal did not take place until after late February 2023. This was at least around 9 months after the landlord was aware of repairs to the kitchen.
  5. While it was reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation and to move the planned kitchen renewal forward, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the total compensation offer for the failures identified did not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. This Service considers that the delay in resolving the repairs to the kitchen would have had a significant impact on the resident’s household, particularly given their vulnerabilities. In view of this, a further award of compensation has been made below for remedy to bring the total amount awarded in line with this Service’s guidance which suggests awards from £600 to £1,000 where there has been a significant impact on the resident.
  6. In the resident’s escalation request and subsequent referral to this Service he said that the landlord would regularly turn up to the property for repairs unannounced. Again, the landlord did not dispute this. From the evidence provided it appears this happened on at least 3 occasions. To resolve this, he requested compensation of £350. In response, the landlord increased its offer to £250 to reflect that this had occurred on more than one occasion.
  7. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will award up to £125 compensation where there has been a high level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. While its offer was broadly in line with its own policy and our guidance the landlord’s records showed that this was a consistent issue. Given the landlord was aware of the household’s vulnerabilities it failed to learn and repeatedly attended unannounced. This would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who had to regularly inform the landlord of these unannounced visits.
  8. The landlord has informed this Service that it has identified learning from these failings and has since updated its procedure for booking appointments. While this is welcome the landlord did not apologise for these failings in its formal responses, nor did it inform the resident of what steps it had taken to learn from this. Given the number of unannounced visits and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident a further award of compensation is made below.

Response to the resident’s concerns about the use of the rear access path

  1. In the resident’s escalation request he said that it was initially explained to him that he had private access to the rear which the landlord later changed to shared access. He added that the landlord had removed the only divisible fence with no thought to his privacy. To resolve this, he requested £3,000 compensation.
  2. The landlord has informed this Service that the path in question is not in the resident’s garden and added that the surrounding properties also have access to this path. Indeed, plans provided to this Service show a path at the very rear of the property which appears to confirm this. Nevertheless, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s assertions and seemed to offer £500 compensation to ‘put things right’. In addition, it erected a new fence to protect the resident’s privacy. While the landlord acted reasonably in this respect it did not apologise nor offer an explanation in response to his concerns. In addition, it is not entirely clear what the compensation award was for. This amounts to service failure and an order and recommendation are made below for remedy.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states that a formal complaint is defined as ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents’. Further, the policy states that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days.
  2. At the end of June 2022 the resident explained to the landlord that he had opened a repairs complaint and asked how he could claim compensation. He added that the landlord had not followed through on multiple promises and that operatives would turn up at the property unannounced. In response, the landlord appeared to refer the resident to its insurers. This was inappropriate and it is not clear why it did this. As the resident had clearly expressed dissatisfaction at the landlord’s handling of repairs it should have responded to his concerns through its formal process, in line with its complaints policy. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that would have delayed getting matters resolved for the resident.
  3. Further, the landlord failed to respond to the resident’s February 2023 stage 1 complaint within its policy timescales. It took the landlord around 3 months to respond. This was inappropriate and would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously.
  4. In addition, the landlord’s formal responses failed to acknowledge or apologise for these complaint handling failures. Nor did it address the resident’s concerns about a previous stage 2 response which he said the landlord had disregarded. He added that this response had contradicted its current position regarding kitchen repairs. This Service notes that this formed a large part of his escalation request. It is therefore concerning that the landlord did not acknowledge or address this in its final response. Its failure to do so would have caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident who would have likely felt that the landlord was not listening to him. This amounts to service failure and orders are made below for remedy.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns about the use of the rear access path.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

  1. The landlord must do the following within the next 4 weeks:
    1. Provide a written apology for the failures identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,861.86 comprised of:
      1. £2,361.86 as offered in its final response if it had not already done so.
      2. A further £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
      3. A further £75 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by unannounced appointments.
      4. A further £75 compensation for the landlord’s failure to adequately address concerns relating to the rear access.
      5. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    3. Review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review. This order is made in line with paragraph 54 g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.
  2. The landlord should provide this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescale set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should ensure that in its formal responses, any compensation offers are clearly broken down with an explanation of how the landlord arrived at the calculation.
  2. The landlord should review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report of Knowledge and Information Management (available at: KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).