Citizen Housing (202004238)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004238

Citizen Housing

18 August 2021

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 complaints are about the landlord’s:
1. administration of the resident’s rent account from 2013 to August 2019.
2. administration of the resident’s rent account from August 2019.
3. handling of repairs at the property between 2010 and 2019.
4. handling of repairs at the property in 2019 and 2020 and associated offer of compensation.
5. request that the resident maintains the front and rear gardens to the property.
6. response to the resident’s queries about the cleaning and maintenance of a passageway next to the property.
7. response to correspondence and handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, complaints a, c and e are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. In correspondence to the Ombudsman, the resident has advised that the landlord’s handling of his rent account and repairs has been of concern since 2013 and 2010 respectively. The Ombudsman does not seek to dismiss the resident’s concerns in relation to this. However, paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
As matters become historic it can be harder for member landlords, and the Ombudsman, to investigate the issues which have been raised. For example, evidence and data may no longer be available. While the Ombudsman notes that the resident has concerns about the landlord’s actions dating back to 2010, the resident has not provided specific examples of particular incidents; and these concerns were not progressed through the landlord’s complaint procedure within a reasonable period of the matters arising. They are not therefore complaints that the Ombudsman will investigate.
In relation to the garden, the resident says that the landlord had previously advised him that he was failing to keep the front and rear gardens to the property appropriately maintained. He says that he showed landlord staff the condition of both gardens on 30 April 2018. He adds that he raised this as part of his complaint to the landlord in 2020 to show that he had been executing his duties – but the landlord had not. While the resident’s comments in relation to this are noted, given that he did not raise his concerns about this issue as a formal complaint until approximately two years after they occurred, the Ombudsman will not be investigating this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property. The property is a two-bedroom house. The resident has informed this Service that he suffers from an autoimmune condition which causes pain within his muscles and joints.

Summary of events

On 31 December 2019, the resident reported a blocked waste pipe at the property. He says that he informed the landlord that he was unable to use the kitchen sink or washing machine when reporting the issue. The resident says that an appointment was booked for 7 February 2020; however, the contractors missed the appointment. A subsequent appointment was booked for 27 February; however, during this attendance the landlord’s plumber informed him that an external contractor would be needed as the blockage was located in the pipework outside of the property.
The resident says that he subsequently received a missed appointment card for 3 March, but no appointment had been scheduled for that day. He says that he booked two appointments for 11 and 12 March. However, the external contractor was unable to complete the work on 11 March as they needed the landlord’s plumber to be in attendance at the same time; and the appointment for 12 March was cancelled.
A further appointment was booked for 20 March. The resident says that whilst this was attended, he was left with an open hole in his kitchen where the pipe work had been dismantled and one of the cabinets had been “completely smashed”. The resident added that there was a smell emanating from the kitchen and the kitchen was left in a mess. He says that despite this, there was no sign of job progression on his repair account with the landlord. The resident subsequently reported the matter to Environmental Health, and it asked the landlord to escalate the repair as it was considered to be an “emergency”. A further attendance at the property took place on 9 April.
It is not clear what transpired following this. However, on 14 April, the landlord emailed the resident to inform him that it had received communication from his MP’s office, and asked if it had the resident’s permission to correspond with the MPs office. The resident responded on the same day to provide authority, and detailed that he had five concerns – rent arrears, harassment, outstanding repairs, that the passageway next to his property had not been cleaned for three years, and that he had not received a “proper reply” to his complaints.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 20 April 2020. He said that the various matters which he would be addressing all needed an urgent solution as they were having a negative impact on his wellbeing. He said:

Rent arrears

Since the introduction of the bedroom tax, he had been receiving several notifications regarding unpaid rent. He had highlighted to the landlord on a number of occasions that the delays were as a result of late benefit payments. However, despite making the landlord aware of this it had “carried on harassing and threatening” to start eviction proceedings.

A blocked pipe and associated repairs

Despite reporting the blocked pipe at the end of December 2019, the repair was yet to be completed. The resident listed the sequence of events, as detailed above, and raised concerns that there was a bad smell emanating from the sewer and that the property was left in a mess. He added that the contractor “disappeared” after the attendance and there was no sign of job progression within his account on the landlord’s system.
As a result of the blocked pipe, he was having to wash his dishes and clothes in the bath, and the situation had been the cause of distress and difficulty given his underlying health condition.
He had contacted Environmental Health at the end of March 2020, and it was decided that the job was “urgent” and putting his health at risk. The resident said that Environmental Health had invite vd the landlord to complete the job as soon as possible, but this request was ignored.
He did not consider that the job was subject to any restrictions under the Covid-19 guidance given that it was outside of the property. The resident added that he had informed both the landlord and the contractor that he was not presenting any Covid symptoms, yet despite this no arrangements had been made to complete the job.

Dampness within the property

He had recently reported dampness in the living room of the property. An appointment was scheduled for six weeks after the report. It was established that the dampness was caused by rainwater permeating through the external wall. While an operative attended to repair the wall, he informed the resident that the internal wall would need a special paint. He was still waiting for the problem to be fully resolved, and another area of damp on the ceiling of the second bedroom was becoming apparent.

Flooring

The landlord had previously informed him that flooring was not one of its responsibilities; however, he had since learnt that it was.

The passageway

He had contacted the landlord in relation to cleaning the passageway between his and a neighbouring property over the years; however, it had been “neglected”. He had discussed the matter with landlord staff in 2018, and it was agreed that it would be cleaned. However, he had since been informed that responsibility for cleaning the passageway lay with the local authority.
He wished to know why he had not been informed of this previously, and why the landlord did not refer this to the correct department within the local authority at the time. The resident also wished to know why he was not provided with contact details for the relevant department.

Complaint handling and correspondence

The landlord had “consistently failed” to reply to his correspondence and investigate his complaints appropriately.

On 19 May 2020, the resident’s MP’s office contacted the landlord again. The caseworker said that the resident had detailed his concerns in full in April and they had been working together to try to resolve the issues but with no success. The MP’s office said that the local authority had informed them that the passageway was not its responsibility. It asked that the landlord either clear the space or speak directly with the council as opposed to giving the resident “contradicting” information. With regards to the repairs at the property, the MP’s office advised that the resident had also received contradictory information in relation to when the outstanding repairs would be completed. The caseworker asked if the landlord could clarify its position as soon as possible.
The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 22 May 2020. In this, it said:

Rent account

With regards to the rent account, the rent had been correctly charged. However, it acknowledged the impact of the bedroom tax.
The resident had correctly identified that housing benefit is paid in arrears – which by default put him in the position of rent arrears. It had reviewed his payments and could see that these had been regular. However, making payments once every two months would contribute to arrears accruing on the account.
The resident had spotted a slight delay in the date of transactions being loaded on to his account – compared to when the payments were made. It explained that this was largely dependent on the payment transaction type – and the time taken to process them. It added that it endeavoured to ensure that transactions were uploaded as soon as possible so that the account was up to date.
It understood that it could be worrying when it tried to make contact to discuss rent arrears. However, it could confirm that the resident’s arrears had not escalated to a level where a “notice seeking possession” had been issued. It wished to reassure the resident that if action was ever to be progressed, it would “only be the very start of formal action” and does not mean that eviction would automatically follow.
It acknowledged the resident’s intention to bring his account into credit, and advised of the ways in which payment could be made.
The resident could also arrange a direct debit to be set up, which would remove the need for payments being scheduled manually.

Covid-19 related service restrictions

Its services had been “heavily affected” by the national lockdown situation. It acknowledged that this was of great inconvenience to the resident. The landlord apologised that delays earlier in the process were then followed by the national lockdown which resulted in further delays.

Repairs work

The works which had been completed to date included the installation of a new drainage line, and the internal plumbing had been re-routed to an external drain.
The works were demonstrated to be working, and the resident had confirmed that the works were complete.
During a visit to the property on 20 May 2020, a named member of landlord staff was able to confirm the remedial works that needed to take place within the kitchen. This included the replacement of a base unit – which had previously had a hole cut in the back for plumbing access.
The kitchen works had been raised with the works planners to progress.
The member of staff who attended that day also conducted a walk around the property with the resident to identify any additional works that were required within the property. This identified a gutter repair, a roofing repair and a ceiling stain block following a leak. The landlord added that the progression of these jobs may be delayed owing to the ongoing Covid-19 lockdown.

The landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced by some delays, and that the standard of service had been below that which it hoped to provide. In recognition of the delays the resident had experienced in relation to the repairs – prior to the period of national lockdown – it wished to offer £50 compensation.

Correspondence after the final response letter

The resident was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation. In a letter dated 3 June, he said:
1. Despite paying two months’ rent in advance, his account was still showing arrears. He had asked the landlord to send him a statement of the 14% due, but it had failed to do so. He was concerned that the landlord was “mixing up” his payments with the Housing Benefit.
2. The kitchen drain repair was completed on 20 May 2020, but this job was first reported at the end of December 2019. The delay had caused him distress and inconvenience, and he believed he should be compensated. While the landlord had offered £50, he believed a sum of £363.53 was more appropriate.
3. The local authority maintained that the passageway was the landlord’s responsibility. He considered that the landlord’s failure to keep the area clean was maladministration.
4. He did not consider that the landlord had followed “good practice” when responding to his complaint. He also considered that a total sum of compensation in the region of £600 was more appropriate than what the landlord had offered in the circumstances.
From the evidence that is available, it is not clear if the landlord responded to the resident’s letter of 3 June. However, it is noted that in July 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to confirm that it had been in touch with the relevant department at the local authority so that an inspection of the passageway could take place. Contact details were also provided. The landlord also advised that its repairs service was continuing to be impacted by the national lockdown and that the gutter and roofing repair had been scheduled for September and October respectively.
The resident contacted us in August 2020 as he was unhappy with how his complaint had been concluded.

Landlord’s policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it strives to complete repairs efficiently and in line with its statutory obligations. It aims to do this by:
1. Providing a 24 hour, seven days a week service to report emergency repairs.
2. Attending and completing repairs to published timescales.
3. Offering a choice of appointment slots.
4. Carrying out a gas safety check where required in accordance with applicable statutory timescales.
In relation to timescales, the landlord’s website provides that it will complete emergency repairs in 24 hours, or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible (within 12 days).
The landlord’s website details that an emergency repair is needed “when there is an immediate health and safety risk to you or the structure of your home has been damaged”. The website provides examples, including – gas leaks, uncontainable water leaks, electrical or fire risk and complete loss of heating and hot water.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that on receipt of a complaint, it will:
1. Carry out an initial assessment to determine the actions to be taken as set out in its procedure.
2. Contact the customer to advise what will happened next and the anticipated timescales for a response.
3. Where further investigation is required, it will advise residents of the updated timescales and continue to keep them updated.
If a complaint is upheld, it will set out any action it proposes to take to resolve the complaint. This may include an apology, a change in its process or procedures or a discretionary compensation payment. If the complaint is not upheld, the policy states that the landlord will clearly set out the reasons why.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the types of compensation payment that may be made in the event of service failure. The compensation policy specifically references the Right to Repair Scheme and states:

“there are some small repairs up to a value of £250 that we have to complete within set timescales once our tenants have reported them. These are urgent or emergency repairs which affect the tenant’s health, safety or security. These are called Qualifying Repairs. ….Repairs should be carried out within three working days if a sink, bath or basin is blocked. … On the last day that the work is due to be completed, if our usual contractor cannot complete the work by the deadline, our tenant can contact us in writing, and request that we raise a job with a second contractor. Compensation is only payable if the second contractor does not complete the repairs on time.”

Assessment and findings

Administration of the rent account from August 2019

As detailed above, since the introduction of the bedroom tax the resident has had to pay 14% of the weekly rent. The resident has advised that he frequently makes his contribution to the rent; however, the remainder of his rent is paid through Housing Benefit. He says that these payments are made directly to the landlord, and can be delayed – resulting in arrears showing on the rent account. The resident says that he has asked the landlord to separate the two contributions so that his 14% of the rent is shown separately.
The resident’s comments that the landlord should separate the rent account into two so that any shortfalls can be attributed to the correct source are noted. However, there is no obligation on the landlord to take such action. Rent payments are a condition of the tenancy, and it is the resident’s responsibility to ensure that rent is paid. This is irrespective of whether the rent is being paid by the occupant in full or if a contribution is made through benefits. Landlords have a duty to ensure that rent accounts are up to date and that arrears are properly managed.
It is noted that in April 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP to provide further clarity, and an explanation as to why the resident was receiving notifications that his account was in arrears despite him paying the 14% contribution. The landlord explained “we do currently receive 86% of [the resident’s] rent from housing benefit on a four weekly basis… Whilst I do not dispute that [the resident] makes payments towards his shortfall the issue is that he does not pay this shortfall when it is due and there is also an amount of arrears on his account after receipt of housing benefit that he also needs to pay.” The landlord advised that to stop receiving arrears notifications, the resident needed to make an agreement to clear the arrears on the account, and to start paying the shortfall on time. The landlord also provided copies of the resident’s rent account statements to demonstrate this.
Therefore, while the resident’s concerns about receiving arrears letters are noted, the landlord has not acted inappropriately by alerting him to the fact that the rent account is in arrears. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has provided a clear explanation about the amounts owed and what action the resident needs to take to avoid receiving such communication in the future. In addition, the landlord has provided the resident with reassurance that the notifications he has received to date are to alert him to the fact that the account is in arrears – the landlord has not taken steps to issue a notice seeking possession, or to commence eviction proceedings. While it is acknowledged that receiving the arrears letters has been the cause of concern to the resident, the landlord has acted proportionately in notifying the resident of shortfalls in his rent account.

Repairs at the property from 2019 to 2020

The Ombudsman has been provided with an extract of the repairs logs relating to the property. From these, it is possible to ascertain the day on which repairs were reported and what priority they were given. However, the information provided to the Ombudsman does not contain sufficient detail to establish what was identified during attendances at the property and what work was deemed to be required.
Nevertheless, it is clear from the records that the resident initially reported the blocked drain on 31 December 2019. The job was given a 12-day response time; however, the appointment was subsequently cancelled by the resident on 11 January. The resident has provided a screenshot of his account with the landlord showing that a job for the kitchen sink had been booked in for 7 February. The resident says that the landlord failed to attend this appointment; however, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of the job within the landlord’s repairs logs. The Ombudsman does not dispute the evidence that the resident has provided. However, given the absence of other evidence relating to this job, we cannot reconcile the difference here – or investigate why the appointment was not kept – and this was not addressed by the landlord when it investigated the complaint.
A further job was raised on 20 February internally, and with the landlord’s external contractor on 27 February. An entry on 28 February reads that a plumber was required to assist the external contractor with the repair, as per the resident’s comments. This job was recorded as completed on 3 March; however, it is not possible to tell from the records what work – if any – was carried out.
The next entry is dated 11 March, and the resident reported that the sink was still blocked and he was unable to use the kitchen sink or washing machine. An entry the next day reads that it was recommended that the external contractor and the plumber attend together so that the necessary internal pipework could be removed, and the blockage cleared. The job was marked as complete on 20 March; however, it is not possible to establish what work was carried out from the entry in the repairs log.
It is noted that on 16 March, the Government advised people to work from home and avoid contact with others given the rise in Covid-19 cases; and on 26 March the lockdown regulations came into effect. This was followed by the introduction of the Guidance for Landlords, Tenants and Local Authorities on 28 March. This detailed that access to a property should only be proposed for “serious and urgent issues”. It added that while landlord’s repairing obligations had not changed, it recommended a “pragmatic approach” where resources were stretched, and that landlords should not be unfairly penalised where Covid-19 restrictions prevented them from meeting some obligations.
The resident’s comments, and evidence, regarding a visit from Environmental Health at the end of March 2020 have been noted. The date of the attendance is not clear; however, the Ombudsman has seen an email from the Environmental Health operative dated 8 April to the resident. In this, the operative explains that he had contacted the landlord regarding the repair, and that in his opinion it should be classed as an “emergency”. It is not clear why the landlord had not classified the repair as an emergency itself, given that the resident had advised that he was unable to use the kitchen sink or his washing machine. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to address this at the time, and when responding to the complaint. That it did not do so was inappropriate.
The next entry in the repair logs in relation to the blocked drain and kitchen sink is on 8 April, and on 9 April, it was recorded that a camera survey of the drain would be required. It is not clear if a survey was conducted; however, this attendance appears to have been prompted by contact from Environmental Health.
On 19 May a job was raised with the external contractor to “carry out works as per quotation” – which suggests that some level of inspection took place at the beginning of April – and this included the renewal of the waste pipe from the kitchen sink. However, it is not clear why there was a delay between the 9 April attendance and the job being raised in May. This delay was inappropriate, and in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide some explanation as to why works could not take place sooner, especially given that Environmental Health considered it to be an emergency. The repair to resolve the blockage was completed on 20 May. On 28 May, a job to supply and fit a kitchen sink was raised and this was marked as complete on 29 June.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it acknowledged that there was some delay when responding to the repairs that the resident had reported. The landlord explained that some of the delays occurred before the national lockdown, and it therefore wished to apologise to the resident for the inconvenience he had been caused. The landlord also offered the resident £50 compensation for this.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings, and to try to put things right. However, the landlord’s complaint response did not detail what it considered the delay to have been – and why it occurred. In the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to refer to its records and explain what transpired after the job was first logged in December 2019 until it was completed. In doing so, the landlord would have had the opportunity to identify if there were periods of unavoidable delay, and whether there had been specific failings in the service provided.
From the information provided to the Ombudsman, the landlord appropriately scheduled a job to take place at the beginning of January 2021 – soon after the repair was first reported. The appointment was cancelled by the resident, and it is noted that in the records the reason for cancellation was recorded as “repair no longer required”. The resident has not provided any comments in relation to this cancelled appointment. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it would have been appropriate for it to address this period as there were approximately six weeks between the cancellation and it raising a further job at the end of February 2020. It is not clear if the landlord considered the non-attended job on 7 February which the resident has referred to; however, it would have been reasonable for it to provide some comment on this.
Nevertheless, once the job was raised again at the end of February 2020, the evidence suggests that one of the reasons for the delay was because the external contractor and plumber needed to work together, and this was not established until 12 March. Following this, the delay in unblocking the drain was attributable to the emerging Covid-19 pandemic and associated restrictions. It is noted that remedial works to the kitchen unit were also therefore delayed. The Ombudsman cannot speculate as to whether the repairs would have been completed sooner if it had been identified that the external contractor and plumber needed to work together earlier in the process. However, it is clear that the delay in establishing this did have some impact on the time that it took to complete the repairs. There was further delay between 9 April and 19 May –following the attendance from Environmental Health – and the landlord has not provide any evidence that this was an unavoidable delay.
While the landlord acknowledged that the resident had been inconvenienced by the delay, the complaint response does not demonstrate that the landlord fully understood or acknowledged the impact on the resident of being unable to use the kitchen sink or washing machine. In addition, the evidence does not demonstrate whether the landlord had considered whether the repair was a “qualifying repair” under the Right to Repair Scheme, and if compensation under this was warranted. Given that this is expressly detailed in its compensation policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this.
If the landlord had explained the entries in its repairs records, or its records were substantial and accurate, it may have been able to identify the period of avoidable delay and could have offered a sum of compensation that was proportionate in the circumstances. It may have also been helpful for the landlord to explain how, specifically, it was prevented from undertaking the job owing to Covid-19 restrictions. It is acknowledged that the situation was unfolding at the time; however, the resident had queried why the landlord was prevented from undertaking the repairs, and the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence which shows that a clear explanation was provided.
In relation to the damp, there is an entry in the landlord’s repair records dated 17 March 2020. This reads that the resident reported that the walls within the living room were damp; and it was noted that a damp repair was completed “in last 12 months”. The resident has advised that this was reported on 10 March, and has provided a screenshot of the entry in his account. It is not possible for the Ombudsman to establish why there is a discrepancy between the dates; however, the job was cancelled owing to the pandemic.
The next entry in the landlord’s records in relation to the damp was on 28 April, when it was recorded that there was a leak to the side of the property. This was followed up on 5 May when a job was raised for operatives to repair a leak to the roof and the associated water damage in one of the rooms. Further jobs were then raised in relation to a leaking gutter in June and September.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it detailed the works which had been identified. However, it explained that owing to the ongoing lockdown situation there was likely to be delays in the work being progressed. This was an appropriate explanation by the landlord. While it is acknowledged that the resident was likely to have been concerned by the leaks and damage that was being caused internally, the landlord’s ability to complete the repairs was impacted by the pandemic. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence which shows that the repair was to be regarded as an emergency; and as such, there was no failing by the landlord in its response to the resident’s report of damp affecting the property in March 2020.

The passageway

In relation to the passageway, the landlord correctly informed the resident that its maintenance fell to the local authority. The landlord also identified that it had provided the resident with incorrect information in relation to this previously, and it apologised. This was an appropriate response.
It is noted that after the final response was issued, the landlord contacted the Council to discuss the matter further. It later provided the resident and his MP with contact details for the relevant department who could arrange an inspection and cleaning. There was no obligation on the landlord to take such action, but it was reasonable that it did so given that it had previously provided unclear advice on responsibilities, and to resolve the ongoing dispute.

Communication and handling of the formal complaint

The resident has expressed concern that the landlord failed to respond to his correspondence, and that it did not investigate his complaint appropriately.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman does show that there were gaps in the landlord’s communication, and often delays in responding to emails. The landlord did not investigate this as part of the formal complaint. This was inappropriate. Given the concerns that had been raised by the resident and his MP, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a thorough explanation. The failure to do so compounded the poor communication that the resident had experienced prior to raising his formal complaint.
The landlord’s complaint policy, as detailed above, does not set out timescales for responses. It suggests that any timescales will be decided on once a complaint has been received and will be dependent on the level of investigation required. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence which shows that the landlord clearly acknowledged receipt of the resident’s complaint in April 2020, and that he was provided with a timescale for when he could expect to receive a response. This was a departure from the landlord’s policy. While it is noted that the landlord’s ability to respond may have been affected by the pandemic, it would have been reasonable to make this clear, if that was indeed the situation at the time; whether through an auto-acknowledgement via email or by sending a holding response.
With regards to the level of investigation, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s responses to the majority of the issues the resident raised was appropriate. The exception to this was the response in relation to the repairs. As detailed above, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to undertake further investigation and to provide a clear explanation about its response to the repair that had been reported. The complaint response did not go into sufficient detail to demonstrate that the landlord had considered the sequence of events from when the repair was initially reported in December 2019 until it was complete.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. No maladministration in the administration of the resident’s rent account from August 2019.
2. Service failure in the handling of repairs at the property in 2019 and 2020, and in the associated offer of compensation.
3. No maladministration in the response to the resident’s queries about the cleaning and maintenance of a passageway next to the property.
4. Service failure in the response to correspondence and handling of the resident’s formal complaint.

Reasons

In response to the resident’s concerns about the administration of his rent account, the landlord clearly explained how the account was entering into arrears, and what the resident needed to do to avoid this situation arising. There is no obligation on the landlord to separate out the amounts due from the resident, and that due in the form of Housing Benefit, within the resident’s rent account. Therefore, it was not unreasonable of the landlord to decline to take such action in response to the resident’s comments.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s report of a blocked drain was appropriate. However, there was some delay in establishing how the repair would need to be carried out. Once it was established that the plumber and external contractor needed to work together, there was no further progress owing to the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic and national lockdown. However, Environmental Health subsequently attended at the end of March and confirmed to the landlord at the beginning of April that the situation was an emergency. It is not clear why the landlord did not reach this conclusion itself or why works did not commence until 19 May. The landlord failed to explain this at the time, or when responding to the resident’s complaint; and this was inappropriate in the circumstances.
The leak affecting the inside walls was reported just as the situation with the pandemic began to escalate. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord’s response to this repair was unduly delayed in the circumstances.
In relation to the passageway, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that it had previously misinformed the resident about who was responsible for its maintenance. The landlord apologised for this, and took steps to ensure that the matter was reported to the local authority and that the resident was provided with contact details for the relevant department.
The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor at times, and the evidence provided to the Ombudsman shows that he – or his MP – were left to chase responses. The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s formal complaint, and he was not provided with a timescale for the response – this was a departure from the landlord’s policy. In addition, the complaint response did not contain sufficient detail to explain what happened with the blocked drain repair and why the landlord considered the offer of £50 compensation was appropriate.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings that had been identified by the Ombudsman.
2. Pay the resident £350 comprised of:
  1. The £50 which was offered at the end of the complaints process, if this was not previously accepted.
  2. A further £250 for the inconvenience that was caused as a result of the handling of the blocked drain repair.
  3. £50 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s communication failures and lack of detail in the complaint response.

Recommendation

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. consider undertaking a review of its repairs booking system given the discrepancies between the resident’s bookings and its internal repairs logs highlighted in this case. The landlord should report back to the Ombudsman with any findings in relation to this.