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

Accent Housing Limited (202309845)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202309845

Accent Housing Limited

24 February 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the living room ceiling.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property, a 2-bedroom house, since 2018.
  2. The resident first reported a suspected leak through the living room ceiling on 18 January 2023. She informed the landlord that there were no obvious leaks from the radiators in the bedroom, which was located directly above the green wet patch in the living room.
  3. Between 2 February 2023 and 9 June 2023, the landlord’s repair contractor attended the property on 6 occasions. The boiler (also located in the bedroom directly above the living room) was identified as the source of the leak. The boiler was repaired, and 1 square metre of the living room ceiling was replaced and reskimmed.
  4. Between 11 June 2023 and 22 June 2023, the resident and landlord exchanged 11 emails in relation to the redecoration of the living room ceiling. The landlord informed the resident that, in line with its responsive repairs policy and her tenancy agreement, it was her responsibility to redecorate the ceiling. The resident disagreed with the landlord’s position and said that she felt that it was unreasonable that she had to redecorate, as the damage was caused by the leaking boiler. She also informed the landlord that she had contacted the Ombudsman for assistance with the matter.
  5. Following contact from this Service on 27 July 2023, the landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2023. It provided a timeline of the events leading up to the complaint and informed the resident that:
    1. As the tenant, it was her responsibility to paint and decorate the property. This included making good any decoration damaged by a leak. It confirmed that this was in line with its policies, and other residents received the same level of service. It would therefore not redecorate the living room ceiling.
    2. It would like to offer her £50 in compensation, calculated as follows:
      1. £25 for a failed repair appointment on 15 May 2023.
      2. £25 in recognition of it failing to resolve the repair until 8 March 2023.
  6. We have seen no evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. However, the landlord provided its stage 2 response on 29 August 2023. It said that:
    1. Its stage 1 response was “fair and accurate”.
    2. Regarding the redecoration of the living room ceiling, its position remained unchanged, as this was in line with its policy.
    3. It reoffered the resident the £50 compensation it had offered her at stage 1.

Assessment and findings

Handling of a leak and damage to the living room ceiling

  1. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing the central heating and plumbing in the property. It also states that where a required repair does not pose an immediate risk to the resident or property, the repair will be carried out within 28 days.
  2. Following the resident’s initial report of a leak on 18 January 2023, the landlord’s repair contractor attended the property on 27 January 2023. This was a response time of 9 days, which was reasonable and in line with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy. It was during this appointment that the repair contractor identified that the leak was originating from the boiler’s condensation pump. It therefore required a qualified gas engineer to repair the issue.
  3. The gas engineer attended the property on 2 February 2023. As there is no evidence to suggest that the leak was uncontainable, we find that the landlord acted appropriately and within its target timescales.
  4. During the appointment, the gas engineer identified that the leak on the condensate pipe was located below a false floor in the boiler compartment. This required a joiner to lift the floorboards so that the condensate pipe could be accessed and repaired. We acknowledge that the landlord’s requirement for another trade to resolve the issue was frustrating for the resident. However, it is reasonable to assume that the landlord could not have anticipated the issues it went on to identify.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 to request an update on the repair. We acknowledge that the landlord was still within its target timescales for the repair at this point. However, we have seen no evidence that it kept the resident updated about her repairs during this period, which was unreasonable. This was also at odds with its responsive repairs policy, which states that it will keep residents informed “every step of the way” until the work is completed.
  6. The repair contractor (joiner) attended the property on 20 February 2023 to lift the floorboards and access the condensate pipe. The gas engineer reattended on 8 March 2023, and replaced the leaking section of the condensate pipework and reattached the access panel. Given that that the landlord had already exceeded its target timescales by 20 February 2023, we find that it would have been good practice, if possible, for it to bring forward the gas engineer appointment, to avoid any further delays for the resident. However, it is also recognised that more complex repairs involving unforeseen issues may unavoidably exceed a landlord’s target timescales.
  7. Following the repair on 8 March 2023, the repair contractor informed the landlord that the resident had requested for the living room ceiling to be redecorated. The landlord contacted the resident on 10 March 2023 to inform her that it would not redecorate the affected area, as this was her responsibility. An assessment of the landlord’s decision not to redecorate the ceiling is made later in the report.
  8. The resident and the landlord exchanged several emails between 10 March 2023 and 15 March 2023. The landlord reiterated its position that it would not redecorate the affected area. It did, however, advise the resident that it would arrange for the repair contractor to wash the ceiling with mould cleaner. This was reasonable.
  9. During the repair contractor’s visit on 28 March 2023, it identified that the plasterboard on the living room ceiling had rotted, and needed to be removed, replaced and then reskimmed. Although it is positive that the repair contractor identified that this work was required, it is our opinion that the work should have been identified earlier. We acknowledge that the repair to the boiler needed to be resolved before the landlord could rectify the living room ceiling. However, it had been aware there was an issue with the living room ceiling since 18 January 2023, and we have seen no evidence that it assessed the ceiling before this point. It is also unclear when or if it would have assessed the ceiling, had the resident not requested it to do so.
  10. The resident then contacted the landlord on 6 April 2023 to request an update on the repair. It is acknowledged that the landlord had raised a repair the previous day. However, we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to inform her of the upcoming appointment, which was unreasonable.
  11. An appointment was scheduled for 24 April 2023, but the evidence suggests that the resident asked for this to be delayed until after 11 May 2023 when she had returned from holiday. The landlord’s stage 1 response stated that an appointment was then scheduled for 15 May 2023, but this failed to go ahead. Although the landlord recognised this failing, we have seen no other evidence of this failed appointment other than an email sent from the resident on 6 June 2023. This is indicative of poor record keeping in the landlord’s handling of the repair.
  12. The repair contractor attended the property on 6 June 2023 and 9 June 2023. The work undertaken included the replacement and reskimming of the plaster on 1 square metre of the living room ceiling. From the date that the resident first reported the leak (18 January 2023), this was a total of 142 days to fully resolve the issue. In mitigation, we acknowledge that the resident delayed one of the appointments by 19 days, and the repairs required multiple trades to resolve the issue. However, we find that the time taken to resolve the repair to the boiler and ceiling was excessive and at odds with the timescales outlined in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy.
  13. Between 11 June 2023 and 22 June 2023, the resident and landlord discussed who was responsible for the redecoration of the living room ceiling. We understand that the resident did not agree with the landlord’s position not to redecorate the living room ceiling, as the damage was caused by the boiler leaking. However, we find that the landlord acted appropriately in its handling of the matter and had no obligation to redecorate the ceiling. This is because the landlord’s information booklet on repair responsibilities states that the resident is responsible for painting and decorating, including after any damage caused by a leak. Additionally, the resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is not responsible for painting and decorating inside the property. We find that the landlord sufficiently explained this to the resident on several occasions and was transparent about its decision.
  14. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it may offer a discretionary payment where it has failed to provide services, or the quality of the service provided has fallen below its agreed standards, including adequate response times. The policy does not include a calculation matrix to determine how much it will pay for each failure identified. Therefore, within our assessment of the appropriateness of landlord’s compensation offer, we have also considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
  15. Within the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it offered the resident a total of £50 compensation. We find that the offer of £25 was reasonable for the missed appointment on 15 May 2023. However, we find the landlord’s additional offer of £25, in recognition of the delays to resolve the repair, was low. It stated that the repair remained unresolved until 8 March 2023, which was true for the boiler repair. However, the outstanding repairs to the ceiling remained unresolved until 9 June 2023. It is for this reason that we cannot find that the landlord offered reasonable redress in its handling of the matter.
  16. Overall, we find that there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the living room ceiling. This is because:
    1. The landlord failed to comply with the timescales outlined in its responsive repairs policy. Even allowing for the circumstances, the repair timeframe of almost 5 months was excessive.
    2. On occasions, the landlord’s communication with the resident was poor.
    3. The landlord’s offer of compensation did not fully reflect the failings identified within this report, which it had the opportunity to identify and address within its subsequent complaints process.
  17. It would not be appropriate for us to order the landlord to redecorate the living room ceiling, as it is not within its responsibility to do so. However, in addition to the compensation already offered by the landlord, we have ordered a further amount. This has been calculated in accordance with our remedies guidance and reflects the additional failings identified within this report.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. Stage 1 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are to be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days.
  2. The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy adopts the definition of a complaint used by the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the landlord, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf. The Code also stipulates that a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for their communication to be treated as such, and whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction their landlord must give them the choice to make complaint.
  3. Within the resident’s emails between 6 June 2023 and 21 June 2023, it is accepted that she did not explicitly state that she wanted to make a formal complaint. However, she did express dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the substantive issue. We therefore find that the landlord acted inappropriately as it failed to recognise the resident’s dissatisfaction and treat the matter as a complaint. Additionally, as the resident required intervention from the Ombudsman to progress her complaint, we find that the landlord acted unreasonably.
  4. On 27 July 2023, this Service requested the landlord to open a formal complaint. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 1 complaint response the following day. This was appropriate and in line with the timescales outlined in its complaints and compensation policy.
  5. The Code stipulates that all records of correspondence with the resident regarding the complaint must be kept. Other than an introductory email from the complaint handler on the same day that the landlord issued its complaint response (28 July 2023), we have seen no evidence that it contacted the resident to discuss her complaint, and the outcomes sought. This was also the case in its handling of the stage 2 complaint. The Code states that at each stage of the complaints process, complaint handlers must give the resident a fair chance to set out their position. While it is not always necessary to visit the resident to discuss a complaint, it is good practice to do so.
  6. The landlord failed to provide us with evidence of the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. We are therefore unable to assess whether it acknowledged her request within the timescales outlined in the Code. It is, however, indicative of record keeping failures within its handling of the complaint.
  7. Within the landlord’s stage 2 acknowledgement email to the resident on 17 August 2023, it said that it had issued the stage 1 response on 28 June 2023. This was incorrect, as it had issued the response on 28 July 2023. Additionally, the landlord’s stage 2 response was dated 29 August 2023. However, the evidence shows that the landlord emailed the resident a copy of the response on 31 August 2023. Although these errors are likely to have had minimal impact on the resident, the landlord should ensure that it checks its records and correspondence for accuracy before it issues a formal complaint response.
  8. A stage 2 complaint is the final opportunity for the landlord to review its handling of the substantive issue, as well as the complaint handling process, and to put things right for the resident. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it stated that following its review of the stage 1 response, it concluded that it was a fair and accurate reflection of the substantive issues. Based on the evidence provided, we agree that this was the case. However, we find that the landlord did not appropriately assess its complaint handling, which meant it missed an opportunity that may have led it to identify some of the failures highlighted by this investigation.
  9. As the landlord failed to identify and apologise in its final response for its complaint handling failings, or to offer at stage 2 the level of redress it ultimately considered was due, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that it did not go far enough to put things right for the resident. It is for this reason that we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident compensation in recognition of the failings identified. In the absence of any specific guidance within the landlord’s applicable policy, this has been calculated in line with our guidance on remedies.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and damage to the living room ceiling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

  1. The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failings identified within this report.
    2. Pay the resident £175 compensation. This must be paid directly to her and is made up as follows:
      1. £100 for its handling of her reports of a leak and damage to the living room ceiling. This includes the £50 previously offered by the landlord at stage 1, plus an additional £50 in recognition of the failures identified in this report.
      2. £75 for its handling of her complaint.