Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Abri Group Limited (202234700)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234700

Abri Group Limited

8 May 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

1.             The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

2.             The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

3.             The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord for a bungalow. The landlord did not have any vulnerabilities listed for the resident, but during the complaints process became aware that he has Crohn’s disease and has updated its systems to reflect this.

4.             On 9 December 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report issues with his windows. The resident said that the windows were very drafty and were letting in the cold air. The landlord raised an order for a surveyor inspection to be booked.

5.             On 13 December 2022 the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He advised that his windows were not fit for purpose and wanted them sorted as a matter of urgency. He had contacted the landlord on 9 December 2022, but no one had been in contact with him to book a surveyor appointment.

6.             On 3 January 2023 the resident chased the landlord for a response to his complaint. He advised that he gets ill every year and believes it is because of his windows.

7.             On 4 January 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay, it confirmed that it had sent a complaint acknowledgement by email. The landlord also confirmed that a surveyor appointment had been booked for 24 January 2023, and would try to bring it forward if it could.

8.             On 9 January 2023 the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response which confirmed that there had been an error with its new computer scheduling system and therefore upheld his complaint. It confirmed that an appointment had been booked and offered £100 compensation. On 17 January 2023, the resident accepted the compensation.

9.             On 26 January 2023, following the surveyors visit, an order was raised for the windows to be overhauled. This included adjusted window hinges, resealing frames, improving the seals. The works were passed to the landlord’s contractors.

10.        On 13 February 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to escalate his complaint. The resident explained that he had been waiting for an update following the landlord’s visit in January 2023 and had had no further communication. The resident said that he wanted an updated timeframe from the contractor and to be kept up to date.

11.        On 28 February 2023 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said it would respond within 20 working days.

12.        In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions for an update. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 March 2023 and said that it needed more time to investigate his complaint and would aim to respond by 11 April 2023.

13.        On 13 April 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the length of time it had taken to complete the stage 2 review and it would aim to respond by 18 April 2023. The resident explained to the landlord that he was unhappy with the length of time it was taking to get the repairs completed and he had had no communication. He also had some issues with his front and back doors.

14.        On 14 April 2024 the landlord contacted the resident by phone and provided its stage 2 response, which the resident confirmed he would accept once an email was sent. The stage 2 response said:

  1. It apologised for the delay in providing the stage 2 response, which was due to staffing levels.
  2. It apologised for the lack of communication following the surveyor’s visit in January 2023.
  3. That an operative had attended on 5 April 2023, but identified that follow on works were required for 2 operatives over 2 days.
  4. The works had been booked for 2 and 3 May 2023, but rescheduled to 15 and 16 May at the resident’s request. The operative would also look at the front and back door on this date too.
  5. It offered an additional £400 compensation, made up of £100 for the delay in providing its stage 2 response and £300 for its communication failures.
  6. It also confirmed that it had recruited additional staff to prevent further delays when responding to complaints.

15.        On 20 April 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that while he initially said that he would accept the compensation offered, he felt that it should be increased. On 24 April 2023 the landlord conformed that it had assessed its offer and felt that it was fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It also confirmed that it was unable to compensate him for medical impact and would need to proceed via an insurance route and provided him with the relevant details for its liability insurer on how to pursue this.

16.        On 24 April 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and confirmed that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and wanted the Service to conduct an investigation.

17.        Following the completion of the works, the resident contacted the landlord on 17 May 2023. He explained that while the works had been completed, he was not happy and wanted someone to go out and inspect. On 6 June 2023, an order was raised for works to be carried out to the windows. It was completed on 28 June 2023.

18.        On 3 August 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and said that a draft was still coming through the windows and doors. On 24 August 2023, the landlord arranged for an additional inspection to be completed on 7 September 2023. The operative identified further works that could be completed. A follow-on appointment was raised and would be booked when the material became available.

19.        On 16 November 2023 the landlord arranged for a senior surveyor to attend the resident’s property and carry out housing condition inspection. The inspection confirmed:

  1. The works to the windows had been completed to a good standard, and there were no gaps in the windows and the windows are fitted correctly.
  2. It determined that the draft is a result of lack of compression and a further appointment was booked for 29 November 2023.

20.        On 24 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident and provided him with a follow up letter as part of its complaints monitoring. The letter confirmed that:

  1. Following its stage 2 complaint response, it completed works in May 2023.
  2. Following the resident’s dissatisfaction, it arranged for some further works to be completed in June 2023.
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord in August 2023 about the condition of his windows, it arranged for a further inspection.
  4. Works were completed in September and October 2023.
  5. Following the resident’s concerns that the windows remained drafty, it arranged for a senior surveyor to attend. He confirmed that further works could be done, and an appointment was booked for 29 November 2023.
  6. It identified the length of time taken and would ensure that the works would be monitored until they were completed, and that the senior surveyor would post inspect the works.
  7. In recognition of the inconvenience caused over an extended period of time, it offered the resident an additional £1100 compensation, made up of:
    1. £500 for inconvenience caused in contacting the landlord.
    2. £100 for not completing the works as quickly as it would have wished.
    3. £500 contribution toward energy bills.

21.        On 8 January 2024 the landlord carried out a post inspection which confirmed that the property now fully met the Decent Homes Standard and was not in a state of disrepair, and the property was fit for human habitation. The windows and doors were coming to the end of their life cycle and were due for replacement. The windows and doors would now be replaced by the planned works team in the first quarter of the 2024 financial year.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

22.        The resident mentions that his health was affected by the condition of the windows. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. We have considered any distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord as well as the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about his health.

 

The Ombudsman’s approach.

23.        The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure.

24.        When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high-level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

  1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
  2. Put things right, and 
  3. Learn from outcomes.

25.        The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of window repairs.

26.        The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will generally only undertake repairs for which it has a statutory, regulatory, legal or contractual obligation. In relation to responsive repairs, it operates a 24 hour emergency response, or an appointment based system for non-emergency repairs. No timescales are given in the policy.

27.        The policy also states that it will also complete component renewals under a planned maintenance programme. The landlord’s website states that it will renew windows every 30 years and that some components may exceed or precede their predicted life cycle. When this happens, it will react to ensure it maintains a customer’s comfort and safety.

28.        The resident first reported an issue with his windows on 9 December 2022, which was a Friday, at 11.40am and the landlord’s records show that an order was raised for a surveyor inspection to be booked. On 13 December 2022, which was a Tuesday, as the resident did not receive any contact, he raised a complaint.

29.        The landlord has not provided a procedure regarding what steps should be taken when a surveyor inspection is booked, or how long the process takes, so it is not clear what the resident’s expectations were. The resident informed the landlord that he was experiencing issues due to the winter months, and while the Ombudsman acknowledges that it may take longer than 2 working days to arrange a suitable surveyor appointment, it would have been best practice for the landlord to ensure that the resident’s expectations were managed accordingly and provide him with further details on who would be contacting his to book an appointment and how long this would take. The Ombudsman would expect this to take no longer than 7 days.  

30.        The landlord failed to make contact with the resident following his complaint, and it was not until he chased the landlord after the Christmas period, on 3 January 2023, that it contacted him. While the landlord did call the resident back the day after his phone call, it was unreasonable for it to leave him with no information for a prolonged period of time. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience as he was left waiting for answer about the steps it would take to repair his windows throughout the winter months.

31.        Following the phone call on 4 January 2023, internal emails show that the landlord made enquires with the relevant team to ascertain what had gone wrong. The emails further confirm that there was an issue with its system that it used to book surveyor inspections and booked the next available appointment for the resident.

32.        The Ombudsman acknowledges that computer issues can occur, and it positive to see that the landlord identified the issue swiftly and booked an inspection. The landlord further offered £100 compensation in recognition of the failing it identified. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends payment of above £50 for service failures which were minimal and of a short duration, and therefore, the offer of £100 was fair and reasonable in the circumstances, in line with our guidance.

33.        Following the surveyor’s inspection, the landlord raised an order for the repairs that were identified, but there is no evidence to show that it communicated the next steps to the resident effectively or managed his expectations. This led to the resident contacting the landlord multiple times in February 2023 and the reasons for escalating his complaint.

34.        The landlord’s repair policy states that routine repairs will be booked at a mutually convenient time and while it does not give a specific timeframe. Industry best practice is approximately 28 days for routine repairs. The landlord should have given the resident an approximate timeframe so that he was aware of the next steps.

35.        The records show that the repairs were completed 2 months later. although it is not clear when the landlord booked the appointment. Therefore it appears there was some delay in completing the repairs, although it is not clear when the landlord booked the appointment. However, as the resident contacted the landlord multiple times for updates in February 2023, it is clear that did not communicate with his effectively or respond to his requests for updates. This would have added to the resident’s frustration and added inconvenience of having to keep chasing the landlord for an update.

36.        Within the stage 2 complaint response, the landlord accepted that this was a failing on its part and confirmed that the works had been booked on a mutually convenient date in May 2023. It also appropriately made an offer of £300 compensation in recognition of its failings, to ‘put things right’ for the resident.

37.        In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.

38.        The landlord has not provided a compensation policy so it is not clear how it calculated the amount offered; therefore, the Ombudsman will decide whether the offer was fair and reasonable based on our own remedies guidance (published on our website).

39.        It is clear that the landlord’s delay caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience. The resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions for an update, and many phone calls were left unreturned. The Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies recommends payments of between £100 and £600 for failures which have caused significant distress and inconvenience to a resident but may have had no permanent impact. The landlord’s offer was in line with the Ombudsman’s guidelines and is, therefore, considered fair and reasonable.

40.        Following the landlord’s repairs in May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that he remained dissatisfied with the works that were completed. The evidence shows that the landlord took prompt action and arranged for a post inspection to be completed and identified that further works, which were completed in June 2023. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the works were completed within a reasonable timeframe.

41.        The resident contacted the landlord on 3 August 2023 about his windows, and while the landlord did respond to the resident, it took 3 weeks for it to make contact. This was a failing, as it caused the resident unnecessary distress and inconvenience, while awaiting further a response from the landlord about what further action was going to be taken.

42.        Following the landlord’s contact at the end of August 2023, evidence shows that it attended the resident’s property and inspected the windows and the works that had been completed. As a result of the inspection, it arranged for a further works to be carried out. The Ombudsman acknowledges that a number of weeks passed, however is satisfied that this was necessary due to awaiting materials from a supplier, which was outside the landlord’s control.

43.        In addition to the additional works, the landlord also arranged for a senior surveyor to attend the resident’s property in November 2023 and conduct an inspection. This shows that the landlord continuing to monitor the action it was taking and that the works were appropriate and would resolve the resident’s issues. It is positive to see that the landlord continued to monitor the resident’s repairs and carried out a further post inspection in January 2024.

44.        When a resident reports an issue, such as drafty windows, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it carries out a full, effective and lasting repair. While landlord’s attempt to resolve issues as quickly as possible, some repairs can take more than 1 visit, over a longer period of time.

45.        The resident has said that the landlord was prolonging the decision to replace his windows. The resident’s frustration is understandable; however landlords are entitled to attempt repairs rather than arranging a replacement where it is reasonably possible to do so. If repeated repairs have been attempted but have not resolved the issue then it may be appropriate to consider replacing the windows at that stage. The landlord is also entitled to make an informed decision on what parts and/or replacement items are used when completing a repair, provided it ensures that the item is fully functional once it is repaired.

46.        It is further positive to see that following a period of complaint monitoring, the landlord recognised that the resident had been affected by additional delays and offered the resident an addition £1100 compensation. The compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as it reflected the additional significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, as well as the delay in completing the works. Furthermore, the landlord also offered compensation in recognition of any increased energy bills, which shows that it acknowledged the wider impact its service failures had on the resident and wanted to put things right for him.

47.        In summary, it is clear that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates regarding the repairs and that the landlord’s failings caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord took appropriate action to try to resolve the issues and effectively monitored the resident’s case as part of its response to his complaint. Its decision to provide the resident with an updated complaint response was positive and its increased offer of compensation was fair and reasonable in the circumstances.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

48.        The landlord’s customer relations policy states that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints will be responded to with 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. It also confirms that there may be scenarios where it may require more time to complete an investigation. If this is the case, it will contact the resident to confirm this. All Stage 1 complaints should be handled within 20 working days and Stage 2 complaints should be handled within 30 working days, unless there is a good reason the landlord cannot respond.

49.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), which can be found on our website, also says that complaints must be acknowledged within 5 working days.

50.        The evidence shows that the landlord took 16 working days for the resident’s stage 2 escalation to be formally acknowledged and 61 working days for a stage 2 response to be issued.

51.        As part of its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it failed to deal with the resident’s stage 2 escalation in line with its published timescales and explained that this was due to staffing levels. It explained that it had recruited more staff in order to learn from its failings and offered the resident £100 compensation.

52.        In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, where there has been service failure, which the landlord appropriately acknowledged awards of over £50 for distress and inconvenience are considered fair and reasonable. The landlord’s offer was in line with this amount, and therefore the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer was reasonable in the circumstances.

Determination

53.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak in a property above and resulting damage.

54.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress with the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Orders

55.        The landlord is ordered to pay the resident the total compensation of £1600 within 4 weeks of the date of this determination. It can deduct any monies which have already been paid to the resident.

Recommendations

56.        It is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with an update in relation to the window replacement and provide an estimated start date.