Longhurst Group Limited (202330082)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330082

Longhurst Group Limited

18 July 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Front door repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a shared owner. The lease is dated 12 July 2019. The property is a 2-bedroom bungalow.
In July 2023, the resident reported that the front door was leaking water from beneath the door. Contractors attended in August 2023 and attempted a repair. Following this, the resident reported the door was still letting in water.
The landlord recorded an ‘early resolution complaint’ on 14 August 2023. The agreed remedy was for a surveyor to inspect the door on 16 August 2023.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 16 August 2023 to reschedule the surveyor’s appointment. It called a mobile phone number and a landline. It said it left a voicemail.
The resident raised a complaint on 17 August 2023. She said:
1. She rescheduled her day to accommodate the appointment on 16 August 2023.
2. She had fitted new flooring recently and was concerned water ingress from the door would damage it.
3. She did not have a landline telephone and was concerned the landlord called the wrong phone number.
4. To resolve matters, she wanted the landlord to supply and fit a new front door.
A surveyor inspected the door on 23 August 2023.
The resident raised another complaint to the landlord on 1 September 2023 as the landlord had not confirmed its position following the surveyor’s inspection. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 7 September 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 5 October 2023. It summarised the complaint and said:
1. It recognised the door repair was still outstanding and it had not set a date of when its contractors would rectify this.
2. As it had not yet been able to resolve the complaint at stage 1, it was moving the complaint to stage 2 as per the resident’s request.
3. It apologised for the delay responding to the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 8 November 2023. It set out a timeline of events and said:
1. It recognised it took a significant amount of time to inform the resident that it would not be replacing the front door. This in turn delayed the repairs.
2. It identified several communication failings.
3. It was sorry for the service failure and the distress and inconvenience caused.
4. It offered £300 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay raising repairs to the front door.
  2. £100 for the upset, stress, and inconvenience.
  3. £150 for the delay in resolving the complaint.
5. Contractors would attend on 10 November 2023 to:
  1. Check the top paving slab was not falling towards the property causing water to overwhelm the installed drainage channel. If it was, lift and re-bed.
  2. Replace the brush and rubber strips to the frame where damaged.
  3. Change the rain deflector for one that projected further from the door.

Actions after the end of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure

In January 2024, the resident made a follow-on complaint about the delay fitting a new rain deflector to the front door. She said the landlord should have completed this in November 2023.
Records show contractors sourced the required deflector in March 2024, but the resident refused to make an appointment for fitting.
The following month, the landlord’s records show the resident informed it that the rain deflector that was installed was not like for like, and a sealant gun was left at the property.
The resident informed this Service in May 2024 that the landlord had not completed further works to the door. It is not clear whether the repairs completed by the landlord resolved the water ingress.

Assessment and findings

Where a landlord admits failings, the Ombudsman’s role is to assess whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord acted in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure. As such, this investigation considers events from the date the resident initially reported the door repair in July 2023, up to the date of the landlord’s final complaint response in November 2023. This does not include the problems the resident has since reported with the door lock.
The resident said the landlord replaced her neighbour’s front door. She wanted to know why it would not replace hers. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate or comment on the landlord’s decision making concerning her neighbour’s door.

The landlord’s handling of the front door repairs

The lease sets out that the landlord is responsible for repairing/renewing the external doors.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states appointed routine repairs should be completed within 28 calendar days. This policy describes major repairs as works that are conducted when building components have reached the end of their life. Components include door replacements. It may be necessary from time to time to replace components where they have failed or are beyond economic repair. The landlord will consider the condition of the component, the cost of repairing verses replacement, and how long the repair is expected to last.
The landlord has a responsibility to manage its funds effectively, and where contractors can repair a component instead of replacing it, it is reasonable for the landlord to consider this. Given that the front door was only 6 years old, it was appropriate for the landlord to seek to identify the reason for the water ingress and explore a repair, rather than immediately pursuing a replacement.
Contractors initially tried to resolve the ingress on 14 August 2023. When the resident reported this was not successful, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a surveyor to inspect the door. The surveyor identified that the door was not in bad condition but needed repairing.
The landlord evidence that during this period, it also explored other avenues, such as reviewing its archives to see if this issue had previously been recorded during the defect liability period for the property. It also contacted the warranty provider to enquire whether there was any coverage for this issue under the terms of the warranty. The landlord’s actions demonstrate it took the matter seriously and was proactively exploring options to resolve the problem.
In the circumstances, it was appropriate for the landlord to appoint its repairs surveyor to give a second opinion. The landlord has relied on the findings of its staff, who deemed that the front door needed to be repaired and not replaced. A landlord is entitled to rely on the conclusions of its appropriately qualified staff and contractors, and accordingly the decision to not replace the resident’s front door was reasonable.
There has been a failure by the landlord to complete the repairs to the resident’s door within a reasonable timeframe. While some repairs may exceed the standard timeframes in a landlord’s policy on occasion, these should be due to exceptional circumstances or exceptional complexity to resolve. The repairs listed at stage 2 are straightforward. The Ombudsman is minded that the delays reaching this point were avoidable.
From the evidence available, the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time chasing for updates, attempting to drive matters forward and following up with the landlord when a contractor did not attend an appointment. The burden of following up responses from the landlord should not fall upon the resident. The Ombudsman determines that communication failings added to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation for its handling of the door repairs. This was made up of £100 for the upset, stress and inconvenience caused to the resident and £50 for the delay in raising the repairs. Considering the length of time taken by the landlord to schedule the repairs and the impact on the resident, the landlord’s offer of redress was not proportionate in the circumstances.
While the landlord apologised for its failings and offered redress, the repair remained unresolved for some time after the landlord issued its final complaint response. This raises questions about the effectiveness of the landlord’s complaint procedure and whether it learnt from the complaint outcome, as we expect it to under the dispute resolution principles.
As the substantive issue was not fully resolved during the landlord’s internal complaint procedure, the Ombudsman cannot say that the landlord adequately addressed the issue. This constitutes service failure.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord managed the resident’s initial complaint dated 14 August 2023 informally. Its complaints policy sets out that matters that have not previously been raised as a complaint and can be resolved within 2 working days are suitable for its early resolution process.
The Ombudsman encourages the early and local resolution of issues between landlords and residents and recognises that there may be times appropriate action can be agreed immediately. Any decision to try and resolve a concern must be taken in agreement with the resident and a landlord’s audit trail/records should be able to demonstrate this. After reviewing the evidence available, the Ombudsman finds the landlord acted fairly by treating the resident’s initial complaint informally as it was resolved the same day.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“the Code”) is applicable to all member landlords. It specifies a stage 1 complaint should be finalised in 10 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint, with no more than a further extension of 10 days. A stage 2 complaint should be finalised within 20 working days from the acknowledgement of the complaint escalation, with a further extension of 10 days if required. A landlord should not exceed these timescales without good reason.
The resident raised a second complaint on 17 August 2023. While records show the landlord contacted the resident to discuss her concerns, it has not evidenced that it treated this as a formal complaint at the time. This was a complaint handling failure.
The resident raised a third complaint on 1 September 2023. The Ombudsman notes the landlord requested an extension to complete its investigation, which the resident refused. As such, the landlord issued its stage 1 response 20 working days after acknowledging it. It found failings in its service without fully completing its investigation or offering a remedy. The landlord then moved to the complaint to stage 2 at the resident’s request. This was inappropriate in the circumstances. The Code sets out that where agreement over an extension period cannot be reached, landlords should provide the Ombudsman’s contact details so the resident can challenge the landlord’s plan for responding and/or the proposed timeliness of a landlord’s response.
Having two separate complaint reviews allows for consideration at a deeper level, bringing a wider perspective and level of expertise to a complaint. It also helps to ensure a full investigation of both sides of a complaint. Complaints can provide insights into service provision, function as an early warning system for potential problems and be a catalyst for organisational learning. It is a concern that in this case, the landlord issued a stage 1 response before it had completed its investigation. The landlord acted unfairly in this regard.
The landlord said it moved the complaint to stage 2 within its stage 1 response dated 5 October 2023. It issued its stage 2 response 24 working days later. This was in line with the timescales set out in the Code.
In the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord acted reasonably within its stage 2 response by setting out a timeline of events and recognising its shortcomings. However, it failed to evidence any learning from the complaint. This is in contrast with the Ombudsman’s expectations that landlords are to learn from complaint outcomes and improve future service provision.
By the end of the complaints process, the landlord had offered the resident £150 for the complaint handling failures identified. This sum is in line with our remedies guidance for complaints where there was a failure that adversely affected a resident with no permanent impact. As such, the Ombudsman finds the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for the shortcomings in its complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of front door repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident in its handling of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must contact the resident to establish if water ingress through the door is still occurring. If so, the landlord should arrange a date with the resident to inspect the door and decide on the next steps. It must then write to the resident, setting out its final position. The landlord must share a copy of this letter with this Service.
Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders to the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation (on top of the sum previously offered). This is to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delay repairing the door.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays the resident the £300 it offered within its final complaint response (if it has not yet done so). The Ombudsman has made a finding of reasonable redress on the basis that the landlord pays this compensation.