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

Citizen Housing (202314171)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314171

Citizen Housing

26 February 2025


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
    2. Handling of cancelled appointments and delays.
    3. Complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has an assured tenancy which began in November 2010. She lives in a secondfloor 2-bedroom flat. The landlord notes that the resident has epilepsy, and her son has chronic lung disease.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 19 July 2023 to raise a complaint. She said this concerned the damage done to her home as a result of work carried out to it. She added that the landlord informed her the work to rectify the issues would not be carried out until September 2023 at the earliest.
  3. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 1 August 2023. It offered the resident £50 compensation in relation to the delays. It advised that while it was notified of the leak on the roof on 19 July 2023, the earliest appointment it could offer was on 6 September 2023. It said its contactor needed to attend to resolve the matter, although it understood the resident did not want the contractor to return. The landlord noted the resident raised the following concerns:
    1. There was damage caused to the bathroom flooring as a result of work carried out in the bathroom by the contractor.
    2. The vinyl flooring was replaced with a cheaper version which the resident did not want.
    3. There were issues with the glazed windows.
    4. There were ongoing leaks which caused food to be ruined.
  4. The resident escalated the complaint on 3 August 2023. She said that 2 inspectors had previously been to the property to write a report and take photos, so the landlord did not need to reattend to check again. She added that she informed the landlord in March 2023 that the contractors were not to come back to the property, and that while she was informed the work was meant to take 5 days, it instead took over 4 weeks. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request the same day and informed the resident it would aim to respond within 20 working days.
  5. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 4 September 2023. It offered a further £100 compensation on top of the amount offered at stage 1. This was in relation to the impact of the service failure on the resident. It said:
    1. It understood a survey needed to be carried out. This was to be arranged with it.
    2. The roof repair was arranged for 9 October 2023. In addition, damp and mould treatment was also arranged. It would be in touch with the resident about this.
    3. The windows were on a planned maintenance programme and an inspection was due in 2024 about this.
  6. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 21 March 2024. She said:
    1. She had taken time off work for appointments, but the landlord’s contractor did not turn up as the appointment/repairs were for another resident and property.
    2. She had been in contact with the landlord concerning repairs which were booked. However, due to COVID-19, these did not take place and needed to be re-booked from 2022 onwards. This caused her stress from both the landlord and from her work as a result of taking time off to sort the issues out. On some occasions there were failed appointments and the contractor ordered incorrect parts. In addition, the damp and mould affected both her health and that of her son and they were vulnerable.
    3. While the landlord had offered her £150 compensation, she felt this was insufficient. She said the issues caused her financial detriment, including raised utility bills due to the lack of insulation in the property, as well as having an impact on her family’s health.

Events since the end of the landlord’s complaints process

  1. The resident informed this Service in October 2024 that while the landlord had carried out damp and mould treatment and the roof repairs as set out in the stage 2 response, the damp and mould in the property had become worse. She added that there was significant loss of heat in the property, due in part to the windows which needed replacing.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has mentioned when referring the matter to this Service that the landlord’s contractor had mistaken another individual’s repair for hers. This led to a missed appointment. The landlord confirmed that it addressed the missed appointment due to the mixup under a separate complaint, for which it issued a stage 1 response in February 2023. It added that this complaint did not complete its internal complaints process as the resident did not escalate the matter to stage 2. The Ombudsman is unable to investigate matters for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore, our investigation has not considered this issue.
  2. The resident has said she has been raising repairs with the landlord since 2016, and that due to the COVID19 pandemic booked appointments were cancelled by it. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s comments, we are unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable time (normally 12 months). For this reason, our investigation has considered the events from November 2022 onwards only.
  3. The resident has said that her health and that of her son have been impacted by the damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt or underestimate the resident’s concerns, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

The Ombudsman’s role

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.
  2. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes. When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with these principles.

The landlord’s obligations

  1. The Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018 requires landlords to ensure their properties are fit for human habitation at the beginning of, and throughout, the tenancy.
  2. The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord’s statutory repair responsibilities under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property, as well as all fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, space and water heating. It confirms that the landlord will carry out repairs for which it is responsible.
  3. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms its commitment to contractual, legislative, strategic, and statutory requirements, and commits to providing a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service with the objective of completing repairs correctly first time.
  4. The repairs policy does not set out the landlord’s responsibilities or target timescale for repairs. However, the tenancy agreement and the landlord’s website set out each party’s responsibilities for repairs.
  5. The landlord’s website sets out that the timeframe for a routine repair has recently been increased from 12 working days to 28 working days. At the time the resident raised her complaint it was 12 working days, although the landlord acknowledged that it failed to meet its target of 75% of routine repairs being completed within this timeframe. No timescales are set for emergency repairs, which are defined as “when there is an immediate health and safety risk to you or the structure of your home has been damaged”.
  6. The landlord’s website sets out that its timescales for routine repairs vary dependent on the location and trade needed. Based on the applicable information on the landlord’s website, repairs for:
    1. Plumbing can take 3 weeks.
    2. Electricity issues can take 4 weeks.
    3. Roofing can take 3 weeks.
    4. Fencing/carpentry can take 4 weeks.
    5. Any other issue can take 3 weeks.
  7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that:
    1. It has in place specific procedures to deal with reports of damp and mould which include considerations of vulnerabilities that may make the impacts of damp and mould more acute and require a faster response”.
    2. It will “respond to reports of damp and mould in customers’ homes in a timely way that takes a holistic approach to diagnosing and treating the causes of damp and mould”.
  8. The landlord’s self-assessment against the Ombudsman’s 2023 spotlight report on damp and mould states: “A specialist team has been set up to investigate and address reports and assessments. Works are prioritised according to vulnerability and severity… Careful monitoring of each case also assists in ensuring that delays are minimized and communication with the customer is maintained.”
  9. The landlord’s compensation framework confirms it can make discretionary payments, taking into account the level of impact. The guidance provided states:
    1. Awards of up to £250 can be made in cases of low impact – where the resident suffers no significant detriment.
    2. Awards of between £250 and £699 can be made in cases of medium impact – where there has been some inconvenience or distress to the resident through the service being below the standard that it would expect to deliver.
    3. Awards of £700 and above can be made in cases of high impact where there has been significant inconvenience or distress to the resident through poor service or persistent failure leading to significant delay.
  10. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that the landlord has a 2-stage complaints procedure:
    1. It will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.
    2. It will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of escalation. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond within a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs

  1. The landlord’s repair records show that the resident contacted it on 1 November 2022 in relation to a number of issues. These included a broken kitchen window handle which needed replacing, repairs to the garage door, and issues relating to the bathroom/toilet concerning a loose pan and leaks. The landlord considered the issues with the broken window handle to be an emergency, and this was attended to on the same day. It categorised the other 2 repairs as routine. This was appropriate given the nature of the repairs. The landlord’s records show that the repair to the toilet pan was carried out on 21 December 2022 and the repair to the garage door was carried out on 11 January 2023. The landlord has not provided any explanation to explain the delays in these repairs – which took 7 and 10 weeks respectively – and there is no evidence that it communicated about the delays with the resident. This was unsatisfactory.
  2. When the landlord’s contractor attended to carry out the repairs to the toilet on 21 December 2022, it identified an issue with the sealant around the bath which needed renewing. Though it raised the matter at the time, the repair was not carried out until 16 January 2023. This was again outside the timescales listed on the landlord’s website for a routine repair.
  3. The landlord’s records show the resident reported a number of further repairs between 17 January 2023 and 26 January 2023. These included issues with the kitchen unit, a window which needed an overhaul, and damp and mould concerns. The landlord raised work orders for these repairs, all of which it considered to be routine. However, the repairs were not completed until several months later. The repair to the window was completed on 29 March 2023 and the mould wash and overhaul of the kitchen unit did not occur until May 2023, around 4 months after the matter was originally reported. The landlord’s records show that several of the repairs required followup work to be carried out. This included the window repair carried out on 29 March 2023, for which a further appointment was scheduled on 13 April 2023. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s repair policy which referred to getting “repairs right first-time round”. However, it is recognised that repairs are not always straightforward and sometimes further attempts may unavoidably be required.
  4. The requirement for further followup appointments to complete repairs meant the resident needed to be present at the property to give access for these. The resident has informed this Service that the number of occasions when she was needed for contractor appointments caused issues with her employer at the time. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether there was a direct relationship between the resident taking off time for appointments and her employment subsequently ending. However, this Service accepts that the issue likely impacted on the relationship between the parties.
  5. The landlord’s repair guidance sets out that it will offer appointment slots between 8am and 6pm, and that appointment slots will be sent by text message. The landlord also said that its contractor would call the resident when they were on the way to the property. The landlord has not provided this Service with evidence of the text messages that the contractor allegedly sent to the resident. Due to this, it is not clear whether the resident would have been aware of the appointments until she was contacted when the contractor was on the way to the property. This meant there were occasions where there were missed appointments or where the contractor was unable to gain access. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord, which should have contacted the resident directly to confirm the time and date of appointments prior to the contractor travelling to the property.
  6. The resident has informed this Service that she informed the landlord in March 2023 she did not want a contractor that had previously carried out work to return, due to concerns she had with the quality of the work. The Ombudsman understands the resident was frustrated due to the repairs not being completed satisfactorily. This Service would further expect the landlord to have conducted a visit to inspect the work, and if remedial work was required, for the contractor to do this in the first instance. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to visit the property on 30 March 2023 to speak to the resident. The resident informed it that she was not made aware of this visit in advance and the appointment was not convenient for her. As a result, the landlord agreed to call her the following day, which was reasonable. It then set out that the contractor would correct the outstanding issues. This was appropriate and in keeping with accepted common practice in the event that a resident is not satisfied with repair work carried out by an operative.
  7. The landlord’s records show that it had a number of conversations with the resident between the end of March 2023 and the end of May 2023. These related to allowing the contractor the opportunity to resolve any outstanding repairs. The records show that the landlord allocated a designated point of contact for this issue, which was an appropriate use of resources given the circumstances. This was because it allowed the allocated member of staff the opportunity to manage and coordinate all of the repairs which were due to the property.
  8. The landlord said in its stage 2 response on 4 September 2023 that it would arrange for a survey to be carried out on the property. It also committed to carrying out the remaining works, which were noted to be roof repairs and a mould wash. The resident has confirmed to this Service that the landlord carried out the roof repairs on 9 October 2023, as well as the damp and mould treatment scheduled, but no survey took place. The landlord has explained that its surveyor contacted the resident and was informed that she would call them back to confirm a convenient time. The landlord said the resident did not call back, and so the survey was not arranged.
  9. While the landlord’s contemporaneous records show the surveyor did call the resident on 14 September 2023, neither the surveyor nor the landlord attempted any further call when the resident did not return its call. This was a missed opportunity by it, especially as it was aware the resident was concerned with the condition of the property. Although the Ombudsman understands that the landlord has recently made a further offer to carry out a survey, this was apparently prompted by the resident referring her complaint to this Service. Clear recording keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlords’ services. This has not been the case in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint.
  10. Overall, the evidence provided by the landlord shows that there were initially failings with its communications in terms of keeping the resident updated on the numerous repairs which she reported. The landlord’s records show that it made a number of calls to the resident over missed direct debits and other payments. However, despite this, there was a lack of any regular or effective communication from it regarding ongoing repairs. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities and the fact that some of the repairs concerned damp and mould, for which treatment was delayed by several months. This was a failing by the landlord. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord made an award of £150 at stage 2 in respect of this matter. The amount offered was in keeping with the tariff set out in its compensation policy for low impact. This offer is also in line with this Service’s recommended range for maladministration where there was no significant impact on the resident. As a result, the Ombudsman considers that reasonable redress has been offered for the failing by the landlord, and that no further compensation is due.

The landlord’s handling of cancelled appointments and delays

  1. The resident has informed this Service that she felt appointments were arranged at the convenience of the contractor rather than her, and that she was not always made aware of them in advance. As a result, there were occasions when appointments were missed or cancelled. This Service has been provided with details of the landlord’s repair records. However, the landlord has not provided details of call notes made when appointments were scheduled and arranged with the resident.
  2. The landlord’s repair policy sets out that it offers residents appointments throughout the day. It says that the contractor will call when en route and that the landlord will also text the resident prior to the appointment to make them aware of it. This is considered a reasonable approach on the basis that the resident receives a text message giving reasonable notice prior to the day of the appointment. The contemporaneous notes show the resident did on occasion inform the landlord that she was not made aware in advance of the planned appointment. This should have alerted it to consider alternative options for making her aware of planned appointments, other than by a single text message. This was a missed opportunity by it.
  3. The landlord’s website also confirms that while it did have a target timescale for routine repairs at the time of the resident’s complaint, there was a waiting time for some repairs dependent on where a resident lived. This waiting time dependent on other factors meant that there were occasions where the landlord was unable to book some appointments with any degree of certainty well in advance. By not being able to do this, this meant that there were some occasions where any planned appointments may have been unsuitable for the resident and would therefore need rescheduling. Although the landlord’s website pointed out the delays for certain types of repairs, this required the resident to go to the landlord’s website to search for this information. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to show that the landlord proactively made the resident aware of this, which would have been an appropriate course of action in the circumstances.
  4. Overall, while delays due to repair parts being unavailable were outside the control of the landlord, it should have taken alternative steps to inform the resident of upcoming appointments and reschedule these as soon as possible if they were unsuitable for her. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was a service failure by the landlord. We have made an award of £100 in relation to its handling of cancelled appointments and delays. This is in line with the Service’s remedies guidance where there was a failure that caused distress and inconvenience, but did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. Following the resident raising her complaint on 19 July 2023, the landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day. It informed the resident it would provide the response within 10 days, which it met when it issued the stage 1 response on 1 August 2023. This was in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy.
  2. The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 3 August 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on the same day, within the timescales contained in its complaints policy. It did not, however, issue the stage 2 response within 20 working days. Instead, the stage 2 response was not issued until 4 September 2023, 21 working days later. This was 1 day outside of the timescale set out in the complaints policy. While the contemporaneous internal correspondence confirmed the landlord was aware of the deadline, it noted it was waiting for a surveyor to look into and discuss several issues which still needed to be addressed. It said that arranging this was taking time. However, there is no indication that it updated the resident about this and that there would be a delay in it issuing the stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity by it.   
  3. Overall, we consider that the slight delay in providing the stage 2 response did not have any significant impact on the resident or cause any substantial additional detriment to her. The Ombudsman therefore finds there was no maladministration by the landlord. However, a recommendation has been made for it to acknowledge its missed opportunity in the apology that has been ordered below. 

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of cancelled appointments and delays.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within the next 4 weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Apologise to the resident for its failures in its handling of cancelled appointments and delays.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £100 for its failures in its handling of cancelled appointments and delays.
    3. Contact the resident to make arrangements to undertake an inspection of the property. A convenient time for the appointment should be agreed with her in advance.
  2. Within the next 6 weeks, the landlord should set out in writing to the resident and to the Ombudsman what works/repairs it intends to do in light of the inspection report. It should ensure that any work is arranged and completed in accordance with the timescales contained within its repairs policy/website.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the £150 it offered at stage 2 in relation to its handling of her reports of repairs.
  2. When the landlord apologises to the resident as ordered above, it should acknowledge its slight delay in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
  3. The landlord should contact the resident to determine if she has any further concerns following the end of its internal complaints process in September 2023. If she raises any such concerns, it should respond to these in accordance with its policies and procedures.

Chat to us