Ashford Borough Council (202419849)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202419849

Ashford Borough Council

20 December 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
1. repairs to the staircase.
2. repairs to the windows.
3. faulty radiators.
4. repairs to the water mains.
5. repairs to a kitchen extractor fan.
The Ombudsman has also taken the decision to consider the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom semi-detached house that is owned and managed by the landlord, which is a local authority. The property was let under secure tenancy agreement in 2013. The resident’s children are autistic, which she has explained to the landlord.
The resident reported repairs to the water pressure, extractor fan, windows, and the staircase at her property to the landlord on various dates since 2017. The landlord’s response to her reports of these repairs were the issues she formally complained to the landlord about.
The resident raised the matters the landlord addressed in its stage 1 complaint response in an email she sent on 11 June 2024 in response to a separate complaint. The complaint was about outstanding and incomplete repairs to a newel post and the staircase, a kitchen extractor fan, the windows, a water main, and faulty radiators at her property. Additionally, the resident said that the landlord viewed disabled people and children as “substandard people.” The landlord sent a stage 1 response to the resident on 15 July 2024. It said:
1. it required an assessment from an occupational therapist (OT) to complete modifications which it considered would create a health and safety issues for the family;
2. it acknowledged there was a small gap between the wall and the staircase and would monitor this for future movement;
3. it had forwarded a kitchen extractor fan repair to its contractor, who would schedule an appointment;
4. it had arranged a for recall of a window installation to take place in accordance with the guarantee;
5. it had issued a works order for a repair to the water main to be completed;
6. it would assess the faulty radiators when the heating was turned on;
7. it did not agree with the resident’s claim that it viewed disabled people as “substandard.” Its goal was to ensure equal access and opportunities for all residents;
8. it upheld the complaint because not all necessary works were initiated.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 16 July 2024. She said:
1. the landlord had viewed disabled people as “lesser” when it had left her children suffering due to its inaction, which she reported had put them at risk;
2. adjustments to the height of a newel post and banister did not fail into the category for an entire occupational health assessment to be required for them to be made;
3. it had been arguing that doing something about the posts would make them unsafe without stating on what grounds they would be unsafe;
4. the newel posts were broken, had sharp edges, and were at the height of her and her children’s faces, which was above the minimum height for the posts;
5. the heating did not work for more than half an hour and rusty water came out of the radiators;
6. much of its letter had been copied and pasted from paragraphs she had read before.
The landlord sent a stage 2 response to the resident on 13 August 2024, in which it said:
1. the safety and wellbeing of the resident’s family were a priority;
2. a surveyor had inspected a newel post and advised that it could not be shortened any further due to building regulations, which required a height of 900mm for safety;
3. a recent photo appeared to show the posts had been altered. Therefore, it needed to determine whether they were at the required height, whether they had been altered, and why the edges were jagged, as it would not normally install them that way;
4. if the resident had made any alterations, it may require her to reinstate them, or it would carry out the repairs and recharge her for any repairs required;
5. it had booked an appointment on 2 September 2024 for a contractor to bleed the radiators, test the system, and provide a report if it could not complete the repairs;
6. it acknowledged that some repairs remained outstanding, but it had kept to the agreements it had made in a previous complaint response;
7. it had responded to the repairs and made efforts to resolve the issues as they had been reported, and therefore it did not uphold the complaint.
The resident advised the Ombudsman on 27 August 2024 that she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to the outstanding repairs. She said that she wanted the landlord to make reasonable adjustments to the newel post and banister, so that it was accessible and safe. Additionally, the resident asked for it to repair or replace the radiators, poorly fitted windows, the water main, and a kitchen extractor fan.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

During a conversation the resident held with the Ombudsman on 27 August 2024, she said that she had been told 11 years previously that the radiators at her property were old and required repairs. Additionally, she said that the repairs related to the staircase, banister, and newel post were linked to asbestos works that the landlord had previously completed. This assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the issues in the resident’s formal complaint of 24 June 2024 from 12 months prior to that complaint onwards. The historical issues, however, provide useful contextual background to the complaint and are referenced where relevant. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.b. of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints brought to our attention normally more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s complaint procedure. This is also in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that were not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint within a reasonable period of normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
In an email the resident sent the landlord on 11 June 2024, she said that her children were being caused excessive distress as well as physical injury due to the landlord’s inaction. Paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints where it is quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts or other tribunal or procedure. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s reports about how the above matters have affected her household. However, it is not possible for the Ombudsman to conclude whether damages from this were caused by the landlord’s actions or omissions that it was liable for, as we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might.
Often, when there is a dispute over whether someone has been injured or a health condition has been made worse, the courts are best placed to deal with this as a personal injury claim. They will have the benefit of an independent medical expert that will set out the cause of any injury or deterioration of a condition. For this reason, it would be fairer, more reasonable, and more effective for the resident to seek a remedy via the courts. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter, she should seek independent legal advice. We have instead considered whether the landlord’s actions or inactions likely caused any distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Staircase repairs

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair the structure of the dwelling-house. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The landlord raised a works order in October 2019 to complete carpentry works to the resident’s staircase in response to a medical need. The landlord booked an appointment for 31 October 2019 and rearranged it to 28 November 2019 while the resident was in hospital. The landlord completed works to the newel posts and handrails on 7 January 2020.
The landlord had a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A hazard is any risk of harm to the health or safety of an occupier of accommodation that arises from a deficiency in the dwelling, building, or land in the vicinity. The repair of internal stairs within the dwelling is listed as a potential hazard. It is evident that the landlord inspected the property on 30 May 2024 to assess the safety and condition of the staircase in keeping with its HHSRS obligations. This was appropriate.
The resident raised repairs to the staircase in her stage 1 complaint on 11 June 2024 in which she said that repairs to the newel post were outstanding and incomplete. She also said that her children had been caused excessive distress and physical injury due to the landlord’s inaction. The landlord sent an internal email on 24 June 2024 to ask what the recommended actions were regarding the newel posts, following a property inspection it had completed on 30 May 2024. It is unclear why the landlord was required to send an internal email to obtain an update about an inspection it had completed 17 working days previously. The landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s processes are not operating effectively. This was a failing.
The landlord sent an internal email 26 June 2024 that said it was required to carry out remedial works to the staircase due to gaps between the timber and external wall. Additionally, it said that it was unable to make any adjustments to the staircase newel posts, due to regulations. The landlord notified the resident on 15 July 2024 that it had identified a small gap between the wall and the staircase, and that it would monitor this for future movement. It was appropriate for the landlord to have updated the resident following its assessment of the staircase. However, it would have been reasonable for it to have raised works orders to complete the remedial works it had identified sooner. Furthermore, it would have been appropriate for it to have completed the remedial works within 28 working days in keeping with its website’s repairs standard.
The landlord also notified the resident in its stage 1 response of 15 July 2024 that it would be unable to complete any modifications to the newel posts on the staircase without a recommendation from an OT. It explained that this was because it considered that making an alteration would create a health and safety issue. It was reasonable for the landlord to refer to the safety assessment of the qualified contractor that had inspected the staircase. Additionally, it was reasonable for it to refer the resident to obtain the qualified expertise of an OT. The landlord’s advice would have ensured that the accessibility needs and circumstances of the vulnerable family were appropriately assessed. However, the landlord missed the opportunity to explain why making modifications would create health and safety issues, so as to manage the resident’s expectations. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for it to have referred the resident to its repairs handbook, which provided the contact details to facilitate an OT assessment. The handbook also set out the landlord’s requirement for an OT assessment to be provided prior to completing disability adaptations.
The resident raised the matter again in her stage 2 escalation request on 16 July 2024. She explained that adjustments to the height of a newel post and banister did not fail into the category for an entire OT assessment. Additionally, she reported that the newel posts were broken, had sharp edges, and were at face height, which was above the minimum height for these posts. There is no evidence that the landlord investigated, or replied to, the resident’s statements about the responsibilities of an OT. Consequently, the landlord missed the opportunity to further manage the resident’s expectations and rebuild her confidence in its repairs service.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 August 2024 to report that a visitor to her home had been injured by the newel post. She additionally said that this was the ninth injury that had taken place. The landlord responded to the resident on the same day acknowledging her concerns. However, it failed to follow up on the new information it had been provided with that reported health and safety concerns. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have reassessed the potential hazards the newel posts presented, in keeping with its obligations under the HHSRH. Instead, the landlord referred to a previous inspection it had completed on an undisclosed date, which said the posts had met acceptable standards. However, it restated the advice it had previously provided about obtaining an OT assessment, which was reasonable.
The landlord raised a works order on 12 August 2024 to install a ‘tell-tale’ to monitor the gap in the staircase for any future movement. Additionally, it noted that it would be necessary to monitor the installed tell-tales at 6-week intervals. It was appropriate for the landlord to consider the gaps in the staircase in keeping with its repairing obligations and the resident’s tenancy agreement. Furthermore, it was appropriate for it to monitor the repair. The landlord notified the resident on 13 August 2024 that it had arranged the appointment to take place on 17 September 2024.
The landlord addressed the staircase repairs in its stage 2 response of 13 August 2024. It provided further information about the surveyor’s inspection. Additionally, it referred to the height restrictions contained within building regulations, which it noted were for safety reasons. It was appropriate for the landlord to have restated the advice about building regulations it had received from its qualified surveyor, given it had not provided this previously. The landlord indicated that it was committed to resolving all ongoing repairs concerns, and it said that it had made efforts to resolve issues as they have been reported. Consequently, it did not uphold the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaint response said that it wished to reinspect the property because a photograph the resident had provided appeared to show that the newel posts had been altered. It said that, if the posts had been reduced below the minimum height, it would require the resident to reinstate them to the required height. Additionally, it said that it would not have installed posts with jagged edges, and that it would be required to recharge the resident for any repairs required if she had made any alterations. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have implied that the resident may have completed repairs to the posts prior to verifying whether these had been altered and if it had completed the works itself.
The resident replied to the landlord’s final response on the same day. She explained that she had date and time-stamped photographs as evidence that a named contractor that the landlord had instructed had completed the repairs to the posts. Additionally, she expressed concern about the comments it had made, and she demanded an apology.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong, and what it will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord did not recognise the repair handling failings this investigation has identified when reviewing its response to the resident’s reports of staircase repairs. It would have been appropriate for it to have apologised to the resident for its delays in progressing staircase repairs. It should have also considered offering an award of compensation to the resident for the likely distress and inconvenience that the resident had incurred from this. Additionally, it should have considered an award for the time and trouble she had spent pursuing a response via the complaint procedure. Taking all of the above matters into account, this investigation had found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the staircase.
The landlord’s handling of the staircase repairs likely had an adverse effect on the resident in terms of the time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience that she may have incurred. We have not seen a copy of the landlord’s compensation policy. However, an award of £150 as compensation is ordered below in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found for failures that adversely affected the resident that the landlord has not proportionately addressed.
In addition to an award of compensation, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for the failings this investigation has identified. Furthermore, we have made an order for it to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required, and to provide her and us with details of and a timetable for any works. We have made a recommendation for the landlord to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its repairs standard and repairs handbook and our remedies guidance. This is in order to prevent the failures identified by this investigation from occurring again in the future.

Window repairs

The landlord completed window replacement works at the property in December 2022, in keeping with its obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house in repair.
The resident reported that the windows were leaking to landlord 10 January 2024. The landlord reported the matter to its window contractor, and it raised a works order on the same day to repair the sealant on 17 January 2024. It was appropriate for the landlord to have notified its contractor of the faulty windows, given they had been installed just 13 months previously. Additionally, it was reasonable for it to have raised a works order to remedy any minor faults. The landlord arranged the repair in keeping with its repairs standard’s 7-day priority routine repairs timescale which was appropriate.
The window contractor inspected the property on 19 January 2024, and it subsequently refitted the windows on 11 April 2024. The extent of the repairs the contractor completed is not clear, but it was appropriate for the contractor to refit the windows where this was necessary. However, this took 3 months following the resident’s reports, which was unreasonable. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to her while living in a property with poorly fitted windows that caused draughts and sound proofing concerns.
The resident raised the matter again in her stage 1 complaint of 11 June 2024. She said that the landlord had not acknowledged agreed works to the windows. It is evident that the landlord had inspected the property on 30 May 2024 and found that the windows lacked foam filling, which caused draughts and a whistling sound. However, the landlord did not notify its window contractor about its sound insulation concerns and the draughts, nor ask it to complete repairs under the insurance-backed guarantee until 27 June 2024. This was unreasonable and would have exacerbated the likely inconvenience the windows caused to the resident. Furthermore, she incurred time and trouble pursuing the matter via the complaint procedure. This could have been avoided if the landlord had progressed the repair sooner.
It took until 24 July 2024 before the window contractor revisited the property. However, this was because the contractor had explained to the landlord that it considered the matter to have been resolved when it had refitted the windows in April 2024. While the contractor’s response delayed the repair, it is evident that the landlord continued to pursue the matter with the contractor by referring to the windows’ FENSA certification and the associated building guarantee. Although the landlord was not responsible for the additional delays, they would have likely caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
On 22 July 2024, the contractor reported that the resident had been reluctant to provide access for it to complete the inspection. Additionally, the resident emailed the landlord on 31 July 2024 to ask for an update on its plans to repairs the windows following her conversations with the window contractor. The landlord subsequently contacted the resident, and it offered her 3 suitable appointment dates. It agreed a further inspection date on 9 August 2024 in keeping with her availability. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to have taken under the circumstances.
The window contractor inspected the property on 9 August 2024 in keeping with the prior arrangements. However, it explained to the landlord that it was required to complete a further in-depth assessment at a later date. It was unreasonable for the contractor not to have completed the in-depth assessment when it had inspected the property. The requirement to reattend the property, which it arranged for 29 August 2024, would have caused further time and trouble to the resident in providing access. This could have been avoided. Notwithstanding this, the landlord made arrangements to attend the inspection with its contractor, which was reasonable under the circumstances, so as to gain sight of the windows faults.
The landlord notified the resident of the inspection appointment in its final complaint response on 13 August 2024. Additionally, it said that it was aware that some repairs were outstanding, and that it was committed to resolving these, but that it did not uphold the complaint. The landlord missed the opportunity to apologise to the resident for the window repair delays she had experienced. It also failed to recognise the time and trouble she had likely incurred in providing access for multiple inspections and repairs, and for addressing the matter in emails and the complaint. Consequently, taking all of the above matters into account, this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the windows.
The landlord’s handling of the window repairs likely had no permanent impact on the resident, but this could reasonably be expected to have had an adverse effect in terms of the likely time, trouble, and inconvenience it had caused to her. A compensation award of £150 is therefore ordered for this below, in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found for failures that have adversely affected the resident that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord.
Additionally, we have ordered the landlord to apologise to the resident in writing for its window repair failings, and for it to inspect her property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required and, if so, to provide her and us with details of and a timetable for the works.

Faulty radiators

The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that she had been unable to use the heating system in the property since January 2024. The resident’s tenancy agreement says the landlord will keep in good repair any central heating and water heating equipment that it provides.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident had reported faulty radiators to the landlord prior to referring to the matter in her stage 1 complaint on 11 June 2024. However, she submitted the complaint in reply to a different stage 2 response and said she had expected the landlord to have addressed the heating matter. It is likely, therefore, that the resident had previously reported the heating fault. As previously outlined, the landlord should maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. The landlord’s failure to supply evidence to the Ombudsman represents a failing. It has therefore been ordered below to complete a self-assessment of its compliance against our spotlight report on knowledge and information management to prevent its poor record keeping in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 30 May 2024, prior to issuing its stage 1 response on 15 July 2024. Its response said that it would investigate the faulty radiators when the heating was turned on. It was inappropriate for the landlord to have placed a condition on its obligation to complete radiator repairs to reinstate the heating supply. Furthermore, it was unreasonable for it not to have made further enquiries to establish why the resident had turned the heating system off. This would have evidenced that the landlord had taken a resolution focused approach to the repair.
There is no evidence that the landlord made arrangements to repair the radiator following its stage 1 response. This was a failing. Consequently, the resident incurred further time and trouble escalating the complaint to stage 2 on 16 July 2024. She explained that the heating did not work for more than half an hour and, when it did, rusty water came out of the radiators. Additionally, she asked the landlord to consider how she was supposed to turn the heating on under the circumstances. It was unreasonable for the resident to have been required to pursue the heating repair through the complaint procedure for the landlord to progress the repair. This was another failing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 July 2024 to say that it would investigate any issues with the radiators and carry out any repairs that it was responsible for. Additionally, it said that it would provide a report to its heating contractor for any further works required. It was appropriate for the landlord to have agreed to investigate and repair the radiators. However, it failed to arrange a separate appointment for these repairs. Instead, it included the radiator repairs with plasterwork repairs, which resulted in it booking an appointment on 2 September 2024. This was unreasonable and not in keeping with its repairs standard’s 28-working day timescales for a general routine repair.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the landlord’s heating contractor would not investigate, or take responsibility, for completing heating repairs to radiators it had not itself installed. It noted this on the works order dated 22 July 2024. The Ombudsman has not seen the contract between the landlord and the heating contractor, but the information it stored on its works order was unreasonable. The Ombudsman can see no good reason from the evidence provided for the landlord’s heating contractor to refuse to repair the heating systems that were within the landlord’s housing stock.
The landlord had not completed radiator repairs or reinstated the heating prior to issuing its final complaint response on 13 August 2024. Its response acknowledged that there were still some repairs outstanding. It also said that it had addressed these in agreements it had made in its previous complaint response, but it did not explain these agreements further. The landlord’s handling of the complaint is addressed separately. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear why the landlord had not upheld its obligations to remedy heating repairs that it was responsible for as a general routine repair within 28 working days under its repairs standard. It said that it had made some efforts to resolve issues as they had been reported, and that it was committed to resolving all ongoing repair concerns, but it did not uphold the complaint.
The landlord’s response did not recognise that its failure to complete the repairs had likely caused inconvenience to the resident, given she reported she had been without full heating since January 2024, which was evidenced since June 2024. Additionally, it failed to consider the time and trouble she had incurred in pursuing the matter via the complaint procedure. The landlord said that it was committed to resolving all ongoing repairs concerns. However, it failed to apologise for its delay and/or offer the resident an award of compensation in recognition of the detriment its delays had likely caused. Consequently, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to faulty radiators.
The evidenced radiator repair failings since June 2024 had no permanent impact on the resident, but it was reasonable to expect that these would have had an adverse effect in terms of the time, trouble, and inconvenience it had likely caused to the resident. An award of £150 as compensation for this is therefore ordered below in keeping with the range awards set out in our remedies guidance for matters where maladministration is found for failures that adversely affected the resident that has not been proportionately addressed by the landlord. We have also asked the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the heating repairs.
The resident notified the Ombudsman on 18 December 2024 that the landlord had completed the radiator repairs in November 2024 and, therefore, it has not been ordered to complete any further heating repairs. However, it has been recommended to review the contract it holds with its heating contractor so as to clarify further the contractor’s repairing obligations.

Repairs to the water mains

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of water. There is evidence that it raised a works order to respond to very low flow of water through the property on 8 August 2016. There is no evidence that it raised any other works orders prior to 2023.
The landlord published a guide to water main replacement on its website in March 2023. The guide explained that it was working with the utility provider to replace old, poor, and shared mains water supplies to its housing stock. It explained the process it would undertake to compete the works. Additionally, it said that a warranty period of 60 months was applicable to the works it completed. The landlord evidenced that it had taken a proactive approach by providing clear information to residents that it published on its website.
The landlord raised works orders to replace the water main on 30 June 2023, and to reinstate the water main on 21 December 2023. It was appropriate for it to have made arrangements to replace and reinstate the water main, in keeping with its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
There is no further evidence that the resident reported any faults with the water main prior to submitting a complaint in June 2024. The landlord subsequently raised a works order on 15 July 2024 to investigate a leak from the mains water pipe in the kitchen. It is unclear when the landlord inspected the resident’s property, but it noted on the works order that it believed that a reported fault with the mains water pipe in the kitchen was as a result of condensation, rather than a leak. It was reasonable for the landlord to have relied on the diagnosis of the qualified contractor that inspected the property, in the absence of any other expert evidence to the contrary.
The resident emailed the landlord on 7 August 2024 about a shower installation. She said that, since the water main had been installed, and had not been finished, the water pressure had been “appalling.” There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the water pressure, which was unreasonable. Given the resident has reported that the water main installation had not been completed, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have investigated the matter further. This was a failing. Additionally, it was a missed opportunity for the landlord to have rebuilt the resident’s confidence in its repair service.
The landlord explained that there was condensation rather than a leak on the kitchen mains pipe to the resident on 13 August 2024. Additionally, it said that it would investigate the pipework in the kitchen again on 29 August 2024. It is unclear why the landlord needed to reinspect the property when it had already concluded that the leak was condensation. This was likely to have caused further time and trouble to the resident in providing access to the property. The landlord’s failure to appropriately remedy the condensation matter, and/or communicate the outcome of its inspection to the resident sooner, was another failing. This is especially as she had reported the matter in June 2024, 2 months earlier.
The landlord had not completed a water main repair or addressed the condensation on the pipework prior to issuing its final complaint response on 13 August 2024. As previously noted, the response acknowledged that there were still some repairs outstanding. Notwithstanding this, it is unclear why the landlord had not upheld its obligation to complete repairs that it had been aware of in keeping with its repairs standard’s 28-working day general routine repair timescale. Alternatively, it would have been appropriate for it to have enacted the warranty that covered the water mains repairs. Its decision not to uphold the complaint, in light of the failings this investigation has identified, was therefore inappropriate.
The landlord’s final response failed to recognise that its handling of the resident’s reports of ongoing issues with the water mains had likely caused inconvenience to her. Additionally, it failed to consider the time and trouble she had incurred in pursuing the matter via the complaint procedure. The landlord failed to apologise for its repair handling delays, and/or offer the resident an award of compensation in recognition of the likely detriment its handling of the water main repair had caused. Consequently, taking all of the above matters into account, the Ombudsman finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the water mains.
The landlord is ordered below to pay the resident £50 as compensation for the likely detriment the matter had on the resident. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for circumstances such as here, where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its repair handling failings causing delays in getting matters resolved, and/or has not fully put them right. We have also asked the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the repair and to complete an assessment of the water main to identify if any further repairs are required.

Repairs to a kitchen extractor fan

There is evidence that the landlord identified a fault with the resident’s kitchen extractor fan in March 2017. It noted that it required replacement, so that it operated with a switch, and it booked a repair to be completed on 20 April 2017.
There is no evidence that the resident reported a fault with the extractor fan until she emailed the landlord on 25 June 2024 to add it into a complaint she had raised on 11 June 2024. The landlord raised a works order on 15 July 2024 for it to replace the extractor fan in response to the complaint. It was appropriate for the landlord to recognise it was responsible for completing the repair in line with its repairing obligations. However, it was unreasonable for it not to have said when it would complete the repair to manage her expectations.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 August 2024 to confirm that its contactor would complete the repair on 29 August 2024. It is unclear why the landlord did not arrange to complete the routine repair when the resident had notified it of the fault in June 2024. This 18-working-day delay was not in keeping with its repairs standard’s 28-working day general routine repair timescale and was therefore a failing.
There is no evidence that the landlord completed the repair prior to issuing its final complaint response on 13 August 2024. This report has previously summarised the landlord’s final complaint response about its repair handling. The response failed to address the fan repair or recognise that its failure to repair the extractor fan in keeping with its repairs policy had likely caused inconvenience to the resident. Additionally, it failed to consider the time and trouble she had incurred in pursuing the matter via the complaint procedure. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have apologised for its delay in repairing the fan. Additionally, it would have been reasonable for it to have offered the resident an award of compensation in recognition of the detriment its delays had likely caused. Consequently, taking all of the above matters into account the Ombudsman, finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen extractor fan.
The landlord is ordered below to pay the resident £50 as compensation for the likely detriment the matter had on the resident. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, for circumstance, such as here, where a landlord has not appropriately acknowledged its repair handling failings causing delays in getting matters resolved, and/or had not fully put them right. We have also asked the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the repair and inspect the property to determine if the repair remains outstanding and, if so, to complete the repair.

The resident’s complaint

There were failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. did not acknowledge the stage 1 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 6.2 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which says a complaint should be acknowledged and logged within 5 days of receipt;
2. did not issue its response to the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 11 June 2024 until 15 July 2024. This was 14 working days later than its 10-working day deadline to do so from its complaints policy and paragraph 6.3 of the of the Code;
3. did not acknowledge the stage 2 complaint in keeping with its complaint policy and paragraph 6.11 of the Code;
4. did not respond to all aspects of the resident’s complaint, such as its response to the faulty kitchen extractor fan. This was not in keeping with 6.18 of the Code, which says that landlords must address all points in the complaint.
The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. The landlord’s final response is lacking in any sincere acknowledgement of its delayed handling of the repair matters, and it missed the opportunity to set out how it would work with the resident to improve the situation. The landlord identified that there were outstanding repairs issues, but it failed to acknowledge that it had not complied with its own policy timescales or offer any reassurance that its repair handling failings were temporary, and/or that it was working on a solution. This investigation has therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaint when reviewing the housing services it had provided. It therefore missed the opportunity to consider the complaint handling failings this investigation has identified. Furthermore, the landlord missed this opportunity for it to recognise that the failings may have caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident.
An award of £50 has therefore been ordered below for the landlord’s poor complaint handling. This level of compensation is within the range set out in our remedies guidance for instances when, as here, there have been minor failings by the landlord, which did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, but caused the resident to incur time, trouble, and delays in getting matters resolved. We have also asked the landlord to write to the resident to apologise for its handling of the complaint. Additionally, we have made a recommendation for it to review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its complaints policy and the Code. This is in order to prevent the failures identified by this investigation from occurring again in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of:
  1. Repairs to the staircase.
  2. Repairs to the windows.
  3. Repairs to faulty radiators.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the water mains.
  2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs to a kitchen extractor fan.
  3. Handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for its poor handling of repairs to the staircase, windows, faulty radiators, water mains, kitchen fan, and for its complaint handling failings.
2. Pay the resident £600 total compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the completion of repairs to the staircase.
  2. £150 for time, trouble, and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident associated with the completion of window repairs.
  3. £150 for inconvenience, time, and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to faulty radiators.
  4. £50 for inconvenience, time, and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the water mains.
  5. £50 for inconvenience, time, and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen extractor fan.
  6. £50 for time and trouble that may have been caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Inspect the resident’s property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required, the landlord should send the resident and the Ombudsman details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
Investigate the condition of the water main repair in light of the resident’s report of low water pressure and that it had not been completed. If repairs are required, the landlord should consider acting on the warranty associated with the works it completed to the water mains. Additionally, it should notify the resident and the Ombudsman with the outcomes of its assessment and provide a timeline for any works required.

Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a self-assessment of its compliance against the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management to prevent its poor record keeping in the resident’s case from occurring again in the future. It shall provide us with a copy of its completed self-assessment.

Recommendations

The landlord is recommended to:
1. Review its staff’s and contractors’ training needs in relation to its repairs standard, repairs handbook, and complaints policy, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the Code to prevent the failures identified by this investigation from occurring again in the future.
2. clarify the terms of the contract between the landlord and the heating contractor with reference to its obligations to repair heating systems that it had not itself installed.