A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202336097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202336097

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

26 November 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:
1. the impact of repair issues on the resident and her daughter’s health.
2. the landlord’s:
  1. response to reports of a leak in the property, handling of repairs and the resident’s request to be decanted.
  2. response to repair reports about a hoist in the property.
  3. response to repair reports about a passenger lift in the property.
  4. complaint handling.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 4 bedroom house, where the resident lives with her family. The landlord has recorded that the resident’s adult daughter has mobility issues and uses a wheelchair. The resident describes her daughter to be “severely disabled”. The property has a domestic lift and a hoist in the bathroom.
The landlord’s decant policy says that a temporary move may be required when major works are needed that cannot be carried out with the resident in situ.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it aims to make safe emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete these within 24 hours. It aims to complete standard repairs within 20 working days and planned repairs within 90 days. Its vulnerable persons policy says it aims to take proactive steps so that vulnerable and struggling residents are not at risk of harm when there is an interruption to service. It says that health and safety implications will be considered when determining the urgency of repairs. The policy sets out interventions and practices, including:
1. undertaking repairs more swiftly than its standard service.
2. extra support when a repair cannot be completed within a reasonable timescale, “putting the resident at risk”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
In February 2022 the landlord’s contractor recorded it had attended as the bathroom hoist was “dead”. It noted the resident said the hoist had been affected by a water leak. The contractor asked the landlord to check this leak before it completed work to resolve the issue with the hoist. Later in March 2022 the landlord noted its concerns about the resident’s daughter being left without a hoist. It agreed with its contractor that it would explore putting in place a hoist that would not be affected by the leak. At the end of March 2022, the landlord’s contractor noted it had attended the property and had left the hoist working, but that further work was needed. At the end of April 2022 the landlord detailed roof work it would be completing to resolve the leak.
Around early November 2022 the landlord recorded a complaint from the resident about a “major leak” coming into her property. She said this had affected rooms on the top floor and the electrics. The resident said she did not feel safe living in her property. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 4 December 2022. It acknowledged the resident first reported a leak on 3 November 2022. It said:
1. the leak had been caused by blocked guttering which had caused rainwater to overflow into the resident’s property.
2. its contractors had attended on 11 November 2022 to make electrics safe.
3. it provided dehumidifiers on 13 November 2022.
4. it had cleared guttering and fitted tailored leaf guards.
5. the resident had confirmed no further rainwater was entering the property.
6. it had completed an assessment of the property on 23 November 2022 and concluded no mould was present and that it was not necessary to provide alternative accommodation.
7. it would start work to remedy water staining once the area had dried, and it planned to start this work on 19 December 2022.
8. it would compensate the resident for the use of dehumidifiers between 13 and 23 November 2022.
The landlord awarded the resident £300, made up of:
1. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
2. £75 for the length of time taken to complete the work.
3. £50 for the time taken to check the electrics.
4. £75 as the resident was not kept updated on the decant and the progress of the repairs.
On 27 December 2022 the resident requested escalation of her complaint. She said:
1. she wanted to be compensated for the extra cost of utility bills, from when the leak began to the point when repairs had been completed.
2. the award of £100 for stress and inconvenience divided between the 4 members of the household amounted to £25 each and was not adequate.
3. her youngest daughter and herself had needed to sleep in the living room since the leak. She said the landlord had done nothing to make their sleeping arranging more comfortable.
4. due to the delay in the landlord checking electrics, her disabled daughter had been “trapped” upstairs without a reliable source of electricity to use her lift.
In May 2023 an external surveyor sent the landlord a damp and mould report, following an inspection of the property completed on 12 April 2023. This noted historical leak issues that affected 3 bedrooms, the kitchen, bathroom, hallway and landing. It noted a rear flat roof, which the resident said had been replaced within the last 16 months but that scaffolding to the rear was still to be removed. It noted the resident said the leak affecting the front had occurred due to debris blocking the gutter. The surveyor set out internal repairs that were needed. It also recommended roof work, and that the landlord complete a flush test of the front roof.
In July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident setting out the work it had approved. This included stain blocking, redecoration of rooms that had previously been affected by the leak and electrical work. It said it would remove scaffolding to the rear once all roof work was completed. In October 2023 the resident raised a complaint about the domestic lift at the property, which she said was old and kept breaking down.
On 27 October 2023 the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident’s lift complaint. The landlord noted that since the resident had raised her concerns it had been told the lift was beyond economical repair. It said it had ordered a new one and this was expected for installation in February 2024. The landlord said:
1. it was trying to source parts for a temporary fix.
2. it had provided a temporary hoist.
3. the local authority had increased its care package to assist with care needs.
4. it did not uphold the complaint as, while the resident wanted the lift installed sooner, it was constrained by supply time.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint about the lift on 8 November 2023. She said the landlord’s contractor had previously raised concerns about the lift and had “declared the lift obsolete”. She said a new lift should have been ordered at this time, rather than waiting for it to break down.
On 12 November 2023 the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about its handling of repairs following the previous the leak. She also said:
1. scaffolding was still in place as of November 2023 despite the landlord stating previously that it would be removed on 4 January 2023.
2. the landlord previously said it would move her to an accessible hotel following the leak, but then did not do so.
3. an earlier bathroom leak had caused the hoist to fail, and the landlord took months to replace it.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident about its handling of the leak on 4 December 2023. It noted it had previously addressed the resident’s concerns about the leak in December 2022. It set out a schedule of work, which it said would be completed by 31 January 2024. It apologised for the substandard service the resident had received. It awarded the resident £310. This was made up of:
1. £110 for the period it would take to complete repairs.
2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused as these repairs should have been completed sooner.
3. £100 for the breakdown in communication as the resident was not kept updated.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 response to her concerns about the lift at the property. It said it had made the following findings:
1. after the lift went out of service on 13 October 2023 it failed to take prompt action.
2. when its contractors had attended previously, it had assessed the lift to be condition number 2, which meant it should look to replace the lift during that year.
3. lift replacement had been planned for that year, but it broke down before it could order the new lift.
4. it anticipated fitting the new lift between 5 and 7 February 2024.
5. it had sourced parts to complete a temporary fix of the lift, and its contractor would attend on 15 December 2023.
The landlord said, regardless of whether it thought parts may not resolve the fault, it should have ordered these to try to complete a temporary repair to the lift. It apologised that this did not happen. It said it was clear it had not done everything in its power to be proactive in ordering a new lift when it knew it needed to be replaced. It said that doing so could have prevented the situation the resident and her daughter were facing. It offered £750 compensation, made up of:
1. £100 for stress and inconvenience.
2. £100 for poor external communication.
3. £100 for poor internal communication.
4. £50 for the length of time taken to complete repairs.
5. £400 ex gratia compensation for stress and inconvenience.
In February 2024, via the Ombudsman, the resident escalated her complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs following the leak. The landlord provided its stage 2 response to the complaint on 17 April 2024. It set out details of work it had completed to address leaks to the property in March and November 2022. It said:
1. during this time scaffolding was left up at the property for a prolonged period, causing the resident further concern.
2. the hoist used by the resident’s daughter was damaged during a leak and was attended to on 22 February 2022.
3. a new hoist was ordered but its contractor had difficulty gaining access and this was not fitted until 28 June 2023. During this time the existing hoist was working.
The landlord said that work had been issued to its contractor to complete redecoration, plastering, carpentry and electrical work in areas affected by the leak. However, it said these works did not start due to issues planning with the resident for surveys to take place and work to start. It said the work was then passed to another contractor, but there were issues with work not being fully completed or poor quality of some of the work. It said it had since passed the matter to a case manager. It said that work was now progressing but there were still some items to complete.
The landlord said that it upheld the resident’s complaint. It offered her compensation of £150 for the time and trouble in respect of the repairs. It noted compensation of £300 for part of these repairs had already been paid during a stage 1 complaint response in December 2022. It also offered £50 for the stress and inconvenience of being without a working hoist for 5 weeks, and £50 for the delay in providing its stage 2 complaint response.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

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

The impact of repair issues on the resident and her daughter’s health

The resident said the landlord’s handling of repair issues had a negative impact on her and her daughter’s health. We are very sorry to learn of this, and the resident’s comments are not disputed. However, paragraph 42.f of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer, and it would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she can make such a claim. As such, we have recommended that it provide the resident with information on how she can make such a claim to its insurer. It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42.f of the Scheme. However, this investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her family’s health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

Response to reports of a leak in the property and handling of repairs and the resident’s request to be decanted

The resident raised concerns about the landlord’s handling of leak issues at the property over a decade. It is acknowledged that the resident has been affected by leaks prior to November 2022. However, we have seen no evidence that the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in respect of previous leaks. Nor is there an indication that the previous leaks were linked to the leak the resident raised in November 2022. As such, the focus of our investigation will be concerns the resident raised since November 2022 about the landlord’s response to her report of a leak and its handling of repairs.

Response to reports of leaks in the property, handling of repairs and the resident’s request to be decanted

Response to reports of a leak

The landlord told us that records available for this case had been impacted by a database that was turned off in October 2023. It said the “data dump” from this database was “severely limited”. For this reason, it was unable to provide all records of contact and attendance. That was a significant record keeping failing. The landlord should have taken adequate steps to ensure it retrieved and stored necessary records prior to turning off the database. As a result of the limited information, it cannot adequately demonstrate how it responded to the resident’s report of a leak, or what efforts it made to address repairs. We have ordered that the landlord undertake a review of the circumstances that led to the database being turned off before records were retrieved, and appropriately saved.
Records provided by the landlord do not show the resident’s initial contact about the leak. However, in its subsequent complaint response in December 2022 it noted the leak was reported on 3 November 2022, and this was not disputed by the resident. The landlord accepted in its response of December 2022 that it had delayed until 11 November 2022 before attending to make electrics safe. In her escalation request of December 2022 the resident said the leak had left her without reliable electricity until the electrics were checked by the landlord. She said her daughter, who is in a wheelchair, could not leave her room on the first floor for 10 days because of this. The landlord told us it was aware of the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability. While records from this time are limited, the delay in checking and making safe electrics has been confirmed by both the resident and the landlord. In line with its repairs policy the landlord should have attended within 4 hours as an emergency repair. Given the vulnerability of the household, this delay in attending was a significant failure. It is also clear evidence that it had not given appropriate consideration to the health and safety implications when determining the urgency of repairs, or the risks to the resident and her daughter. That was contrary to its vulnerable persons policy.
The landlord stated in its response of 4 December 2022 that it had resolved the leak by clearing the guttering and that the resident had confirmed there was no further leak. But, again, because of the landlord’s record keeping failings, there is no evidence of the work or of any conversations it had with the resident to establish if the leak had been resolved. However, records we have seen show no further reports of a leak by the resident. In addition, while it is acknowledged this was some months after, the surveyor’s inspection from April 2023 did not record any ongoing leak. Nonetheless, the landlord should have maintained appropriate records showing steps it had taken to resolve the leak.

Handling of repairs

The landlord said in its complaint response of 4 December 2022 that it would attend later that month to complete internal repairs to the property. However, due to the absence of appropriate records, it is unclear what steps, if any, it took towards completing these repairs. The landlord provided the resident with a point of contact until work was completed. But there is no evidence of any oversight or monitoring of the work to ensure it was completed. The landlord told us that it had difficulty agreeing with the resident a suitable time to survey the property. It also said that there was “debate” about what work would be required. But again, because of the absence of records, it cannot demonstrate that it took adequate steps to progress the work. We note, however, that the resident raised concerns in her escalation request of December 2022 about work being completed while she remained in the property as she had asthma. She also raised concerns at this time about the scope of work. She said this had been “dictated” to her when the landlord delivered paint charts to the house but did not include work she considered was necessary to electrics and flooring. While she requested that the landlord set out a plan in writing of all necessary work, there is no evidence it responded to this request. That was a failing. Without addressing these concerns, it was not taking appropriate steps to progress the work.
The records show very limited progress between December 2022 and July 2023. It was not until April 2023 that a surveyor attended to inspect the property. That was an unreasonable delay, particularly given the landlord’s awareness that the resident’s household was vulnerable. It is also apparent from the subsequent surveys in April and July 2023 that power to the sockets and lighting in one of the bedrooms had been affected. At this time the surveyor recommended an electrical installation condition report. But there is no evidence of what action the landlord took to obtain this. The resident told us that some rooms at the property did not have electricity restored until August 2023. This is in line with the landlord’s internal communication from this time, which noted on 22 August 2023 that electrical work had been completed. The delay until August 2023 in arranging work to correct electrics affected by the leak was a failing.
We note the external surveyor’s report was not sent to the landlord until end of May 2023 but there is no evidence it took steps to chase this. It should reasonably have done so given the time repairs had been outstanding. The landlord said work was then passed to a contractor. However, it said this work did not start due to issues agreeing a start date with the resident. We have seen details of the landlord’s inspection in July 2023, which it said it completed as a result of issues agreeing work. But the landlord has provided no earlier records relating to attempts by its contractor to agree or start work. Without adequate evidence, the landlord cannot demonstrate it was taking appropriate steps to progress work after receiving the surveyor’s report at the end of May 2023.
The internal emails detailing the findings and recommendations of the landlord’s inspection in July 2023 set out some disagreement between it and the resident about the extent of repairs required to the property. This included the amount of redecoration needed and what flooring should be replaced. Subsequently, in August 2023, the landlord noted the resident would be away for 4 weeks. It said she had requested that no further repair work be scheduled until she returned. It is acknowledged that a delay in work during this time was unavoidable.
In October 2023 the landlord told the resident of further work it had now agreed to undertake. This included work it said it had agreed as a goodwill gesture, such as replacing further flooring. It said that this work would be completed by a new contractor. But the landlord provided no indication of how long the work would take. It should reasonably have done so, particularly given the longstanding repairs. That the landlord did not provide any timeframe for the work until 4 December 2023 was a failing.
The landlord has provided inadequate records of the work complete since October 2023. Although internal emails indicate some repairs had been completed by 6 December 2023, a number of internal repairs remained outstanding. It told the resident in its stage 1 complaint response of 4 December 2023 that work would be completed by 31 January 2024. But records show work far exceeded this target. We acknowledge that progress of work has been impacted due to a disagreement around the extent of work needed. We also note a further delay as flooring initially installed around April 2024 was subsequently found to be unsuitable. Records show that the local authority wrote to the landlord in July 2024 setting out its attendance with the landlord’s surveyor. It noted that the surveyor had agreed flooring was not robust enough due to heavy duty equipment used by the resident’s daughter, and would need replacing. Given the landlord’s awareness of the resident’s daughter’s needs, it should have taken adequate steps to ensure it was installing suitable flooring in the first instance. That it did not was a failing.
The resident outlined concerns that scaffolding was in place for a prolonged period. She said this was erected to resolve a leak to the rear roof and was not removed until December 2023. The landlord acknowledged this in its stage 2 complaint response of April 2024, and that it would have caused the resident further concern. We note that the landlord told the resident in July 2023 that it would remove all scaffolding once all roof work was complete, but it is unclear why it had remained in place following previous roof repairs in 2022. The landlord made no attempt to explore or explain why scaffolding had been in place for so long. If there was a reason for this, it should have been communicated to the resident. That the landlord did not do so was a failing. It is important it arrange timely removal of scaffolding, not just for safety reasons but also to avoid unnecessary inconvenience to the resident.

Decant

In line with its decant policy, it was appropriate for the landlord to consider a decant when works are needed that cannot be completed with the resident in situ. Details of the condition of the property and repairs needed from the time are limited to what the landlord set out in its stage 1 response of 4 December 2022. It noted then that it had taken advice from its housing teams and a technical manager and had concluded that a decant was not necessary. It also noted that its contractor had undertaken an assessment of the property on 23 November 2022 and had concluded there was no raised risk and that it was not necessary to provide alternative accommodation. It said that it found some water staining which could be repaired once the area had dried.
The records of the landlord’s inspection of the property in November 2022 are not available. However, details it set out about the condition of the property in November 2022, are broadly in line with the findings of the surveyor’s inspection of April 2023. While the landlord assessed the condition of the property on 23 November 2022, there is no indication it made any attempt to do so prior to this. That was a failing, considering the leak had been reported almost 3 weeks earlier. As noted earlier, the resident told us she was left without reliable electricity in the house for 10 days following the leak, and of the implications of this for her daughter. Nor is there evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns set out in her escalation request of December 2022. She questioned then how work could be completed safely while her family remained in the property. She had outlined understandable concerns about the potential impact of paint fumes given that she suffered from asthma. The landlord should have appropriately considered whether a decant was needed during the repairs, particularly given the household vulnerabilities. That it did not was a further failing.
The resident said she was without reliable electricity in the house for 10 days. She also raised concerns about how the landlord would complete repairs safely with her family in situ. She said in her complaint of November 2023 that the landlord had initially offered to decant her to an accessible hotel but then could not find one with equipment to support the needs of her daughter. The landlord told us that it was not possible to locate suitable temporary accommodation, and that it decided the “damage to the property did not merit a decant”. Due to lack of records, we do not know what efforts were made by the landlord to explore the possibility of moving the resident to alternative suitable accommodation. We acknowledge that finding suitable accommodation may have been challenging, as it would need to be able to accommodate the resident’s daughter’s needs. But without adequate records the landlord cannot clearly demonstrate that it acted appropriately in the circumstances. This was a significant failing. That was particularly so as it was aware of the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability. It demonstrated a disregard of its own vulnerable persons policy.
We have found evidence of delay by the landlord in inspecting the condition of the property and making appropriate consideration of a decant. We acknowledge some unavoidable delay in subsequent repairs while the resident was away for 4 weeks. But overall, we have found that the landlord delayed completing remedial repair work. This work remained ongoing as of October 2024, nearly 2 years after the leak occurred. While we accept that the scope of work extended during that time, this repair work has been unreasonably prolonged. That is particularly so given the vulnerability of the resident’s household. We have seen evidence of poor communication, poor coordination and planning of repair work. Overall, we have seen failings by the landlord that amount severe maladministration.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident total compensation of £760 in respect of its handling of the leak, decant request and subsequent repairs. This amount does not adequately recognise the impact on the resident and her family. She has outlined that her older daughter was unable to leave her room for 10 days after the leak affected electricity at the property. The property was also without light and electricity to sockets in a bedroom from November 2022 to August 2023. The resident said that for a long period of time following the leak in November 2022 herself and her youngest daughter had to sleep in the living room. She also told us that, subsequently, her older daughter had to sleep downstairs in the living room for a long period. She had been moved to sleep in the living room initially because the lift broke down, which we explore further below. The resident said her daughter then had to remain sleeping in the living room while waiting for the correct flooring to be installed in her room.
The resident told us that she felt her family had been “denied the full enjoyment” of their home, such as to receive guests and celebrate holidays. She has outlined the impact of the prolonged period of scaffolding being in place at the rear of the property, which she said blocked her older daughter’s bedroom window. It would also have affected the resident’s use of her garden.
With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and the circumstances of the case, we have considered the resident’s loss of amenity since November 2022. A result of the landlord’s failings, the resident and her family have been caused significant upheaval and inconvenience over a prolonged period. During this time, they have been unable to enjoy and make full use of their 4 bedroom home. We have calculated the loss of amenity to be 30% of the property. The landlord has provided details of the resident’s weekly rent during this period. This ranged between £172.01 and £198.22. Using this amount, we have calculated the total compensation for loss of amenity as £5,976.60. This represents 30% of the rent payment from 3 November 2022 to date. It is acknowledged that it is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered to be a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home. We note the award of £760 already made by the landlord. We have also ordered an increase in this amount to fully recognise the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident and her family as a result of the impact of the landlord’s failings.

Response to repair reports about a hoist in the property

The landlord’s records relating to reports and repairs of the hoist are incomplete. This is a further record keeping failing. We have seen records showing that the landlord’s contractor had attended on 22 February 2022 after a report the bathroom hoist had stopped working. The landlord said the resident had refused a replacement hoist at this time. Her concerns about this given the leak issue are acknowledged and understandable. Later in March 2022 the landlord noted it discussed with the contractor temporary repairs/changes it could make to the hoist. But there is no evidence it attempted to complete this work until 31 March 2022. The landlord had noted earlier that month the “considerable stress” the resident was under, and that she said she could not “cope” with lifting her daughter. Given this, the delay of 5 weeks before the landlord completed a temporary repair to the hoist was unreasonable. It is further evidence the landlord was failing to have appropriate regard to its vulnerable persons policy.
The landlord stated the hoist was in working order from 31 March 2022, and this has not been disputed by the resident. However, it is clear the landlord intended to replace the hoist following the leak damage. It said in its stage 2 complaint response in April 2024 that its contractor had issues gaining access to install the new hoist. Records we have seen do not show the subsequent delay was entirely due to access issues. It is acknowledged that the landlord’s contractor attempted contact with the resident during August 2022. We have also seen that an appointment the landlord booked in November 2022 was cancelled by the resident because of the new leak issue she was experiencing. But that leak was clearly beyond the resident’s control, and it was understandable that she would be reluctant for the hoist replacement to be undertaken at this time.
Later, in February 2023, the landlord noted it had cancelled an installation appointment due to incorrect parts being received. Records we have seen also show only intermittent attempts to complete the hoist replacement. There was no apparent action by the landlord between May to August 2022, or from September to November 2022. Given this, the landlord’s assertion that the delay in replacing the hoist only was due to access issues, only partially reflects events. While the landlord stated that the hoist was replaced on 28 June 2023, it is unclear where this information came from. It is not detailed in records. We also note the surveyor’s damp and mould inspection on 12 April 2023 detailed that the resident had said at this time that the bathroom hoist had recently been replaced.
Overall, we have found that while the bathroom hoist was working after the contractor’s attendance on 31 March 2022, the landlord unreasonably delayed arranging these temporary repairs. While there is some evidence of access issues in August 2022, the landlord failed to take sufficient or sustained action to arrange for the hoist to be replaced. We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this matter. The award of £50 it has made to the resident does not adequately compensate her for the 5-week period when her daughter was without a working bathroom hoist. Nor does it compensate her for the frustration she experienced while waiting for the hoist to be replaced. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an increased award has been ordered.

Response to repair reports concerning a passenger lift in the property

Records provided by the landlord about the resident’s reports of issues with the passenger lift are limited. This is a further record keeping failing. As noted earlier, it should have maintained adequate records. This was not only so it could demonstrate how it had responded to repair reports. Such records are needed so it can monitor the number and type of repairs and make an informed decision about the condition of the lift. That was particularly important given the resident’s daughters reliance upon this lift to access her bedroom, medical equipment and adapted bathroom.
In its stage 2 consideration of the resident’s complaint the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of lift repairs. It accepted that it had failed to take prompt action after the lift failed on 17 October 2023. It also accepted that it should have ordered parts to attempt a temporary repair to alleviate the impact on the resident and her daughter. It said it had instructed staff to ensure replacements are ordered in the first instance and not left until equipment fails, causing “appalling situations such as you have had to endure”. The landlord noted it had provided the resident with a portable hoist and had moved her daughter downstairs on 17 October 2023 so that she could access the wet room at the property. However, it was not until 1 November 2023 that it made a safeguarding referral to the local authority about the matter. That was more than 2 weeks after the issues with the lift had begun. That was an unreasonable delay in these circumstances. The resident’s daughters’ reliance on the lift should have been self-evident to the landlord. That it did not do more at the outset to explore temporary repairs or make a timely safeguarding referral to the local authority further demonstrates it was failing to have appropriate regard to its vulnerable persons policy.
While we note the landlord said it would attempt temporary repairs to the lift on 15 December 2023, we have seen no evidence it did so. It is clear, however, from internal communication that the resident was still waiting for a lift repair on 19 January 2024. At this time the landlord noted she was “extremely upset” about this. That is understandable given the level of impact it was having on her and her daughter. The landlord acknowledged that the resident and her daughter had been left in an appalling situation. It is therefore unclear why it deemed £750 to be a proportionate sum of compensation in the circumstances. When the resident requested escalation of her complaint in November 2023, she described this impact. She said without a lift her daughter would have to “live without dignity in the living room for 5 months”. She said she could not take her daughter to the first floor, to her bedroom, medical equipment and adapted shower. She said carers could not shower her daughter or provide her with care she needed without access to the first floor. The resident told us that she also needed to sleep in the living room on a sofa during this time to be near her daughter in the night.
Overall, we have found severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair reports concerning a passenger lift in the property. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance we have ordered an increased award of compensation for the distress and inconvenience that has been caused. This is aimed at fully recognising the severe impact of this situation on the resident and her daughter.
In addition to this we consider an award for the loss of amenity to be appropriate for the period between October 2023 when the lift broke, until February 2024 when it was replaced. The resident’s daughter was unable to access her bedroom and adapted bathroom during this time. We have calculated this loss of amenity to be 15% of the property. Using the resident’s weekly rent of £184.05, this has been calculated as £497.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s stage 1 complaint responses of 4 December 2022 and 4 December 2023 were both slightly outside the target response time outlined in its complaints policy. But on each occasion, it failed to either acknowledge or apologise for this. That was a failing. It should reasonably have done so. The landlord’s stage 2 response was more significantly delayed. It was approximately 4 weeks outside its target response time. While the landlord sent an interim response explaining this delay, it only did so after contact from the Ombudsman. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code) it should have been proactive in communicating with the resident to agree an extension in advance. That it did not was a failing. We acknowledge however, that the landlord appropriately recognised this delay by awarding the resident £50 compensation.
However, there were other more significant failings in the landlord’s complaint handling. It failed to acknowledge or respond to the resident’s request for her complaint to be escalated in December 2022. That meant it failed to appropriately respond to the concerns she had raised at that time. Had it done so, the landlord may have been able to resolve concerns she had about the extent of work and how this would be completed while she remained at the property. That can only have contributed to the length of time taken to agree and complete the repairs needed to the property. Its failure was also contrary to its own complaints policy and the Code. It would have caused the resident unnecessary upset and frustration, and feeling that her concerns were being ignored. It was a significant failing by the landlord, given the situation she was facing at that time.
We have also seen evidence of a disjointed response by the landlord in its consideration of appropriate redress in respect of the leak repairs. It awarded £310 to the resident in it stage 1 in December 2023. But when awarding a further £150 to her in its stage 2 review, it made no mention of the earlier award. Instead, it referred to the £300 it had awarded during it stage 1 consideration in December 2022. The levels of award made by the landlord in its complaint responses failed to recognise the impact of its failings, and the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. As set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, some residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ action or inaction. The vulnerability and needs of the resident’s household meant they were more significantly impacted by the landlord’s failings. It should have appropriately recognised this when considering the appropriate level of compensation. Its review at stage 2 of April 2024 gave little regard to the fact that repair issues had been outstanding for so long. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to set out a clear plan for completing outstanding repairs. That it did not was a failing. Such a plan could have helped it in monitoring the completion of work. It would also have provided the resident some reassurance.
In its stage 1 complaint response of December 2023, it also failed to address the concerns the resident raised about its handling of the replacement of the bathroom hoist. The landlord should have appropriately addressed all points of complaint or explain why it was not doing so. We also note errors in calculating the total compensation award in its stage 2 response. The compensation awarded by the landlord amounted to £250, but it miscalculated this to be £200. It is important for the landlord to be clear and accurate when setting out its compensation award. That it was not was a failing. In her complaint in November 2023 the resident told the landlord that furniture and personal belongings had been damaged during the leak. We note the landlord had previously directed her to submit a claim to its insurer. But it would still have been appropriate for it to set this out in its complaint response. Doing so would have ensured the resident was clear about how she could take forward her concerns about her damaged belongings.
Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Amongst other things, it failed to appropriately escalate her complaint in December 2022. In later complaint responses it also failed to cover all her points of complaint or award compensation that fully recognised the impact of its failings. Despite these issues having been ongoing for so long, it also failed to provide a clear plan of action to resolve outstanding repairs. The landlord complaint handling failings would have left the resident feeling ignored and that it had not appropriately considered or resolved her concerns. So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £50. This does not adequately recognise the impact of its failings. We have ordered an increased award.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42.f of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the concerns about the impact of repair issues on the resident and her daughter’s health falls outside the Ombudsman jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of a leak in the property, handling of repairs and the resident’s request to be decanted.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair reports about a hoist in the property.
3. severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to repair reports about a passenger lift in the property.
4. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. the chief executive for the landlord should write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. the landlord should pay the resident compensation of £10,834, made up of:
  1. £6,474 (£5,977 and £497) in recognition of the impact of its failings upon the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home.
  2. £760 already awarded in respect of its handling of leak issues and time taken to complete repairs.
  3. £1,000 further payment in recognition of the impact on the resident and her family of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the leak, request for a decant and subsequent repairs.
  4. £750 already awarded by the landlord in respect of failings in its handling of lift repairs.
  5. £750 further payment in recognition of the impact on the resident and her daughter of the period between October 2023 and February 2024 when the lift at the property was not working.
  6. £50 payment already awarded by the landlord in recognition of the period the resident’s daughter was without a working bathroom hoist.
  7. £400 further payment in recognition of the landlord’s failings in its handling of the replacement of the bathroom hoist.
  8. £50 payment already awarded by the landlord for failings in its handling of the complaint.
  9. £600 further payment in recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failings.
3. contact the resident to provide a clear plan and timeframe for completing any outstanding repairs.
4. contact the resident to obtain details of increased utility costs, such as evidence from bills, following the leak of November 2022. It should then take steps to reimburse these.
5. provide the resident with information about how she can submit a claim to its insurer for any damaged items.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord should carry out a senior management review of this case. This should be presented to its senior leadership case and should include a review of:
1. the circumstances that led to a database being turned off before records were retrieved and appropriately saved. This should be undertaken with the aim of ensuring adequate processes and guidance are in place to prevent such a failing being repeated.
2. failings identified in this report in respect of its consideration of the vulnerability of the resident’s household. The landlord should review whether appropriate guidance and training is in place for staff. This should be completed with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights.
3. why scaffolding was in place at the property for so long. It should also review whether appropriate guidance is in place to ensure timely removal of scaffolding when work is complete.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with this order to the Ombudsman within 10 weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. provide the resident with information on how she can make a personal injury claim to its insurer.
2. contact the resident to confirm it has accurately recorded all vulnerabilities for the household.