Aspire Housing Limited (202228581)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228581

Aspire Housing Limited

27 June 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
   1. Reports of repair issues.
   2. Reports of flooding in the property’s kitchen.
   3. Reports of issues with the gas and electricity supply.
   4. Enquiries about contractors sent to the property.

Jurisdiction

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

Reports of flooding in the property’s kitchen

3. The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) states at paragraph 42(a) that this Service may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale. 
4. The resident raised a complaint about various matters with her landlord in February 2023. She completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure in May 2023 and, as she was not happy with the result, she asked this Service to investigate. In February 2024, she wrote to us and raised concerns about her kitchen, which had not been considered in the landlord’s complaint responses. For that reason, this Service will not investigate this element of the complaint. The resident can raise them again with the landlord and come back to this Service, if necessary, once the complaint has completed the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Background

5. The resident has been the assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord since 2022.
6. The property is sited in a complex which has a shared outhouse for which the landlord is also responsible.
7. The landlord carried out repairs and renovations to the property when it was empty in early 2022. At the handover meeting when the resident moved in, January 2022, the landlord noted that the front door was secure but had a cracked panel which required replacement. There was no electricity or gas at the property and the resident says it took 2 to 3 weeks to arrange reconnection with her energy supplier. Later, in June 2022, she was again without electricity for 2 weeks. She complained to her supplier which gave her compensation.
8. On 17 December 2022 during a cold spell, a waterpipe feeding the outhouse froze and fractured. The resident reported the incident to the landlord on the same day. It sent plumbers to the property, who cut off the water supply late at night. However, they could not mend the leak as they could not gain access to the pipe so had to return in the next 2 days. They completed the work on the night of 19 December 2022 and informed the resident.
9. On 2 February 2023 the resident complained formally to the landlord. She complained about, among other things, the landlord’s responses to her reports of the cracked waterpipe, the damaged front door, damaged internal doors and skirting and dirty carpets. She also said the utility supplier had told her that the landlord was responsible for her difficulty in connecting her gas and electricity supplies in early 2022.
10. In the landlord’s response, on 13 April 2023, it apologised for the poor service the resident had received. It agreed to repair the front door. It said it had attempted to arrange an appointment with the resident to inspect and arrange any necessary refurbishments and repairs, but she had not responded. It said it had mended the leaking pipe in the outhouse.
11. The resident requested an escalation of her complaint the same day, stating that the landlord had failed to deal with her complaints or provide her with compensation. She later spoke to a senior manager and said she was also concerned about the landlord’s vetting of contractors as she believed that her former partner was employed by a contractor that had attended the property.
12. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 11 May 2023, stating that it had mended the pipe in the outhouse and no issues remained. It said its contractor had attended to measure a front door and ask her preferred materials. It had attempted to arrange a date for the other repairs on 28 April 2023, but the resident had not responded. It also said it would investigate the resident’s concerns about her former partner working for the contractor and ensure that, if he was, he would not be sent to the property. It also said that it was not responsible for the resident’s utility supply issues as the meters were the property of the supplier.
13. The resident was not satisfied with this response and asked this Service to investigate as she did not consider the landlord had addressed her concerns.
14. On 19 May 2023, contractors attended at the property to measure for a new door. The front door was fitted in June 2023 and other works were carried out in June and July 2023.

Assessment and findings

Reports of repair issues

15. The landlord has a duty under the tenancy agreement to maintain the structure of the property, including doors, in good repair. It has a similar duty to maintain the outhouse which forms part of the complex where the resident lives. It has guidelines for response times for repairs. It must attend repairs causing immediate danger within 4 hours, emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days.
16. When the resident moved into the property, in January 2022, the landlord noted during the handover meeting that the front door required attention. It also noted the door was secure and therefore not an urgent repair. In her complaint in February 2023, the resident said that multiple operatives had attended, but the door remained cracked and was in a poor condition. She said it made her feel unsafe. In its response the landlord acknowledged that it had not resolved the issue and said it would arrange a repair date. Given that it had been aware the door needed attention for over a year by the time of the complaint, it was appropriate to apologise for not resolving the matter. However, it did not explain why the delay had occurred, or consider the resident’s request for compensation.
17. The information about the repair suggests it was not an urgent priority, and the resident’s complaint implies that some action had been attempted. But in the absence of evidence of the landlord updating the resident or explaining the delay, 13 months without resolution was unreasonable, and the apology offered by the landlord was not a sufficient remedy for its failing. For that reason, this Service has ordered the landlord to pay a sum in line with our guidance on remedies as compensation.
18. There is no evidence of the resident reporting any of the other repair and replacement issues involving carpets and skirting boards until her complaint in February 2023. When the landlord received the complaint, it arranged an inspection and agreed to replace the carpets and skirting and to adjust doors if required once the carpets were installed. As the complaint was, on the evidence, the first time these issues had been reported, the complaint was, in effect, a service request. In response, the landlord took actions to address her concerns. It arranged for new carpets and redecoration. It also rehung doors once the carpets were fitted. As decoration, floor coverings and minor repairs were not the landlord’s responsibility, it went beyond its obligation. This demonstrated good customer service. 
19. The landlord stated, in its complaint response, that there were no outstanding repair issues relating to the leak in the outhouse in January 2023. In her response to the stage 2 complaint, the resident said she had been distressed by the fact that the landlord’s plumbers came to visit her late at night on 19 January 2023 to tell her they had mended the leak. On the evidence, however, this visit was made to tell the resident, who had reported the leak, as a courtesy. While it is understandable that the resident may have been alarmed by the visit, in the circumstances the landlord’s actions, and its complaint explanation were reasonable and appropriate.

Reports of issues with the gas and electricity supply 

20. The resident initially complained that the landlord was to blame for its failure to connect her gas and electricity when she moved in, and for difficulties she had with the meter. She stated that the landlord directed her to deal directly with her utilities provider when she approached them at the time. As the resident had a contract with the supplier, and the landlord was not responsible for the supply of utilities, this was the correct advice. It clarified to the resident in its stage 2 response that it was not responsible for the meters as these were owned by the supplier. 
21. The resident also stated in her complaint that the gas supply had been capped when she moved in on 20 January 2022. She approached the landlord which uncapped the gas. She said that, although the landlord uncapped the gas promptly, the supplier was not able to connect the supply for another 24 days. However, on the evidence, the landlord responded promptly to her request. The supplier was responsible for connection thereafter.
22. At the time the resident moved in, she wrote emails to the landlord in which she explained that the supplier was responsible for the problem. The resident said in her complaint to the landlord that the supplier had told her it was to blame. However, it is not clear on what basis this was, and the supplier’s correspondence has not been provided. The evidence provided to this Service indicates that the supplier supplied a new meter, resolved the gas supply and paid her compensation This Service, therefore, has seen no evidence that the landlord bears responsibility for the gas and electricity meter and supply problems the resident experienced.

Enquiries about contractors sent to the property

23. The resident told the landlord, in a meeting in May 2023, that she was concerned that her former partner, who had been abusive towards her, was employed by one of the landlord’s contractors and that the landlord had not taken sufficient care to protect her from him. She also suggested that it sent someone who could have posed a serious threat of personal harm to her family during another visit at around the same time.
24. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s claims. It undertook to ensure that, if he worked for the contractor, the former partner would not be sent to the property. It asked her for evidence that the other contractor who visited the property posed a risk to allow it to investigate further as it did not take such matters lightly. She said she had no evidence that the other contractor actually posed a risk but was concerned that they had entered the property while she was out and her child was present. The landlord advised her to call the police if she feared contact from her former partner. Nothing in the evidence seen for this investigation suggests the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns was unreasonable.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of issues with the gas and electricity supply.
    2. Enquiries about contractors sent to the property.
26. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repair issues.
27. In accordance with paragraph 42(d) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the complaint about flooding in the property’s kitchen is outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Orders

28. Within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, the landlord should pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failures identified in its handling of the repair issues.