Magenta Living (202307952)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307952

Magenta Living

8 April 2025

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 repairs to the plasterwork and doorframes of the property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house, with her daughter, under an assured tenancy agreement.
The resident complained to the landlord on 2 November 2022 about the standard of its repairs to the plasterwork, and that it had not completed all the agreed work when it previously attended on 30 August 2022. The landlord said in its stage 1 response of 15 November 2022 that it would send a surveyor to the property to inspect what work was needed.
The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 17 February 2023. She stated the landlord told her it would complete the repairs by the end of February 2023. However, she had received no communication from the landlord and the repairs had not begun yet.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident on 16 March 2023. In this it:
1. Accepted that there had been an administrative error that meant the work was “not raised immediately after the inspection”.
2. Said due to the scope of the work it would need to refer the repair to a contractor with a target completion date of May 2023. It said that it would attempt to bring this forward if possible.
3. Offered the resident £100 in decorating vouchers for the delay.
The resident raised a second formal complaint with the landlord on 3 May 2023 regarding the repairs to the property. In this she said:
1. The landlord had not kept accurate records about the inspection in November 2022 and was refusing to provide her with information about this.
2. The landlord had told her in the inspection in November 2022 that it would replace doorframes in the property. She said the contractor had told her this was not in the scope of work it had been asked to do.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the second complaint on 18 May 2023. In this it:
1. Accepted it could have done more to facilitate a direct discussion between the resident and its surveyor about what it had agreed.
2. Accepted that some work the landlord had agreed in November 2022 had been missed from the repair order it created. It said it had raised this further work with its contractor.
3. Apologised and said it understood its contractor was working the resident to arrange a suitable start date and it would monitor the completion of the repairs.
The resident escalated the second complaint on 26 June 2023. She told it:
1. She had heard nothing from the contractor since its initial visit on 28 April 2023 until that day. She said the landlord had not given her information about what the scope of the work was and the contractor did not appear to be aware of the scope of work the landlord agreed.
2. She did not consider the landlord had dealt with the repair in a reasonable timescale as the inspection was over 7 months ago.
3. The scope of the work appeared to be continuously changing or miscommunicated. She said she wanted a representative of the landlord to attend with the contractor to agree on the work it would complete and to have this put in writing.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the second complaint on 24 July 2023. In this it:
1. Outlined the work it had agreed at the previous inspection on 18 November 2022. It reiterated that due to an oversight it did not raise the replacement of the doorframes until April 2023.
2. Said, following the resident’s escalation, it had carried out a further inspection on 10 July 2023 to establish what further works were needed. It listed the planned repairs agreed from the further inspection and told the resident that it aimed to complete these by early October 2023.
3. Offered the resident £200 in decoration vouchers in recognition of the extensive planned work.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman. The resident told us, as of the date of the report, the landlord had not completed the repairs agreed from its inspection on 10 July 2023. She wanted the landlord to complete these repairs and provide additional compensation for the distress and loss of enjoyment of her home.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident has told us that following the landlord’s stage 2 response it did not resolve the repairs it agreed to complete. This investigation therefore considers the resident’s complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 24 July 2023. We have referred to events that occurred after the complaints process where they provide context to the outcome of the complaint, or where it is relevant to our investigation into the landlord’s handling of that complaint.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body.
As part of the resident’s complaint, regarding how the landlord had communicated with her about the repairs, she said that the landlord had refused to give her information she had requested because of data protection. She told us that she later made a subject access request to the landlord but it did not respond to this. The Ombudsman cannot take a view on whether the landlord acted in line with its data protection obligations. This complaint is within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office which is the UK regulator for data protection and information rights.
We would advise the resident contacts the Information Commissioner’s Office for further information if she wishes to pursue this element of the complaint. We have still investigated if the landlord’s communication with the resident about the planned repairs was reasonable and appropriate in general terms.

The landlord’s record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts, repairs, and services provided. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ 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 our 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 the repairs to the plasterwork and doorframes

The landlord’s responsive repair policy says that it has a responsibility to complete certain repairs to tenant’s homes. It states it will consider the urgency, risk and customer vulnerability when prioritising repairs. The policy sets out the following priorities and response times:
1. Priority 1 – emergency repairs (where there is a risk of injury to people or major damage to the property), attend within 4 hours and make safe.
2. Priority 2 – urgent, within 5 working days.
3. Priority 3 – routine, within 21 working days.
4. Priority 4 – planned routine, within 60 working days.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance guidance says that, where the customer is a tenant, the landlord is responsible for carrying out repairs to:
1. Large cracks and defective wall and ceiling surfaces.
2. Internal doors.
In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident told us that her main concern was with the landlord’s handling of the repairs following its inspection on 18 November 2022. As such, we have not investigated the repair carried out by the landlord before the resident’s first complaint to it on 2 November 2022. We note for context though, that the landlord had agreed to carry out the inspection on 18 November 2022 due to disagreement between the resident and the landlord about the scope of the works that were agreed. In its response on 15 November 2022 the landlord told the resident that it would make sure “the correct scope of works would be sent to its contractor” following the survey.
The landlord attended to carry out the inspection on 18 November 2022 as agreed. Though there is a note of this attendance there is no contemporaneous record about what works it agreed. The landlord confirmed to us that it did not create an inspection report. A retrospective note on the repair log, created on 4 May 2023, said the landlord would:
1. Remove the plasterwork protruding from the moulding between the door frame and walls.
2. Remove existing plaster to brickwork where cracks are occurring, identify the source of repeated cracking and replaster once done.
3. Skim walls in bathroom, hallway stairs/landing and 1 wall of the kitchen.
4. Replace the kitchen door frames. The landlord specified it would need to review whether to replace upstairs door frames in the property, after the work was completed, to see if new plasterwork had resolved the problem.
The resident told the Ombudsman that her understanding of the agreed repairs from the inspection on 18 November 2022 was that:
1. That the landlord would replaster the affected areas across the hallway, kitchen and bathroom.
2. The landlord had agreed to replace the metal doorframes across the property as these were rusting.
3. Though she had asked the landlord not to begin the repairs until February 2023 (due to her requiring notice to take time off work) the landlord would complete these repairs by the end of February 2023.
Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not clear what information the landlord gave the resident about the planned work and when this would take place. This was a significant failure by the landlord, particularly considering the purpose of this inspection was to clarify the scope of the works required following the resident’s previous complaint.
Following this inspection there is no evidence that the landlord took further action on the repair until 14 February 2023 when it created a priority 4 repair order with a target date of 15 May 2023 to:
1. Remove existing plaster in the hallway where cracks are occurring, identify the source of repeated cracking and replaster once done.
2. Skim 2 walls of the bathroom and 1 wall of the kitchen.
This was inappropriate. It took the landlord 59 working days to take action following the inspection and, due to its record keeping failures, it did not raise all of the repair orders it identified were necessary. A priority 4 repair would likely have been reasonable if the repair order had been raised shortly following the inspection. However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered increasing the priority of the repair in light of this avoidable delay, which was unreasonable.
The resident told us that the landlord’s contractor attended for a pre-site visit during April 2023 but she understood from this it was only going to complete the replastering. On 18 April 2023 the resident called the landlord to ask when it would replace the 4 door frames she understood it had agreed to replace. The landlord contacted the resident the following day and told her it had no record it had agreed to replace any door frames. The resident says that when she asked if she could speak to the surveyor the landlord told her it would not arrange this and did not provide her with further information until she complained. This was unreasonable, we would expect the landlord to make reasonable efforts to keep residents updated about the progress and scope of repairs, as well as to respond to queries about this.
In its complaint response of 18 May 2023 the landlord acknowledged it had omitted the replacement of the downstairs door frames from the schedule of works in error and had now passed this on to the contractor. The landlord’s actions here were inappropriate. It took 111 working days to act on the replacement of the door frames it had agreed on 18 November 2022. There is also no evidence that the landlord considered prioritising the repairs because of its delays.
Turning to the upstairs door frames, when the landlord updated the repair log on 4 May 2023 it said it would review whether to replace these when the replastering was complete. There is no evidence it gave the resident this information. Due to a lack of evidence, we cannot say exactly what was discussed during the 18 November 2022 survey. However, if the landlord’s view was that it was not necessary to replace the upstairs door frames as part of the repairs it should have explained this to the resident so she was clear on the scope of the planned work. It did not do this, which was unreasonable.
Though the landlord recorded a target completion date of 15 May 2023 there are no records of any repairs being carried out in May 2023. The repair request was cancelled on 15 June 2023, with a new repair request created on 19 June 2023. Due to a lack of adequate records, it is not known what action the landlord took to resolve the repair request, or what information it gave the resident, during this time. This was a failure by the landlord.
The repair request created by the landlord on 19 June 2023 was to complete the same work set out in the repair request from 14 February 2023. The new repair did not include the replacement of the downstairs door frames which the landlord had previously agreed and which it said it had told the contractor about on 28 April 2023.
The landlord’s actions here were inappropriate. There is no evidence that it informed the contractor of the full scope of the work as it said it would. Due to a lack of adequate records it is also unclear what repairs were completed by the landlord following the contractor beginning work on 26 June 2023. The contractors final note on the repair log says that the resident cancelled an appointment on 5 July 2023, due to her daughter being ill, but there are no details of what work was outstanding. This was a failure by the landlord.
In response to the resident’s complaint the landlord arranged for a further inspection to take place on 10 July 2023 to establish what further works were required. It told the resident following this inspection and in its stage 2 response it had agreed to complete the following work:
1. Replaster the wall next to the back door.
2. Remove plaster on the wall next to the front door, replaster and skim.
3. Replace all metal door frames with timber, make good the surrounding plasterwork and renew the internal doors.
4. Skim 1 wall in the bathroom.
5. Install a picture rail on the landing walls to separate the ceiling.
6. Renew the skirting boards on the landing.
The landlord created a new repair request on 14 July 2023 for the items raised from the inspection. This was a priority 4 repair with a target date of completion by 9 October 2023. This was not appropriate because, by this point it had been 163 working days since items a. – d. (from the previous paragraph of this report) were identified as requiring repair from the original survey. This greatly exceeded the timescales for completing the repairs in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and there is no evidence that the landlord considered prioritising completing the repairs because of its delays. That was a further failing.
The landlord told the resident about these planned repairs in its stage 2 response, Paragraph 6.5 of our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that any remedy offered by the landlord must be followed through to completion. From the available records the planned repair was cancelled by the landlord on 23 October 2023 as the resident had told it she could not arrange annual leave to be present for the work until after the New Year. The landlord recorded it would re-raise the work when the resident told it when she would be available, however there is no record that this information was passed on to the resident. As set out previously the resident and landlord have both confirmed that the work agreed from 10 July 2023 has not been completed as of the date of this report.
Furthermore, the resident made another complaint to the landlord on 23 October 2023 in relation to her dissatisfaction that the plasterwork repairs that had been completed by the contractor so far had already began cracking. She requested that it find a different contractor to complete the further repairs that had been agreed from 10 July 2023. The resident told us that she did not receive a formal response from the landlord about this.
The landlord said that it considered it had already investigated the resident’s concerns as part of its complaint process. It said it provided further information to the resident informally on 30 November 2023 to clarify its position but decided not to issue a formal response. Paragraph 1.9 of the Code specifies that if a landlord decides not to accept the complaint it must provide a detailed explanation for this and advise the resident they can take the complaint to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not do this, which likely added to resident’s concerns when she did not receive a formal response to her complaint about quality of the repairs that had been carried out.
In terms of the impact on the resident she has described that due to the incomplete repairs, since the survey in November 2022 up until the date of this report, there are areas of the kitchen, bathroom and hallway where there are extensive cracks in the plasterwork or where the plasterwork had been stripped entirely and not replaced. The resident said that this prevented her from decorating the property which caused her distress and loss of enjoyment of her home. She said that the landlord’s repeated failure to address her repairs to this and to replace the doorframes added to her distress.
Our view is that the significant delays in completing the repairs to the plasterwork and doorframes would have reasonably caused the resident distress and loss of enjoyment of her home. Whilst we do not see that any of the repairs prevented the resident or her household from using rooms of the property the extended duration of the maladministration would have made the impact more significant. Furthermore, compared to our guidance on remedy we consider there is an aggravating factor in the landlord’s repeated mishandling of the repairs. As set out previously, in response to her first complaint the landlord said the purpose of the inspection of 18 November 2022 was to make sure its contractor had the complete scope of the necessary repairs. However, it went on to repeat the same failing on multiple occasions after this.
Where the landlord has accepted it has made errors, it is our role to consider whether the redress it offered put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this we take into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
In its complaint handling, the landlord offered the resident £300 of decorating vouchers. We do not consider offer fully recognised the full extent and cumulative impact of the landlord’s failings or consider how these had affected the resident.
As such we consider that the circumstances for maladministration apply and that these require substantial remedy to put right. In line with our guidance on remedies a financial remedy from this range (between £600 and £1,000) would be proportionate to put things right. We have made therefore made an order for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £625 to reflect the inconvenience, distress and frustration caused by its mishandling of the repairs, as well as the time taken since February 2023 when it should have originally carried out the repairs.
The landlord confirmed to us that, as of the date of this report, the repairs agreed from 10 July 2023 has not been completed and it was planning to arrange a further inspection. As both parties have confirmed the agreed repairs have not been completed we have also ordered the landlord to take action to resolve this.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the plasterwork and doorframes in that it:
1. Did not keep adequate records of the repairs agreed from the inspection on 18 November 2022 or the actions it took to address these.
2. Unreasonably delayed raising the repair request to the plasterwork at the property for 59 working days after it identified this was necessary.
3. Unreasonably delayed raising the repair request to replace the downstairs doorframes at the property for 111 working days after it identified this was necessary.
4. Did not adequately consider prioritising the agreed repairs following its delays in handling these.
5. Inadequately communicated with the resident and its contractor about the agreed scope of the repairs.
6. Failed to complete the agreed repairs over the 169 working day period, between the inspection on 18 November 2022 and its stage 2 response on 24 July 2023, that this investigation has considered.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of logging the complaint. It will respond at stage 2 within 20 working days of the resident escalating the complaint.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The Code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint-handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service they provide, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and improvement. The Code was updated in 2024, following the previous version in 2022 that was in place during the time of the events complained about.
For the resident’s first complaint on 2 November 2022 it is not clear from the records when the landlord acknowledged this after it received this. This is a records keeping failing. Notwithstanding this there is evidence which indicates the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint with her, set out its understanding of the complaint and what she was seeking as an outcome. This is consistent with the expectations of the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 15 November 2022, 9 working days after the complaint was made. This was appropriate in line with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code.
In the resident’s escalation request for the first complaint on 17 February 2023 the resident said the landlord had closed her complaint without phoning her to inform her it was doing this. It is not clear why the landlord chose to close the complaint, given that its stage 1 response said she had 6 months to escalate it if she was dissatisfied with the response. Notwithstanding this, we have not seen the landlord closing the case prevented the resident from completing its complaints procedure and it accepted her escalation request. Therefore, we do not see that this had an adverse impact on the resident.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response for the first complaint on 16 March 2023, 19 working days after the resident made her escalation request. This was consistent with the timescales of the landlord’s policy and the Code. However, in terms of the complaint response itself we have seen the following failings:
1. There was no evidence that the landlord set out its understanding of the outstanding issues of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking in line with paragraph 5.10 of the Code.
2. The landlord had seen it did not raise the repair until 14 February 2023 but did not give the resident this information. The explanation it gave was that an administrative error meant the repair order “was not raised immediately after the inspection” but gave no further detail. This was an unreasonably vague way to describe its findings. As such it did not explain the reasons for its decision in clear, plain language in line with paragraph 5.16 of the Code.
The resident made her second complaint to the landlord on 3 May 2023. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 18 May 2023, 11 working days later. In terms of this response we have seen the following failings:
1. The landlord exceeded the 10 working day timescale for issuing the stage 1 response in line with its policy and the Code and did not advise the resident of the reasons for any delay. That said, given the short extent of the delay we consider the impact on the resident would be minimal.
2. Although the landlord acknowledged the complaint there is no evidence that it discussed this with her to understand her complaint, or what she was seeking as an outcome, in line with paragraph 5.10 of the Code.
3. Paragraph 5.4 of the Code says that where the complaint is a reoccurring issue the landlord should consider previous reports to resolve the issue. In this case the resident referred to similar issues from her previous complaint, such as the landlord’s record keeping and not completing the repairs agreed from the inspection in a timely manner. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s previous complaint when it reached its decision and it did not refer to this in the response. This was unreasonable.
The resident escalated her second complaint to the landlord on 26 June 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request on 29 June 2023. There is evidence that it discussed the complaint with her to understand which repairs she considered were outstanding and what she wanted as an outcome. This was appropriate in line with the Code.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s second complaint on 24 July 2023, 21 working days after it was escalated. In terms of this response, we have seen the following failings:
1. The landlord exceeded the 20 working day timescale for issuing the stage 2 response in line with its policy and the Code and did not advise the resident of the reasons for any delay. That said, given the short extent of the delay we consider the impact on the resident would be minimal.
2. The stage 2 response was written by the same member of the landlord’s staff as its stage 1 response to this complaint. In line with paragraph 5.12 of the Code the person from a landlord’s complaint handling team who considers the complaint at stage 2 must not be the same person who considered it at stage 1. As such this was inappropriate.
3. Although the landlord acknowledged there had been delays in its handling of the repairs back to 18 November 2022 it did not take account of the resident’s previous complaint about these. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s previous complaint when it reached its decision on this and the remedy it would offer to put things right.
It is evident the landlord’s complaint handling failures caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. In line with the our remedies guidance as referenced above, financial compensation of £150 is appropriate for that impact.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. in that:
1. for the resident’s first complaint it:
  1. did not set out its understanding of the resident’s reasons for escalating the complaint or what she was seeking as an outcome.
  2. did not provide the reasons for its decision at stage 2 in clear, plain language.
2. for the resident’s second complaint it:
  1. exceeded the timescales for issuing its response at both stages without informing the resident of the reasons for a delay.
  2. had the same member of its staff respond to both stages of the complaint.
  3. did not consider the resident’s previous complaint and its formal response when providing its decisions.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the plasterwork and door frames.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

The landlord must within 28 days of this determination:
1. Issue the resident with a written apology. The landlord must recognise its failings identified in this report and the impact these had on the resident.
2. Pay the resident a total of £775 in compensation (inclusive of the £300 it previously offered) comprised of:
  1. £625 for the resident’s distress, inconvenience and loss of enjoyment of her home caused by its handling of the repairs to the plasterwork and door frames.
  2. £150 in recognition of the time and trouble of pursuing a complaint and the frustration caused by the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling.
3. Carry out a further inspection to assess which repairs that it agreed on 10 July 2023 are outstanding. It must then complete these repairs. Following the inspection the landlord must also provide the resident (and any contractor) with a written scope of the planned repairs.
4. Provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies she may owe the landlord
Within 10 working days of the completion of the repairs the landlord must complete a post works survey to confirm that it has completed all the works to an appropriate standard. The landlord must then provide a copy of the survey to the resident and the Ombudsman within 10 working days of the property inspection. The landlord must complete the post works survey and provide the Ombudsman and resident with a copy of the survey within 56 days of the date of this determination at the latest.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord conduct a review of this case to identify learning and improve working practices. This should include consideration of:
1. How the delays in responding to the repair request occurred and how it will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. How the complaint handling failings occurred and how the landlord will make improvements to reduce the likelihood of a reoccurrence.
3. Any staff training that may improve its future response to similar cases.