Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited (202227019)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202227019

Agudas Israel Housing Association Limited

30 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The resident’s concerns that the landlord failed to complete a refurbishment offered at the start of her tenancy.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat located on the second floor of the block. The tenancy began on 22 May 2006.
The landlord has a two stage complaints process. At stage 1, the landlord will provide a response within 10 working days. At stage 2, a response will be issued within 20 working days. If that was not possible, an explanation and a date when the stage 2 response would be issued would be provided. This would not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s complaint policy also states there may be rare and exceptional circumstances where it is necessary to immediately escalate a new complaint to the final stage of the internal process. This would be at the Head of Tenant Liaison’s discretion.
The complaints policy states a complaint at stage 1 is to be responded to by the Head of Tenant Liaison in consultation with managers of the relevant department. At stage 2, the complaint is to be responded to by the CEO in consultation with managers of the relevant department.
The landlord’s void standard states major components such as kitchens, bathrooms, boiler replacements and rewiring due for renewal within 1 year of the property becoming vacant would be included in void works.
Section 4 of the tenancy handbook states repairs are categorised as:
1. Emergency – to be completed up to 24 hours (excluding weekends or bank holidays).
2. Urgent – to be completed up to seven days.
3. Routine – to be completed up to 28 days.
4. Long time – to be completed up to a year.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that on 30 September 2022, it inspected the resident’s property as she felt that she should be decanted, and it should fully redecorate her home. The landlord’s inspection report noted that: 
1. The bathroom fan which was on the light circuit did not have any run on time and as a result the bathroom decorations had been affected by condensation.
2. The room next to the bathroom had a loose handle and the Perko door closer had been detached. 
3. The handle to the hall cupboard and toilet was defective. 
4. There was a drawer front missing.
5. The kitchen floor was cracking.
6. The landlord was looking into the decorations to the bathroom.
On 15 November 2022, the resident emailed the landlord regarding refurbishments of her property and a neighbouring property and stated: 
1. She had spoken with the landlord who had informed her it was not its policy to refurbish and only a coat of paint was applied to a neighbouring property (which was the property closest to hers). 
2. It was a very strange “policy” where a flat in the same building was refurbished, including replacing flooring throughout the flat, replacing doors, new bathtub, fixing walls and skirting boards before painting. 
3. The landlord had said that the flat she lived in would never be refurbished and the holes and cracks in the walls which needed to be fixed before a “cosmetic” layer of paint could be applied would not be repaired.
4. The landlord had seen broken doors, missing hinges and broken handles which had been there since she moved in. This had also been seen by everyone who had been in the maintenance department over the previous 16 years, but the landlord did not believe the flat could have been in such a condition when she moved in. The flat was in such appalling condition when she moved in that there was no hot water, and the taps were broken. 
5. On moving in, she discovered there was no hot water and when she called the landlord, she was told she must have broken it and would have to pay to fix it. Eventually, the hot water and taps were fixed by the landlord. The bathroom did not have a light fixture, only a bulb, the walls and ceilings were as they were now and there was a horrendous smell of mould from the bathroom. Only after the council intervened were the black mouldy floorboards removed. The toilet was leaking and the floor in the toilet was soggy, this was not fixed even after being reported many times until a tradesman was paid by her to demonstrate to the maintenance manager that it really was leaking and after the flooring was replaced. Eventually, the toilet was also finally replaced. 
6. She had lost count of the number of times she had been lied to about the “policy”. She had offered to move out of her flat for a few months so that the same works could be carried out as were done in her neighbour’s property. Whether or not this was policy or discretionary, the contractors were working on several hundred properties, and she was aware that her flat was on the refurbishment schedule as someone came to survey and take photos.  
7. She was tired of hearing excuses for not bringing her property up to the same reasonable standard as her neighbour’s property. 
An officer of the landlord responded the same day and said they had read the resident’s complaints about the refurbishments and wished that they could help but they were the wrong person to speak to as they were in the income team. The officer suggested who the resident should make her complaint to. The resident forwarded the emails to that person on 17 November 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2022 and said: 
1. It had received an email trail sent by the resident and had reviewed the contents.  
2. It believed it had a similar conversation a few months previously and it had tried to explain its policies. As per its policy, it undertook a kitchen replacement every 20 years and a bathroom replacement every 30 years and stated the resident could request the maintenance policy for full details.
3. On occasion, it would need to carry out additional refurbishment works to a property due to a contractual defect found to be its fault. It also wanted to make the resident aware that there were differing leases and clauses which needed to be considered when comparing the conditions of her neighbours’ properties.  
4. With the neighbour’s property, it had carried out standard void works and any upgrades were determined and funded by the neighbour.  
5. It would not carry out void works while a tenant was still within their tenancy. By moving out, the resident would be required to forfeit her lease and go through the allocations process along with many other families who were waiting for housing.  
6. It regretted that the resident was unhappy with the condition of her property and had an aggravating experience when she moved in. It was unable to offer reparation for a matter that happened many years ago and it had made several improvements to the way it managed homes. 
7. It offered to instruct its surveyor to inspect the property and ascertain whether anything was outstanding for which it could offer refurbishment at that time and for the resident to contact it if she wished it to do so.  
8. A recent inspection was carried out as part of a stock survey and all its properties had been evaluated to help it plan and budget for long term cyclical works.  
A stock condition survey was conducted by the landlord on 9 December 2022. The survey found the property to be in a fair/good decorative state and the floor coverings in the property to be in a fair/poor state.
The stock condition survey identified defects that the landlord was responsible for. These were: 
1. Hallway
  1. The front entrance door night latch would rattle. 
2. Kitchen 
  1. The light switch was obstructed by the fridge freezer. 
  2. There was no heat detector present – the landlord responded to this and stated that there was a smoke alarm in the nearby room and, as per regulations, this was adequate.
  3. The kitchen door would not close fully due to the threshold bar – the landlord responded and said the kitchen flooring would be replaced and threshold bar levelled. 
  4. The hydraulic perko door closer was missing. 
  5. The floor covering had split in several places. 
3. Bathroom 
  1. The plastic seal to the bottom of the shower screen had perished.
  2. The privacy lock to the door was loose. 
  3. The floor covering upstand had become detached along the length of the bath panel. 
  4. The silicone to the bath perimeter had spots of mould. 
  5. The extractor fan was connected to the light circuit and needed the run-on time to be extended to the maximum as currently it was not sufficient. 
  6. There were two loose tiles near the end of the bath at low level.
4. Separate toilet 
  1. The window handle was loose. 
5. Bedroom one 
  1. The left-hand side window handle was loose. 
In addition, the survey found defects that were the responsibility of the resident. The landlord noted that as a gesture of goodwill it would carry out repairs to: 
1. Hallway
  1. The handle and latch to the washing machine cupboard which were defective. 
2. Lounge 
  1. A loose door handle. 
3. Kitchen
  1. A full repair of the kitchen door to ensure it was fire safe. 
4. Bathroom
  1. The door handle to the bathroom door.
  2. It would scrape away peeling paint and repaint as the decorations were in a very poor state most likely due to condensation.
  3. Repair the cupboard door handle which was loose and the door scraping on the frame when closed.  
5. Separate toilet 
  1. Repair the door handle which was loose. 
6. Bedroom one 
  1. Repair the door handle which was loose. 
On 19 December 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said she had asked for the void works schedule and to send the full void works schedule with the costings paid on the flats refurbished in the block. The resident asked for evidence of any arrangements offered to tenants to have further works done with the same contractor and how much these would have cost the tenant. The resident included the email chain sent to the landlord in November 2022 regarding refurbishing of her property and neighbouring properties and asked for the email to be considered a formal complaint. The resident also asked that her email be treated as a Freedom of Information (FOI) request.  
There is no evidence that the landlord issued a stage 1 response to the resident. However, on 29 December 2022, it emailed the resident to acknowledge her request to escalate her complaint to stage 2. The landlord stated: 
1. It had received the escalation request on 28 December 2022. 
2. The area of the original complaint that the resident felt had not been adequately addressed at stage one was a FOI request for details about: 
  1. The landlord’s voids works schedule and costings paid on flats refurbished at the block. 
  2. Evidence of arrangements offered to tenants to further works with its contractors and their associated costs. 
3. The resident was seeking details about the landlord’s voids works schedule at the block to include the landlord’s expenditure on refurbishing flats and further investment made by the tenants through its contractors. 
4. It referred the resident to its complaints policy to understand what she could expect during the complaints process. 
On 6 February 2023, the landlord requested for its contractor to provide a quote for replacement of the kitchen floor at the resident’s property. It also raised a repairs order on the same day for the works identified during the inspection on 9 December 2022.
The landlord’s records show the majority of these works were booked in for 14 February 2023. 
The landlord wrote to the resident on 20 February 2023. The landlord stated: 
1. Its maintenance team agreed with the resident that works would commence on 14 February 2023.
2. The resident had contacted it on 10 February 2023 to withdraw agreement to commence works as they did not include all desired repairs. 
3. It was unable to make contact on 13 February 2023.
4. It tried to arrange repairs – the resident stated that she was not declining repairs but would only agree to a repair schedule that included her personal requests. 
5. It was unable to undertake works as per its previous correspondence. It asked the resident to get in touch within the following 7 days to reinstate the appointment. If she did not want it to proceed, it would terminate her request for repairs. 
6. It wanted to bring to the resident’s attention that it was its priority to ensure her home was safe to live in. It had identified that the following works needed to be carried out to ensure her safety and minimise risk in her home:
  1. Repair and ensure full functioning of the fire door to the kitchen to include repair of the threshold bar. 
  2. Repair door handle of the WC due to being advised that on occasion people have been trapped. Although this may not be deemed an obvious repair under health and safety, its concern would be that someone could be trapped in the WC at the time of an emergency.  
7. It needed to advise that those works were mandatory in order to keep the resident’s home safe and she was required to allow it entry to do these refurbishments. It provided dates between 28 February 2023 and 3 March 2023 when it was able to commence the works and said its maintenance team would get in touch within the next 3 working days to confirm the appointment. It stated however that if none of those time slots were convenient, it could try to accommodate the resident.  
On 13 March 2023, the landlord confirmed with the carpet contractor that it wanted to complete the internal repairs before laying any new flooring so the flooring request was currently on hold.  
On 29 March 2023, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to advise the resident had contacted this Service. The landlord was asked to provide a response to the resident as she had made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Responsive repairs required for damp and mould.
2. Responsive repairs required for the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom.
3. Agreed refurbishments from when the resident started her tenancy.
4. Delays in the handling of the complaint.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident stating it had been made aware that she had approached this Service. The landlord said it had reviewed the resident’s complaint and was providing its response at stage 2 of its complaint procedure. The landlord stated: 
1. The complaint to the Ombudsman was about how the landlord had dealt with the following: 
  1. Responsive repairs required for damp and mould.
  2. Responsive repairs required for the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. 
  3. Agreed refurbishments from when the resident started her tenancy.
  4. The landlord’s delays in the handling of the complaint. 
2. After the resident had requested the repairs, its surveyor visited her home and carried out an inspection of the property to determine the issues. After the visit, it sent the resident a report which set out what defects were found, including which repairs it would undertake, and which repairs the resident was responsible for as a tenant.  
3. It scheduled repairs that it was responsible for and discussed suitable times with the resident. However, because some of her requests were not being met, she withdrew her agreement for it to commence works. It asked her to allow it to carry out those repairs that it considered to be essential for health and safety reasons, but the resident had said she would refuse the repair while awaiting a decision from the Housing Ombudsman. 
4. Having reviewed the surveyor’s report, it made the following comments in respect of her complaint to the Ombudsman:
  1. Damp and mould: its surveyor found no evidence of damp or mould in the flat. There were some items affected by condensation, and the work schedule put forward by the landlord included relevant repairs.  
  2. Kitchen and bathroom flooring: It agreed to carry out repairs to the kitchen and bathroom flooring.  
  3. Refurbishment offered at the start of the resident’s tenancy: The resident’s tenancy commenced over 15 years ago. It was not practical to address refurbishment offers that the resident said were made at that time, particularly in the absence of any written correspondence or evidence. 
  4. Delays in handling the complaint: The resident had previously discussed these matters as requests for repairs with its maintenance team, and they had not been considered within the framework, or the timeframe, of its complaints procedure. Now that it had been forwarded her complaints by the Ombudsman, it had reviewed her complaint at stage 2. 
  5. It had reviewed its decision about repairs and considered it to be fair and appropriate. It was currently unable to offer further upgrades. Although the repairs orders had been cancelled at the resident’s instigation, it was keen to progress with them and would reinstate the repairs order if she was willing to proceed.

Events after the end of the complaints process

On 31 March 2023, the landlord responded to the resident and confirmed it would be happy to meet at her property to go through the issues raised in her email. It asked the resident to confirm when she would like it to attend.  
On 5 April 2023, the landlord emailed the resident following a visit to her property and stated: 
1. It would arrange for the initial works such as repairing or replacing handles to be carried out. 
2. It was still looking for all the stock condition surveys regarding bathroom upgrades to come back and this would not be until late May 2023. Once received, it would review what properties had been highlighted for refurbishment and if the resident’s bathroom was one, it would fast track hers as a priority.  
3. It had arranged for an order to be raised for its painter to carry out some initial repairs and paint the bathroom. 
4. It may not get feedback about the flooring for a couple of weeks. 
On the same day, the resident responded to the landlord and said:
1. In a previous meeting, they had discussed repairs including painting jobs for the ceiling in the hallway and walls in the living room, the condition of the bathroom and inadequate flooring. This was in relation to a complaint made in November 2022 and she was yet to receive a stage 2 response.
2. It was agreed that threats and harassment regarding access to the flat were superfluous and unacceptable and an apology in writing was expected and a definite promise to carry out substantial works in the property as soon as was possible and not “maybe later” offers. She was therefore escalating the new complaint to stage 2.
On 11 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and informed her it was copying in a manager in the email as the resident had stated she wished for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord stated:
1. Works had been booked with a dedicated contractor; from its records, those appeared to be the works identified in the survey from 9 December 2022. 
2. It was sorry that the resident felt the letter that was sent seemed threatening and harassing.  
3. It did set out some options and proposed some key dates with flexibility to move dates and times around to accommodate the resident’s requirements. It escalated its requirement of access as it was concerned that there was a fire door in the kitchen that was unsafe and required urgent repairs.
4. All voids were viewed on an individual basis, and it worked to agreed specified standards under current legislations. Over time there had been variations of void standards not just for the landlord but for all housing associations. At the time the resident’s property became void, it was now unsure what the standards and requirements were so it could not comment on what the resident felt should have been completed over 15 years ago.
5. It only carried out redecoration works under specific projects such as kitchen and bathroom upgrades and it did not do so for residents who had been with it for some time.
On 17 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated it understood that soon after her complaint was escalated to the Housing Ombudsman, it attended her home to assess whether there were any further refurbishments that it could provide. It was its understanding that the resident would view this visit as part of its complaints resolution process. However, in the resident’s email of 5 April 2023, she had stated this was in relation to the complaint from November 2022 which had been escalated but she was yet to receive a stage 2 written response. It appeared that the resident was expecting a written response as per its complaints procedure and it was enclosing the formal response to her complaint at stage 2. The landlord stated that the response did not affect any negotiations that may have ensued with any representative from the landlord after the date of this response letter. The landlord provided the stage 2 response letter issued originally on 31 March 2023. 
Works were raised by the landlord for June 2023 for which the resident wrote to it and apologised for being unable to grant access at that time. The landlord responded in July 2023 and stated it had chased up the various teams regarding the additional works the resident had reported and for the stock condition company to provide reports. It said it would contact the resident once it had that information. The resident contacted the landlord again on 22 June 2023 and 24 July 2023 for an update.  
On 21 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident. The landlord responded to issues raised by the resident. In relation to the repairs in the bathroom, it confirmed: 
1. The walls to the bathroom had been repainted.
2. Loose door handles had been replaced.
3. The kitchen flooring had been replaced. 
4. The following works would be undertaken:
  1. Refix vinyl flooring in areas where it had become unbonded from the wall upstands.
  2. Refix 2 loose wall tiles.
  3. Repair or replace the shaving light.
  4. Renew the mastic seal around the bath.
5. It also stated that when access was granted the contractors would: 
  1. Infill the screw holes from the previous fittings.
  2. Renew the door to the airing cupboard.
  3. Inspect an area behind the kitchen base unit as the resident had said it was an entry point for mice and if so, remedial work would be carried out. 
6. The flooring to the hallway and bedrooms remained the resident’s responsibility to renew.  
7. The resident had advised she would not be granting access unless the bathroom was renewed. As it was not replacing the bathroom, it asked for access to be granted to allow it to complete the identified works.  
8. Its void standards stated that flooring was the responsibility of the incoming resident but inevitably there may be some exceptions considered on a case-by-case basis. In this case, it was the resident’s responsibility. 
9. Where a decision was made not to renew flooring, the incoming resident is given the choice to pay for their flooring to be laid during a void period or, subject to eligibility, apply for a furnishing allowance to cover the cost of their flooring (which would be paid back via a rent increase or another agreement). 
The resident responded the next day and asked for the works scheduled to be completed except for the renewal of the 2 wall tiles. The resident said she was available on 25 August 2023 and 29 August 2023.  The resident told the landlord she was tired of false allegations that she was refusing access.
The landlord raised a repairs order on 23 August 2023.The order was to: 
1. Refix vinyl flooring in areas where it had come unbonded to the wall upstands. 
2. Refix 2 loose wall tiles.  
3. Repair/replace shaving light.  
4. Renew mastic seal around the bath.  
5. Screw holes from the previous fittings.  
6. Renew the door to the airing cupboard.  
7. Investigate the area behind the kitchen base unit as a potential pest entry point and carry out any remedial work found necessary.  
On 8 February 2024, the landlord informed this Service that the above repairs were completed on 8 November 2023. It has also advised that the repairs raised on 6 February 2023 were completed on 4 August 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated to this Service that the core of her complaint related to the landlord’s decision to upgrade other flats within the building when they were void, and its refusal to undertake the requested upgrades at her property. Although the landlord responded to the resident regarding this issue, it did not issue a formal response through its complaint process and therefore this matter cannot be considered in this investigation. However, as the issue was part of the resident’s initial complaint, this Service will consider this when assessing the landlord’s handling of the complaint.
The evidence provided suggests the resident made further complaints to the landlord after the March 2023 stage 2 response. The resident has also stated the bathroom flooring was repaired, but she was unhappy with the quality of the work as she felt it should be replaced. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure, because the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to formally respond. Within this investigation, the Ombudsman has focused on the events up to the date of the landlord’s final response of 31 March 2023 albeit we have assessed the actions taken by the landlord to put right any failings prior to this.

The landlords handling of repairs at the resident’s property.

The resident sent emails to the landlord in November 2022 regarding the condition of her property and a request for it to be refurbished. In response, the landlord conducted a survey property in December 2022 – this was an appropriate step for it to take in order to assess the works required.
It is not disputed that the landlord found repairs were required in the resident’s property, including to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord reasonably outlined which repairs it was obliged to complete and which were the resident’s responsibility.
The landlord’s repairs policy states what repairs it is responsible for and the timescales for completing these. It is reasonable for the landlord to also consider any other repairs that it is not responsible for. In this case, the landlord clearly considered repairs it was not responsible for and made the decision to carry out some of them. This was a positive and proactive step by the landlord. While it did not agree to undertake all the repairs it was not responsible for, and this may have been disappointing to the resident, the landlord did not fail in its obligations under the terms of the tenancy.
However, after agreeing to conduct the repairs, the landlord would be expected to complete them within an appropriate timescale. The repairs were originally identified on 9 December 2022. For routine repairs, this would mean completing them within 28 days and for urgent repairs, this would mean within 7 days.
The landlord’s records show it raised works required on 6 February 2023. It is unclear why there was a delay between December 2022 and February 2023 in the repairs being raised. The landlord raised the repairs under an urgent timescale with an expected completion date of 14 February 2023. This was 61 working days after the works were first identified.
In a letter to the resident on 20 February 2023, the landlord stated that she had contacted it to withdraw agreement to commence the works due to not including all desired repairs. This Service has seen no evidence of the contact or statement being made by the resident so is unable to determine if access was refused and that nature of any discussions around this.
The landlord also stated in the same letter that on 15 February 2023, the resident had informed it that she was not declining repairs but would only agree to a repair schedule that included her personal requests. The landlord did not provide any such evidence to this Service. However, if the resident did make such a request, the landlord would be expected to consider this and respond to the resident. It did so in the letter it issued on 20 February 2023 and appropriately explained the current situation to the resident and what steps it could take next.
Although the landlord may consider a resident’s personal request for repairs, it is under no obligation to complete those repairs if it has not identified a defect that it is responsible for.
The landlord stated to this service that the repairs raised on 6 February 2023 were completed on 4 August 2023. This was 180 days after the repairs were raised and 239 days after first being identified in the stock survey from 9 December 2022.
In the landlord’s internal emails, it confirmed on 5 April 2023 (following a meeting) that it and the resident had agreed to carry on with the remedial works as originally stated. It is therefore not possible for this Service to conclude that the delay was down solely to the resident not providing access.
The resident has stated to this Service that she requested permission to complete the works herself, but the landlord had placed obstacles in the way of this such as a requirement for the tenant to pay a £5,000 deposit. A recommendation has been made in this report for the landlord to contact the resident and inform her if there are any such options available and to discuss those with her.
Given that the works identified in December 2022 were not raised as repairs until February 2023, the Ombudsman has found fault in the landlord’s handling of this matter. It was not until August 2023 that those repairs were recorded as complete which was around 9 months after they were first identified (and 5 months after the stage 2 response had been issued). However, there is some evidence that the resident disputed the extent of the works the landlord had identified and this led to discussions that contributed to the delay. During this period, the landlord appropriately endeavoured to carry out the repairs that it had determined to be potential health and safety hazards.

The resident’s concerns that the landlord failed to complete a refurbishment offered at the start of her tenancy

When the landlord responded to the resident on 22 November 2022, it stated that bathroom replacements were every 30 years. It explained what voids works would take place and when it would need to carry out works on contractual defects. It stated it could not offer reparation for the condition of the flat when the resident first moved in but did offer for a surveyor to inspect the property for anything outstanding which it could offer a refurbishment for. The landlord informed the resident in its stage two response that the tenancy commenced over 15 years ago, and it was not practical to address refurbishment offers that the resident said were made at that time, particularly in the absence of any written correspondence or evidence.
The landlord’s response was appropriate. If offers of refurbishment were made at the start of the tenancy that subsequently were not fulfilled, it would be reasonable to expect the resident to raise this with the landlord within an appropriate timeframe. Given the length of time that had passed and the acknowledgment that regulations and voids standards had changed during that period, the landlord was correct in its response to the resident and there was no maladministration by the landlord.
For clarity, a recommendation is made below for the landlord to contact the resident, if it has not done so, to advise when the bathroom is next due to be replaced.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The email regarding the resident’s dissatisfaction of her property not being refurbished was sent by the resident to the landlord on 15 November 2022 and this was passed on to the appropriate landlord department on 17 November 2022. The resident did not specify the email was a complaint, but it did ask for a reply in writing and for it to be viewed by a manager. It was also clearly indicating dissatisfaction with the landlord’s approach.
Section 1.2 of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code states a complaint must be defined as ‘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, affecting a resident or group of residents.’
Section 1.3 of the Code states a resident does not have to use the word ‘complaint’ for it to be treated as such. Whenever a resident expresses dissatisfaction, landlords must give them the choice to make a complaint.
The landlord responded to the resident on 22 November 2022 but did not make it clear if this was a formal complaint response at stage 1 and there is no evidence that it liaised with the resident prior to this to establish if she was making a formal complaint. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it did not issue a stage 1 response and had discussed those matters as requests for repairs through its maintenance team.
However, the resident then emailed the landlord again on 19 December 2022 and included the email chain from November 2022. The resident asked for the landlord to formally acknowledge her complaint as detailed in the email chain. At this point, the landlord should have considered logging a complaint – there is no evidence it did so.
The landlord has provided evidence that it wrote to the resident on 29 December 2022, acknowledging that she had made a complaint escalation request on 28 December 2022. The landlord stated the complaint was about a FOI request about its voids works schedule at the block in relation to expenditure on refurbishing flats and evidence of arrangements offered to tenants to obtain further works with its contractors.
These complaint points were the issues raised in the resident’s email sent on 19 December 2022 which included the email chain of her complaint from November 2022. A formal stage 1 response was not provided to this Service so we could not confirm the contents of that response. There is also no evidence a stage 2 response was issued to the resident at this time.
Following the request by this Service for the landlord to issue a response to the resident, it provided a stage 2 response to her. In the stage 2 response, the landlord addressed delays in its complaint handling and informed the resident that she had previously discussed those matters as requests for repairs with its maintenance team. It said that they had not been considered within the framework (or the timeframe) of its complaints procedure but that after it had been forwarded her complaints by the Ombudsman, it had reviewed her complaint at stage 2 of its complaints procedure.
It is clear that the resident stated to the landlord on 19 December 2022 that she had wanted her email chain sent in November 2022 to be acknowledged as a formal complaint. Although the landlord had already supplied a response to the resident regarding her concerns on 22 November 2022, this was not a formal complaint response and the landlord confirmed to this Service that it did not provide a formal stage 1 response to the resident.
The landlord’s complaint policy states its response at stage 1 would be issued by the Head of Tenant Liaison and the stage 2 would be responded to by the CEO. The stage 2 response issued on 31 March 2023 was not issued by the CEO and there was no explanation provided in the response as to why.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to identify the resident’s complaint in November 2022 and did not formally respond to the complaint made in December 2022. As a result, the resident did not receive a stage 2 response from the landlord until 31 March 2023 which was over 4 months after it was first contacted by the resident. Although it is acknowledged that the resident received replies from the landlord during this time, its failure to identify her initial expression of dissatisfaction as a complaint delayed the complaint process and a finding of maladministration has therefore been made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s reports of repairs in her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s concerns that it failed to complete a refurbishment offered at the start of her tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of how it handled the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord initially responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns and identified repairs in the resident’s property. However, it did not raise an order for the works to be completed until almost 2 months later, contributing to delays in the repairs being attempted. Although the landlord has stated in internal correspondence that the resident refuses for the works to be done, there is limited evidence of this, and the repairs remained outstanding at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 response and beyond.
The landlord appropriately responded to the resident’s report that she had been promised refurbishments at the beginning of her tenancy.
The landlord failed to recognise the resident was making a formal complaint on 2 occasions and did not provide a formal complaint response until contact from this Service. When the stage 2 response was issued, it was not considered by the CEO as required under its complaint policy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £400 compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 for the delay in completing the repairs at her property.
  2. £200 for the failures identified in its handing of her complaint.

Recommendations

The landlord contacts the resident to inform her when her bathroom is due for refurbishment and inform her if it has any schemes available for her to obtain permission to pay for the works herself, including any criteria required.
The landlord reviews its complaint handling processes to ensure that it can identify when a resident is making a complaint and that responses at both stages of the complaints process are issued within the timescales, and by the staff member, stated in the complaint policy.