Longhurst Group Limited (202216088)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202216088

Longhurst Group Limited

17 September 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. This has all 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. It is 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:
1. Repairs at the property.
2. The felling of a tree.
This Service has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord at the property since 5 February 1996. The property is a three-bedroom house. The resident lives in the property with her adult son. She was diagnosed with glaucoma in the summer of 2023 and this affects her peripheral vision. The landlord’s records show no vulnerabilities in the household.
On 12 September 2021, the resident reported various repairs issues to the landlord via a webform. She said:
1. The window handle in the bedroom needed to be replaced because it was broken.
2. The lounge window was not fastening properly. This meant that the wind blew it open. The glass in this window was also loose in its frame.
3. The wooden frame around the shed was “held up by paint.”
4. The exterior windowsills needed a topcoat of paint.
5. The back gate was warped and would not lock.
6. The property needed pointing in various places.
7. The drainpipe from the bath was missing.
8. There was only 1 working electrical socket in each bedroom.

The landlord emailed the resident on 13 September 2021. It said that due to the number of repairs requested it had passed the query to its repairs team.
On 29 September 2021, a repairs surveyor inspected the property.
On 30 October 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and told it that all the repairs were still outstanding and that no contractors had contacted her. She said that she had tripped on the patio slabs at the rear of the property which were lifting due to the roots of a large pine tree in her garden. She asked the landlord to remove the tree.
On 16 December 2021, the resident called the landlord. She asked for a callback from the repairs surveyor that inspected the property in September. She said that the repairs were still outstanding but that the main problem was the tree. The landlord noted that there were no repairs orders recorded on any of its systems for the property.
The landlord emailed its contractor (contractor A) on 23 December 2021. It asked if it had capacity to do the specified work. It noted that the contractor had “not gone any further” with the repairs. It also emailed the resident to tell her that it would update her as soon as it had heard back from contractor A.
On 14 February 2022, the resident complained to the landlord. She said that its surveyor had visited the property in September 2021 and told her that she would hear from contractors within 28 days. She listed the outstanding repairs and said that she was worried about the large pine tree which the surveyor had also seen on his visit.
The landlord responded on 16 February 2022. It said that it had passed her query to its repairs team who would contact her within 2 working days.
The landlord chased contractor A on 13 May 2022. Contractor A responded on 26 May 2022. It told the landlord that it would not be able to complete the repairs because the lead time on some of the materials required would “take us over the end of the contract date.”
On 13 February 2023, the resident asked the landlord for a copy of all communication between herself and it.
The landlord called the resident on 17 February 2023. It took a note of all the outstanding repairs issues and that the resident wished to raise a complaint. It is also noted that a discussion took place around contact preferences because the resident worked at a school. The landlord tried to update its system at the time but was unable to do so.
The landlord acknowledged receipt of the stage 1 complaint on 17 February 2023. It said that the resident had complained on 13 February 2023 and that it aimed to provide a response within 20 working days.
On 14 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She said it had not responded to her complaint within 20 working days as promised.
On 12 May 2023, the landlord held a case meeting to review the complaint. Following this, it arranged for a surveyor to visit on 15 May 2023. The landlord emailed the resident to confirm the appointment. In response, the resident advised that it was a school day, but that she could try to arrange special leave to be at the property. She provided the school number as the best phone number to reach her on. The resident also pointed out that the landlord had previously inspected the property and the repairs remained the same.
The landlord arranged to inspect the property during the upcoming school holidays. On 30 May 2023, at the start of the holiday, the resident called and emailed the landlord to ask which day the inspection would take place. The landlord told her that the surveyor would contact her to arrange the appointment.
On 5 June 2023, the resident called the landlord. She was unhappy that no-one had got back to her the previous week regarding the appointment. In response, the landlord advised that the surveyor had been off work due to illness. The landlord noted that it had tried to arrange for another surveyor to attend but due to workload this was not possible. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process. She also asked for the email address of the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer (CEO). She listed again the repairs that were outstanding. These did not include the window repairs, as the landlord had replaced these through a planned works programme.
The landlord told the resident that it had escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process on 7 June 2023. It said that it would respond by 30 June 2023.
In an internal email of 7 June 2023, the landlord confirmed that it had not ordered any repairs via its systems following the initial inspection in September 2021. It held a case review meeting on 27 June 2023. The landlord said that it had now asked another contractor (contractor B) to complete the repairs. However, these would have needed authorising due to the value so it “was not sure what happened after that.” The landlord decided that it needed another urgent meeting with another key staff member in attendance.
On 30 June 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to “confirm” it had extended the deadline to resolve her complaint. It noted that it had tried to call her but the phone number on file was for a school.
The landlord provided the stage 2 complaint response on 14 July 2023. It acknowledged that it had “got things wrong” and that there had been several failings on its behalf. It apologised that it had still not completed the repairs and acknowledged that its record keeping was incomplete. It said that contractor B would start work and that a tree surgeon would inspect the tree on 21 August 2023. It offered £850 compensation broken down as:
1. £50 for failing to respond to the stage 1 complaint.
2. £600 for service failures including failing to respond to emails and the delay in completing repairs.
3. £200 for stress and inconvenience.
On 21 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord. She told it that contractor B had not arrived that day as promised. She said that she had called it, and it told her it was waiting for a purchase order from the landlord. It said it needed this before work could commence. The resident explained how this had inconvenienced her because she had arranged to be at the property.
On 23 August 2023, the resident emailed the landlord’s CEO. She reiterated her concerns, adding that a contractor had failed to attend on 21 August 2023. This was despite the assurance provided in the stage 2 response.
Contractor B attended the property from 29 August 2023 to carry out the repairs. It fitted the down pipe from the bath waste and completed some of the pointing. The gate was fixed at a later date.
On 31 October 2023, the resident emailed the landlord to chase up the removal of the tree. She called the landlord on 24 January 2024 and said she had sent numerous emails chasing the tree removal. The landlord emailed her to tell her that it would update her shortly.
On 25 January 2024, the landlord emailed contractor B to ask when it would fell the tree. Contractor B replied on the same day. It said that another contractor was completing the tree works and that it had received no instruction to do this.
A survey of the property was carried out on 29 May 2024. This identified that additional pointing was needed on the side and rear elevations of the property. It also concluded that the patio, which a previous tenant had laid, was above the damp proof course. It noted that the tree was due to be removed during week commencing 5 August 2024.
The resident has confirmed that the tree was removed and the patio replaced in August 2024. However, the following repairs from her complaint remain outstanding:
1. Shed repair.
2. Painting of windowsills.
3. Remaining pointing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of various repairs.

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy splits responsive repairs into categories. It gives the following timescales for completion of repairs within these categories:
1. Emergency repairs – attend within 4 hours and make safe.
2. Routine repairs – complete within 28 days maximum.
The landlord gives examples of the type of repairs that it classes as emergency and routine. It classes an insecure window on the ground floor as an emergency repair and repairs to downpipes as routine.
On 12 September 2021, the resident told the landlord that her lounge window was insecure and blew open in the wind. The resident told us that the window was large enough to walk through and sometimes she would return home to find it open. This was therefore an insecure window on the ground floor of the property and, in accordance with its policy, the landlord should reasonably have classed it as an emergency repair.
However, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord did not attend the property within 4 hours to make this safe. It is unclear why it failed to do so. The landlord inspected the property on 29 September 2021. It is noted from the evidence that it told the resident that a contractor would complete the repairs within 28 days. This implied that it classed the repair as routine. Given the above, it is unclear how it reached this conclusion.
The landlord had undertaken to complete the repairs within 28 days; however, it failed to do so. The window remained insecure until the landlord replaced all the windows through a planned maintenance programme almost 2 years later. This was a significant delay and departure from the policy timescales. While the window was subsequently repaired, that it was left insecure was also a health and safety issue. The evidence shows that the resident was left to chase the repair and was also caused distress and inconvenience because of remained outstanding for a prolonged period.
Despite the resident prompting the landlord, it missed many opportunities over 2 years to ensure that the repairs were completed. It failed to manage its contractors to make sure that the repairs were done. The evidence shows that it sent emails to the contractors but did not follow them up. In May 2022, contractor A informed it that its contract was ending and it could not complete the work in time. However, this Service has seen no evidence that the landlord immediately instructed a different contractor to ensure that it fulfilled its repair obligations. If the landlord had managed its contracted repairs effectively the work would have been completed sooner. This failure was one of the causes of the long delay in completing the repairs.
This lack of monitoring continued after the landlord responded to the complaint. The landlord promised that a contractor would start work on 21 August 2023. However, it failed to provide a purchase order to the contractor so it did not attend. This error was only discovered when the resident called the contractor herself. The landlord should have communicated better with its contractors and maintained oversight of the repair. Its failure to do so caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident and cost her further time and trouble because she had to contact the contractor herself for an answer.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was also poor. This evidence provided to this Service suggests that several of the resident’s emails and phone calls were not responded to. The landlord also failed to respond in line with the timescales it had set. Despite the landlord knowing that its surveyor was off work due to illness and that no other staff were available, it did not contact the resident to let her know. This lack of customer care and poor communication caused the resident further distress and inconvenience.
The resident informed the landlord that she worked in a school. She told it that this meant she could not take time off without notice and gave it a number it could contact her on. However, the landlord did not update its systems to reflect this. There is evidence that there was a system error which prevented this at one stage. However, the landlord should have updated its records so that the resident did not need to repeat the information to different officers.
The landlord’s compensation procedure says that awards of £100-£600 may be awarded for cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration but there is no permanent impact on the resident. Examples of when this would be applicable include:
1. Failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy – for example to address repairs.
2. A complainant repeatedly having to chase responses.
3. Repeated failure to meaningfully engage with the substance of the complaint or failing to address all relevant aspects of the complaint, leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint.
4. Significant failures to follow complaint procedure, escalate the matter or signpost the complainant.
It does not, however, give detail on how much to award if a number of these criteria are met in the same case.
During the complaints process, the landlord identified that there had been service failure and tried to resolve the complaint by offering compensation. This was reasonable. However, the figure was not broken down into an award for the repairs or the tree issue. As a result, it is not possible to establish whether the offer that was made was proportionate in the circumstances for the handling of each issue. However, based on the evidence that is available, the offer did not provide sufficient redress for the delays in completing the repairs and the time and trouble taken by the resident. Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay an additional £200 for this aspect of the complaint to reflect the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
Due to the long delays, poor communication, failure to follow policy, poor management of contractors and outstanding repairs issues there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the felling of a tree

The landlord took responsibility for removal of the tree. However, there were significant delays in it being inspected and felled.
There is evidence that the resident initially reported the issues with the tree on 30 October 2021. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord responded to this or other subsequent queries until the stage 2 complaint response. This communications failure meant that the resident was chasing the landlord for an answer for 21 months. This cost her considerable time and trouble.
The resident told the landlord that the roots of the tree were causing a health and safety issue because they were pushing up the patio slabs, causing her to trip. The landlord did not show any empathy to the resident regarding this. The resident was diagnosed with glaucoma over a year before the tree was felled and the patio replaced. This affects her peripheral vision and she had already tripped on the patio due to the raised slabs. The resident told us that she avoided using the patio which meant that she could not fully enjoy her garden. Had the tree been removed in a reasonable timeframe the distress to the resident would have been minimised.
In the stage 2 complaints response the landlord said that a tree surgeon would inspect the tree on 21 August 2023. It said that contractor B would arrange this. However, contractor B said that the landlord had not asked it to do this so the inspection did not happen. Despite the resident chasing this in October 2023 the landlord did not contact the contractor straight away to chase it up. It was only after the resident contacted the landlord again in January 2024 that the landlord spoke to contractor B. This delay in action and lack of oversight of the contractor caused a further breakdown in the landlord and tenant relationship. It cost the resident further time and trouble and caused her further distress and inconvenience.
The landlord offered compensation during its stage 2 response. However, it did not fully consider how the long delays in felling the tree had affected the resident. Therefore, a further £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience has been ordered.
Due to the lack of communication and empathy and the long delays in resolving the issue there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the request for a tree to be felled.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that the policy “ensures we provide a high-quality complaint handling service that meets the Housing Ombudsman’s complaint handling code requirements, as well as promoting a positive complaint handling culture across the Group.”
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time (the Code) said. “A complaint must be 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.”
There is evidence that the resident first complained on 14 February 2022. She completed a complaints webform which clearly asked, “what is your complaint?” and “what would you like us to do to put things right?”. However, the landlord did not log this as a complaint. It emailed her to say that the repairs team would contact her within 2 working days. However, this Service has seen no evidence that it kept this promise. This failure to follow the Code meant that the landlord did not use the complaints process to resolve the issue. It also meant that the resident lost trust in the complaints process. The resident continued to email and call the landlord and contacted this Service for advice which cost her time and trouble. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service.
The landlord’s complaints policy in place at the time said that it aimed to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. It said that “in exceptional circumstances, where this timescale is not possible, we will provide a valid reason to the customer. We will also regularly communicate with the customer until the complaint is fully resolved.”
The landlord acknowledged receipt of a stage 1 complaint in February 2023. It said that it would provide a response within 20 working days. Not only was this timescale not in accordance with its policy or the Code but the landlord failed to keep to it. It did not provide a stage 1 response at all and did not provide a valid reason for this or communicate with the resident. This failure caused the resident further distress and inconvenience and cost her more time and trouble because she contacted this Service for assistance. It also delayed her access to an investigation by this Service further.
The landlord’s complaints policy also said that “the complaint resolution officer will monitor the complaint case and promises made until full resolution; with on-going communication to the customer.”
The landlord failed to follow its’ policy in this regard. It did not fulfil its promise for a contractor to start work and to inspect the tree on 21 August 2022. It did not communicate with the resident at all and she had to contact it to tell it that the contractors had not arrived. She took further time and trouble to email the CEO and to contact contractor B to find out why they did not attend. This failure undermined the complaints process and caused further delays. This left the resident with a patio that she felt unsafe to walk on for an unacceptable period.
The landlord offered £50 compensation for its poor complaint handling. This did not reflect the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble taken by the resident. It also did not consider that it had not responded to one complaint at all. Therefore, a further order of £400 to reflect this has been ordered.
Due to the landlord’s failure to log the initial complaint, its failure to provide a stage 1 complaint response to the second complaint and its failure to keep promises made in the stage 2 complaint response, there has been maladministration in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for various repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the felling of a tree.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident directly a total of £1650 in compensation. This is broken down below. Any compensation already paid should be deducted from this amount.
  1. £850 originally offered in the stage 2 complaint response.
  2. £200 due to the delay in repairs and time and trouble taken by the resident.
  3. £200 to reflect the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in felling the tree.
  4. £400 due to the distress and inconvenience caused by poor complaint handling.
2. Apologise to the resident in writing for all the failings identified by this investigation. The letter should be written by a senior member of staff.
3. Ensure that it records the resident’s contact details and working patterns accurately on its systems to ensure that it can contact her without difficulty in the future.
4. Contact the resident to discuss her medical diagnosis. Ensure that it updates its systems to reflect this and that it considers any reasonable adjustments that may be required.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within 28 days.

Ensure that it completes all outstanding repairs from the complaint within 8 weeks of the date of this report. These are:
1. Repair to shed.
2. Pointing.
3. Preparation and painting of windowsills.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with this order within 8 weeks.

In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to provide the Ombudsman with a review conducted by a senior manager to ensure efficient management of contractors so that repairs are completed in a timely manner, and issues affecting completion are identified early. The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with this order within 10 weeks of the date of this report.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.