Transform Housing & Support (202223978)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223978

Transform Housing & Support

29 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of works to the property, following a road traffic incident, including:
1. the resident’s decant from the property.
2. internal and external repairs.
3. the resident’s complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s operatives.
4. the resident’s requests for further information.
5. the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the property which she has occupied since 30 January 2017. The property is a 1-bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord is a housing association that provides accommodation and support for homeless and vulnerable people. The resident suffers from various health conditions both physical and mental. The landlord has been aware of these health conditions since the start of the tenancy.
On 4 August 2022 a car, driven by a third party, crashed into the external wall of the resident’s property. The crash damaged the wall of the building and caused damage inside the resident’s property.
The landlord carried out an initial assessment of the damage and did not deem the damage to be structural. The landlord contacted the driver’s insurance company which appointed a loss adjuster. The loss adjuster inspected the property and confirmed that a structural engineer was not required. The loss adjuster instructed the landlord to obtain quotes from contractors for the cost of the repairs.
The landlord asked two contractors to quote for the works. Both contractors refused to provide quotes stating that they had found the resident to be unreasonable and hostile towards their operatives when they had attended.
The resident made a formal complaint about the following issues on 14 October 2022:
1. she requested a single point of contact with whom she could liaise about the repairs
2. she was not happy about the lack of communication and that the landlord gave less than 24 hours notice prior to it visiting her property with a contractor on 6 October 2022
3. she was unhappy about the information the staff member and contractor provided during the visit. The resident felt she was being lied to, which made her feel upset and humiliated
4. she complained about the first contractor. She said the contractor had turned up unannounced requesting access to her home. The resident said the landlord had not informed her of the visit but after speaking to the landlord she allowed the contractor access to her flat. The resident disputed that she was rude or that she refused access on this occasion
5. there was paint on the floor above the resident’s flat which the landlord had not cleaned properly. The resident stated she had complained about this previously which the landlord had not followed up on
6. the resident asked about the process of complaints and maintenance due to different people telling her different things. The resident requested a copy of the complaints and maintenance process in writing
7. the resident stated that the landlord staff were causing her to feel stressed, disrespected, depleted and ignored
8. the resident stated that she was not aware there was a complaints procedure
9. the resident complained that she had been requesting a copy of her tenancy agreement for over 3 years and had not received a copy
10. the resident wanted to know what reasonable adjustments, care and support needs the landlord had given to her in relation to the landlord’s values
11. the resident asked about a structural engineer and how she had frequently requested this information. This also included a complaint made by the resident’s mother about this matter which the resident said the landlord had not addressed. The resident also stated that the council had informed her that the landlord needed to instruct and send a structural engineer’s report to them within 10 days, which the council had not received
12. the resident asked that the landlord inspect another flat about the damage to the wall
13. the landlord had refused to provide the resident with a copy of the loss adjuster’s report and was told, as a tenant, she had no right to view this
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2022, which said:
1. the resident’s keyworker would be her single point of contact about the repairs. The keyworker would liaise with the landlord’s repairs team to obtain any relevant updates for the resident
2. the landlord had provided more than 24 hours prior notice to the resident for the visit on 6 October 2022
3. the staff member who had attended the visit on 6 October 2022 had felt the conversation with the resident had been amicable. Both the staff member and the contractor had listened to the resident and her comments about the damage
4. the landlord had not been aware that the contractor would be attending the resident’s property on 5 September 2022, he was only supposed to be looking at the exterior damage. The landlord had not intended to disturb the resident on this date
5. the landlord had cleaned the paint to an acceptable standard. The landlord explained this had not been its responsibility and it had cleaned the paint as a gesture of goodwill
6. the complaint process was in the client handbook, which the landlord had sent to the resident
7. it was sorry it had caused her to feel stressed, disrespected, depleted and ignored
8. the landlord had sent the resident a copy of her tenancy agreement
9. the landlord’s staff had worked hard to support the resident in the best way that it could. The landlord referred to helping the resident move to a permanent home
10. that it was duty bound to follow the loss adjuster’s advice that it was not necessary to instruct a structural engineer. The landlord reassured the resident it was dealing with the repairs correctly and in the best way it could. The landlord advised it had not received a complaint from the resident’s mother
11. it had inspected all areas of the building necessary in relation to the damage to the wall
12. the landlord was the owner of the property and therefore it was not necessary to share the loss adjuster’s report with the resident. The landlord confirmed that its staff would assist the resident with any queries she had and its main aim was to repair the damage
The resident emailed the landlord on 9 November 2022 and asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 24 November 2022. The landlord said that most of the issues responded to at stage 1 had been answered satisfactorily and the landlord now considered the matter closed. The exceptions to this were:
1. the landlord apologised to the resident that she felt the landlord had not given her sufficient notice of the visit on 6 October 2022
2. the landlord apologised that its contractor had disturbed the resident on 5 September 2022
3. the landlord apologised that the situation had made the resident feel stressed, disrespected, depleted and ignored
4. the landlord said it was keen to help the resident in any way it could in the future
5. with regards to the tenant handbook, the landlord said it should have provided this information to the resident when she first moved in and it apologised if this was not the case
The landlord provided an update to the resident on the repairs and what the next steps were as follows:
1. the email from the council’s surveyor dated 5 October 2022 had stated it did not consider the situation to be an imminent danger
2. the landlord had sent the loss adjusters report to the council explaining that there was no need for a structural engineer
3. the council surveyor had agreed that a structural engineer was not necessary, although if the landlord did not carry out the repairs there was a potential need to instruct a structural engineer in the future
4. the landlord had received a quote and appointed an accredited and qualified building contractor to carry out the repairs. However, due to the resident’s interaction with this contractor it had withdrawn
5. the landlord had received a further quote and appointed a second accredited and qualified building contractor. However, this contractor had also withdrawn their involvement following the resident’s interaction with them
6. the landlord had agreed with the loss adjusters to appoint a third accredited and qualified building contractor to carry out the work
7. the landlord was waiting for a start date
8. the landlord acknowledged the delays that had occurred and referred to the two contractors who had withdrawn their services due to communication between the resident and the contractors’ staff
The landlord scheduled the works to commence in January 2023. The repairs were delayed further as the resident needed to move out of the property whilst the repairs were completed. There were delays in sourcing suitable temporary accommodation for her.
The resident moved out of the property on 10 May 2023. Work commenced on the same date and was completed on 19 July 2023. The resident signed a post-inspection form to confirm she was happy with the repairs. The resident has said there are some snagging issues (with paint and silicone around the window).

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states:

“42. The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: (a) are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Scheme, the Ombudsman cannot consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s decant from the property. This is because the resident did not raise this issue within her initial complaint. As such, this issue has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure and cannot be investigated by the Ombudsman under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme.

Scope of the investigation

In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s complaint on 14 October 2022 which completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 24 November 2022. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions before the involvement of this service. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.
The resident has said the issues at her property have had a significant impact on her physical and mental well-being. She informed the landlord that the stress had exacerbated her psoriasis and she had to go back on medication to help her deal with the stress. When there is an injury or a pre-existing medical condition has been exacerbated, the courts often have the benefit of a medicolegal report. This will often set out the cause of the injury and the prognosis. That evidence can be examined and cross-examined during a trial.
In this case, while the Ombudsman has no reason to disbelieve the resident, it would be difficult for us to arrive at firm conclusions on the cause of the resident’s health conditions, based on a review of the documentary evidence available in this case. These matters are better suited to consideration by a court as a personal injury claim or to legal liability insurers. However, we have considered the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues raised in the resident’s complaints.

Record keeping and communication

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance a landlord’s ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records which has impacted this service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

The landlord’s handling of internal and external repairs

The landlord’s repair response times fall into 4 categories, emergency, urgent, essential and routine. The landlord assigns emergency repairs as a 1-day response time. This includes repairs where there is an immediate risk to safety or where there is a risk to the building itself. The full repair will usually not be possible to complete straight away, and work will focus on making the situation safe.
On 4 August 2022 the resident reported that a third party had crashed their car into the wall of the building outside her flat. The crash had caused damage to the exterior wall and cracks were showing on the walls inside the resident’s home. The landlord raised a job for it to attend as an emergency repair.
The landlord attended on 5 August 2022 and assessed that the damage was not detrimental to the structure of the building. This attendance was appropriate as it was in line with the landlord’s policy and response times.
The resident contacted the landlord twice on 5 August 2022 requesting updates. The landlord responded to each contact and reassured the resident that the issue was being investigated. It informed the resident that its maintenance team had assessed the exterior damage and considered the building safe for habitation until such time that a structural engineer could attend. The landlord informed the resident that it would keep her updated.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 August 2022 to inform her that it had contacted the third party’s insurance company. It advised her that a loss adjuster and structural engineer would attend the property that week. It tried to reassure the resident again that it did not consider the external damage to be structural and it did not pose a risk to the resident or others who occupied the building.
The evidence shows that the loss adjuster inspected the internal and external damage on 9 August 2022. The loss adjuster did not identify any structural concerns and confirmed that a structural engineer was not required. The loss adjuster identified the following repairs:
1. the external brick wall required rebuilding, and most of the damage was located on the lip of the building
2. there was internal cracking around the window of the lounge
3. the contents and base units in the resident’s property would need removing and refixing to facilitate repairs
This service is of the opinion that it was reasonable of the landlord not to instruct a structural engineer because this was the advice of the loss adjuster. Put another way, the landlord was permitted to rely on the advice that a structural engineer was not required given the adjuster’s role in assessing property damage.
The loss adjuster asked the landlord to obtain estimates for the repairs. The loss adjuster agreed at the visit that the insurance company would cover the cost of alternative accommodation for the resident for the duration of the repairs. The loss adjuster advised this would not usually be necessary for this nature of works as the resident would not lose any facilities/utilities, however, it was appropriate to offer a decant in this case to assist the resident due to her allergies.
Although the evidence shows that the loss adjuster and landlord met with the resident on this date, it is not clear what they discussed or agreed with her. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
The resident telephoned the landlord on 2 September 2022. The resident said she had not received an update about the repairs for a month and she also:
1. requested a copy of the maintenance report
2. requested details of the landlord’s insurers
3. enquired if the loss adjuster had attended
4. advised she had contacted a private structural engineer
5. requested to know when the work would begin and what the next steps were
6. wanted to know if builders would need access to her flat
7. advised she would need to move out whilst the landlord carried out the repairs and wanted to know where she would move to
8. said she would need to pack up her belongings
9. said she did not want the builders to use her bathroom
There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiry. This was a failure by the landlord. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that by keeping in regular contact with the resident and providing regular updates, the landlord would have ensured the resident felt she was being listened to. It would have been reasonable therefore of the landlord to provide the resident with an update on the repairs and answer her questions, where it could.
The landlord instructed a contractor to attend the property to quote for the repairs. On 6 September 2022 the landlord received an email from the contractor. The contractor advised that 2 engineers had attended the previous day and had spoken to the resident whilst they were on site. The contractor said that the resident had made unreasonable demands and they felt the project would be difficult to manage because of this. The contractor declined to progress with the quote.
It is evident that the landlord spoke to the resident about her interaction with the contractor around this time to obtain her views on what happened, as the resident raised this in her initial complaint. However, it is not clear from the records what was discussed or agreed. This is a record keeping failure by the landlord.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord received an email from a local authority surveyor. The surveyor informed the landlord that he had inspected the building the previous day following concerns raised by a resident. The surveyor stated that although it did not consider the situation to be an imminent danger, as the condition deteriorated it may eventually become an imminent danger. The surveyor advised the landlord to have a structural engineer in place to check the wall as remedial repairs may have been necessary. The surveyor copied the resident into his email to keep her updated.
The landlord visited the resident with a contractor on 6 October 2022 to assess the external and internal repairs. The resident complained that she felt the landlord had lied to her at this visit. This aspect of the complaint is referenced later in this report. There is no evidence to show what the landlord discussed or agreed with the resident with regards to the repairs at this visit. This is a failure by the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the local authority on 13 October 2022 to confirm:
1. the loss adjuster had attended the site on 9 August 2022 to confirm works
2. the loss adjuster was satisfied that a structural engineer was not required
3. it was in the process of obtaining quotes from its contractors
4. it was chasing the third-party insurance for their decision
5. the landlord noted the building was not in imminent danger and it was keeping a close eye on the situation and would act swiftly to any further deterioration
6. it confirmed the specification of works
On 19 October 2022 the landlord informed the resident that the insurance company had instructed a contractor to complete the repairs to the building and the resident’s flat. The landlord also confirmed that the insurance company had agreed to pay for the resident to stay in a hotel whilst the contractor completed the work. It advised that the contractor had not confirmed the start date but it would keep the resident updated.
The resident responded to the landlord on 19 October 2022 setting out several questions relating to the repairs. This included:
1. she requested a plan of works, both externally and internally
2. whether the landlord was going to instruct a structural engineer
3. details of which contractor the landlord had instructed
4. how long the repairs would take
5. when the work would start
6. what the plans were for the resident’s personal possessions and furniture
7. if the landlord was going to compensate her for additional electric and heating costs incurred due to drafts coming into the flat since the accident had occurred
8. what the plans were for decant to a hotel in relation to travel and food costs
9. what type of paint would the landlord use inside her flat as this needed to be low odour due to the resident’s allergies
10. what the plan was for replacing the resident’s floor covering which had been damaged when the car hit the building due to a dehumidifier spilling and causing an area of the carpet to shrivel up
11. if the landlord would replace the slippers which the dehumidifier liquid had damaged by causing them to shrivel up
The landlord responded on 21 October 2022 that it would forward her email to the landlord’s maintenance department as they would be in a better position to answer her questions.
It was appropriate that the landlord updated the resident on 19 October 2022. However, the landlord was aware of the required repairs by this date and could have provided the resident with details of the identified works. This was a missed opportunity on the landlord’s part and could have mitigated the impact on the resident had it shared this information with her. Keeping the resident updated would have ensured she felt listened to and could have reduced the number of times the resident had to chase the landlord for the information. There is no evidence to show that the landlord answered the resident’s queries at this time. This was a failure by the landlord.
The landlord had requested the resident provide medical information in relation to her health conditions. The landlord had requested this information because the resident had asked for financial assistance for food and travel whilst she was decanted to the hotel and also because she had requested the landlord carry out a deep clean of her property after the works were completed. The resident was unhappy about this request because she said the landlord was fully aware of her health issues when she moved into the property. She believed the landlord was asking her to provide duplicate information. The Ombudsman accepts that the landlord was aware of the resident’s health issues when she moved into the property. It was reasonable of the landlord to request the medical information at this time because the insurance company, who were covering the costs of the repairs and the resident’s decant, required up to date medical information before it would pay for additional disbursements and expenses.
The landlord arranged for another contractor to attend on 1 November 2022 to provide a quote for the repairs. The contractor informed the landlord that it had attended the property and whilst on site the resident had been hostile to the contractor’s operatives which resulted in the operatives refusing to carry out the works.
On 30 November 2022 the landlord’s staff spoke to the resident about the repairs and the two contractors who had refused to quote for the works. The resident denied that she had been hostile or rude to the contractors or that she had refused them access.
The landlord has informed this service that there was no further discussion or investigation into the incidents between the resident and the contractors. This was because both contractors had made company decisions that they did not want to proceed with the works.
Throughout the complaint, the resident made several requests for updates and requested information with regards to details of the repairs. The landlord received the quote from the contractor, which set out the required repairs, on 18 October 2022. The loss adjustor made a final decision on which contractor to instruct on 15 November 2022. The landlord sent details of the repairs to the resident on 9 January 2023, which was almost 2 months later. This was not appropriate and resulted in the resident having to contact the landlord several times to request this.
With regards to the other information such as the loss adjuster’s report. The resident would not have been entitled to this as this was information which was between the landlord, the loss adjuster and the insurance company. It was therefore reasonable of the landlord not to share this with the resident.
In summary, the delays in starting the repairs in this case were because of the difficulties the landlord faced in instructing a contractor. This was because of the contractors refusing to accept the work due to interactions between them and the resident. This was therefore out of the landlord’s control.
Further delays were as a result of finding suitable alternative accommodation for the resident. As outlined above, the decant is not covered in this report as it is outside jurisdiction.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that landlords should manage residents’ expectations. Failure to manage expectations can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship as it can potentially convey to the resident a feeling of being forgotten about. By providing a plan of works, giving clear timescales and details on how things would be progressed, the landlord could have potentially managed the resident’s concerns and put her mind at ease. This could also have reduced the amount of correspondence from the resident. Failure to answer the resident’s information requests and questions in a timely manner resulted in the resident feeling ignored and added to her distress.
The Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology and acknowledgement of the impact on the resident’s health and wellbeing was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; to be fair, to put things right and to learn from outcomes. Whilst the landlord’s response was positive, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that this redress does not fully recognise the impact on the resident because of the landlord’s failures, as identified in this report.
In conclusion, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the internal and external repairs in that it:
1. delayed providing the resident with a plan of works
2. failed to maintain adequate records
3. delayed responding to some of the resident’s questions.
The resident has explained that given her vulnerabilities this significantly affected her. The Ombudsman does not dispute this.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s operatives

In her complaint, the resident said she was unhappy that the landlord’s contractor had said she had been rude towards them and had refused access to her property on 5 September 2022. The resident said that the contractor had turned up unannounced and asked to inspect the damage. The resident telephoned the landlord to check the contractor was legitimate before allowing him into her home. Once she had spoken to the landlord and it had confirmed the contractor was genuine, the resident allowed the contractor access to inspect the damage. The resident ought to have been made aware of the appointment if the contractor needed to inspect her home. It was not necessarily unreasonable that the contractor asked to inspect the internal area whilst on site. The resident was entitled to refuse access on this basis. It was reasonable in the circumstances for the resident to check with the landlord before allowing the contractor into her home.
The landlord said that it had only asked the contractor to assess the exterior damage on this date and it had not been aware that the contractor would be attending the resident’s property. The landlord apologised if the contractor had disturbed the resident on this occasion. There is no requirement for the landlord to inform residents when an external inspection takes place. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord did not give the resident prior notification of this visit.
In relation to the landlord’s visit on 6 October 2022. The resident said she was unhappy because the landlord had not given her sufficient prior notice of this visit. The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident at 4:49pm on 5 October 2022 to inform her it would be attending the following day with a contractor to assess the external and internal repairs. It said it would contact her the following morning to confirm the time of the visit.
The resident acknowledged the email at 10:51pm on the 5 October 2022. She informed the landlord she had an appointment the following morning at 10:15am but would be available after this time. She asked the landlord to telephone her the following day with the confirmed time. The resident telephoned the landlord at 2:30pm on 6 October 2022 to check if the visit was still going ahead. The landlord confirmed the visit would take place at 4:30pm and that it had emailed her earlier in the day to inform her of this. The resident said she had not received the email due to having a low data package which the resident said the landlord was aware of.
The evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident at 10:06am and 11:48am on 6 October 2022. The second email confirmed that the visit would take place at 4.30pm. The landlord apologised that the resident felt it had not given her sufficient notice, however, it was the landlord’s opinion that it had given the resident 24 hours’ notice of the visit on this occasion.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, section 11(6) states there is an implied agreement that the landlord, or any authorised person may, at reasonable times of the day and on giving 24 hours’ notice in writing to the tenant, enter the premises for the purpose of viewing their condition and state of repair.
Whilst the resident requested a telephone call from the landlord on 6 October 2022 to confirm the time of the visit, this service recognises that landlords are managing multiple repairs in different localities, and it is not always possible therefore to give specific times when appointments and visits will take place. In this case, the resident was given 3 opportunities to inform the landlord that the visit was not convenient. It was reasonable of the landlord to assume the resident had received the emails as it understood this to be her preferred method of communication at the time.
The resident said she was unhappy because she felt the landlord had lied to her during the visit on 6 October 2022 which made her feel upset and humiliated.
The landlord outlined in its complaint responses that it had spoken to the employee who had attended and he felt that the conversation between him and the resident had been amicable. He said that he and the contractor had listened to what the resident had to say about the repairs.
It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to say how a landlord should deal with its staff, in terms of any disciplinary proceedings or employment matters.
When investigating a complaint about a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider the response of the landlord as a whole and will only comment on the actions of individuals in so far as they are acting on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, if the actions of an individual member of staff give rise to a failure in service, the Ombudsman’s determination and any associated orders and recommendations would be made against the landlord rather than the individual.
Considering all the circumstances, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of its operatives. It listened to the resident and asked the operatives to account, who provided their perception of the meeting. That was appropriate in the circumstances. There is no evidence to say that the landlord could have, or indeed should have, done more.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for further information

In her complaint the resident referred to further information which she had requested from the landlord in addition to those related to the repairs. These included copies of the following:
1. client handbook
2. resident’s tenancy agreement
3. complaint procedure
4. maintenance procedure
The landlord explained to the resident that it should have provided her with this information when she signed for the tenancy and apologised if this did not happen.
The landlord sent the resident a copy of her tenancy agreement on 4 October 2022 following an earlier request.
The landlord sent a copy of the client handbook to the resident on 4 November 2022 which contained the complaint and repairs procedure. The landlord informed the resident that the client handbook and complaint information was also available on its website and from the local team.
Considering the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling principles, to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord has provided the resident with the requested information. There was, therefore, no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s requests for further information.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. This includes an expectation that landlords will:
1. respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days
2. respond to escalations at stage 2 within 20 working days
3. decide whether an extension to the timescale is needed
4. inform the resident of the expected timescale for a response
5. clearly explain the reason for the delay to the resident
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states that the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
The resident raised her complaint on 14 October 2022. The resident contacted the landlord on 4 November 2022 as she had not received a response. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was dated 28 October 2022, however, the landlord only sent this to the resident on 4 November 2022. This was 16 working days after the resident raised her initial complaint. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. The landlord informed the resident, in its email dated 4 November 2022, that the delay was due to the investigating officer being on annual leave.
There is no evidence to show that the landlord contacted the resident to explain that it required an extension to the timescale or to inform the resident when she should expect the response. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or with the Code.
The Code states that where a resident raises additional complaints during the investigation, the landlord must incorporate these into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 October 2022 requesting an update on the repairs. Within that email the resident enquired:
1. if the landlord would compensate for additional electric and heating costs incurred due to drafts coming into her property since the accident
2. if the landlord would replace the resident’s floor covering as liquid from a dehumidifier had spilled when the car had hit the building, causing damage to the carpet
3. if the landlord would replace the resident’s slippers which the dehumidifier liquid had also damaged
The landlord failed to recognise these items were related to the original complaint and failed to investigate. This is a failure by the landlord as it is not consistent with the Code. That said, the landlord would not be responsible for these items and would usually be the tenant’s responsibility to claim on their own (contents) insurance. In this case, the resident could have claimed with the third-party loss adjuster too. Nevertheless, the landlord was at fault for not responding to this at all.
In its stage 1 response the landlord failed to identify the complaint stage. It also failed to provide details of how to escalate the matter if the resident remained dissatisfied. These were further failures by the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2022 as she disagreed with the stage 1 response. She asked the landlord to put her in contact with an advocate to help her submit a complaint into the Housing Ombudsman Service.
Page 19 of the client handbook provided to this service states that, the landlord could put the resident in touch with an advocacy agency that would help the resident to refer the complaint to this service.
The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 24 November 2022. Although the landlord advised the resident that she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied, it did not refer her to an advocate. This was unreasonable as it was not consistent with the information in the client handbook.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaint in that it:
1. delayed providing the stage 1 response
2. failed to update the resident on the reason for the delay and when to expect its response
3. failed to recognise, acknowledge and investigate additional related items raised by the resident in her email dated 19 October 2022
4. failed to identify the complaint stage in its letter dated 28 October 2022
5. failed to provide the resident with details of how to escalate the matter after the stage 1 response
6. failed to support the resident to contact an advocate to assist in referring her complaint to this service

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her decant to another property is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to investigate.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of internal and external repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints about the conduct of the landlord’s operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for further information.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. pay the resident £350 compensation which is broken down as follows:
  1. £250 for the delays in providing the resident with the plan of works and not responding to some of the questions asked
  2. £100 for the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint
2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of how it has complied with the above order

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management and provide feedback to its repairs teams and contractors on record keeping.