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

Citizen Housing (202325904)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202325904

Citizen Housing

28 November 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 response to the resident’s concerns about repairs to the communal entry door.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in October 2016. The property is a first-floor 2-bedroom flat. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident.
  2. The repair log shows that between March 2019 and November 2023 the resident reported issues with the communal entry door 20 times. The issues included the entry door not locking/unlocking, the entry door not opening automatically, and the door closing too slowly.
  3. Between 4 May and 26 July 2023, the resident reported 3 repair issues in relation to the communal entry door.
  4. On 16 August 2023, the landlord’s case notes show that the resident requested to raise a complaint. The case notes go on to say, “the repair to the communal door is with the contractors to upgrade the electrics.”
  5. On 1 September 2023, the resident again requested to raise a complaint. He said that he had not had a response to his complaint of 16 August 2023 and the entry door had not worked for the last 3 months. He added that the door had worked intermittently for the previous 7 years and he was “fed up constantly complaining”. He suggested the door be replaced with sliding doors.
  6. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 14 September 2023. It said that it had looked at the repair history and noted there had been ongoing issues with the communal doors, which had been repaired on several occasions. Although the repairs had not resolved the issue, it said that an appointment to attend to the doors had been made for 19 September 2023 and it would be upgrading the power supply which should resolve the problem. It went on to explain that the doors could not be changed to sliding doors due to the structure of the building.
  7. The resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2 on 22 September 2023. He said that he wanted his complaint to be reviewed by an independent colleague, and highlighted that the doors had not been repaired on 19 September 2023 as stated in the stage 1 response.
  8. In October 2023, the landlord liaised internally in relation to finding a solution to the door repair as jobs were “constantly being raised to external contractors, which was not resolving the issue”.
  9. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It apologised that the repair of 19 September 2023 was not successful and explained that tests were carried out which established that there was “no incoming power to the doors” and the consumer unit could not be identified. It again apologised that despite numerous repair attendances, issues with the communal door continued to reoccur. It further explained that it had raised the issue with senior managers and a full investigation would be carried out to find a permanent solution to resolve the issue with the doors. It said that the investigation was expected to be completed by 3 November 2023.
  10. Throughout November 2023 it has been evidenced that the landlord carried out monitoring visits to the block and it found that on some occasions the doors were in working order and on others they were not working.
  11. On 22 November 2023, a site visit was carried out by an engineer. The case notes say that the engineer was not able to carry out an effective repair and recommended that a new power operated closing system was installed to both doors. The notes go on to say that the engineer was instructed to carry out the necessary works as a matter of urgency.
  12. It has been evidenced that a new power operating closing system was installed at the beginning of January 2024. The resident reported further repairs on 17 January and 16 February 2024 in relation to the fob entry system.
  13. Internal correspondence on 14 February 2024 showed that the landlord was “monitoring repairs to the communal door”. It highlighted that there had been some recent reports in January 2024 that the doors were not working, although this was evidenced as not being related to the main entry door mechanism.
  14. During contact with this Service in November 2024 the resident confirmed that the entry door had been repaired and there had been no further issues “for several months”.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to repairs to the communal entry door

  1. As outlined above, 20 repairs were raised by the resident between 2019 and 2023. Whilst this information provides contextual background, this assessment will focus on events leading up to the resident’s formal complaint of 16 August 2023.
  2. The facts of this case have not been disputed and the landlord has accepted that the repairs to the entry door took longer than they should have to resolve. Therefore, this report will concentrate on whether the landlord took sufficient steps to address the failings, by considering the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s website says it aims to address emergency repairs within 24 hours, and routine repairs within 28 days.
  4. The evidence shows that the resident reported the following repairs to the entry door:
    1. On 4 May 2023, the entry door was not locking. This repair was completed on 9 May 2023 which was 5 days later.
    2. On 12 May 2023, the entry door was closing too slowly. This repair was attended to on 29 June 2023 which was 48 days later. A recommendation was made for a specialist contractor to attend if the faults persisted.
    3. On 17 July 2023, the entry door was not locking. This repair was completed on 21 July 2023 which was 4 days later.
    4. On 26 July 2023, the entry door was broken. This repair was attended to as an emergency within 24 hours. It is unclear from the evidence why this matter was attended to as an emergency, possibly for fire safety or security reasons.
    5. On 6, 13, and 27 September 2023 the resident reported repairs to the communal entry door. These repairs were attended to within 24 hours.
  5. All but 1 of the above repairs were carried out within the landlord’s repair policy timescale. Nevertheless, this Service would expect a landlord to complete a full, effective and lasting repair where possible, which was not done in this case, as demonstrated by the need for many repeat visits by the same contractor. The repair of 12 May 2023 was carried out 48 days later and significantly outside of the policy timescale of 28 days, which was not appropriate.
  6. On 12 May 2023 the landlord’s contractor recommended a specialist attend should the issues continue. The landlord’s repair policy says that the majority of services will be delivered by its own in-house team, however where necessary this will be supplemented by support from approved specialist contractors. However, the landlord departed from this policy by failing to engage a specialist contractor following a further 6 repair reports in relation to the communal entry door. This was unsatisfactory and avoidably prolonged the issue.
  7. The landlord’s repair policy also says that it aims to ensure value for money by providing a cost effective service that is efficiently carried out. The arranging of repeat contractor visits for the same repair was contrary to this policy. In particular, the delay in engaging a specialist delayed a resolution for the resident, which evidently caused him distress and inconvenience.
  8. The case notes show that the resident requested to raise a formal complaint on 16 August 2023. There is no evidence to suggest that this was responded to, which was not appropriate. The Ombudsman has decided not to assess the landlord’s complaint handling separately, as the evidence indicates that its omission to identify the initial complaint was an isolated error and its handling of the subsequent complaint was timely and in line with its policy. However, the resident’s overall experience has been taken into account when assessing the landlord’s response to his concerns
  9. The resident chased the matter on 1 September 2023 by again raising a stage 1 complaint. He said that he was “fed up complaining” and felt like he was being “fobbed off”. He suggested installing sliding doors to overcome the repeat repair issue with the communal entry doors.
  10. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 14 September 2023. It said that it would be upgrading the power supply which would resolve the problem, and an engineer would be attending on 19 September 2023. It accepted there had been several failed repairs and explained that the sliding doors could not be installed due to the structure of the building. This was appropriate and resolution focused by outlining its proposed action and providing a timescale for when the work would be carried out. It also rightly explained to the resident why sliding doors would not be suitable for the building.
  11. The resident remained unhappy and escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 22 September 2023. He said that the door was not repaired on 19 September 2023 as stated in the stage 1 response. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 20 October 2023. It apologised that the repair could not be carried out and explained the reasons why. It said that it would be undertaking an investigation which it aimed to conclude by 3 November 2023 and would provide the resident with updates. While the landlord apologised and clearly explained why the repair could not be completed, the response lacked any resolution for the resident. The landlord also failed to offer the resident any compensation for the failed repair and the continued inconvenience he was experiencing due to the repeated door failure.
  12. In addition, no evidence was provided to show that the landlord kept the resident updated as stated in its stage 2 response. Clear communication and keeping residents updated on the status of a repair is vitally important when providing a service and especially following a formal complaint. During a home visit carried out by the landlord on 17 November 2023, the resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the stage 2 response, yet the landlord failed to provide him with any meaningful information as to the progress of its investigations. This was a missed opportunity to improve its service and begin to restore the resident’s trust.
  13. This Service spotlight report on complaint about repairs outlines good practice for landlords when dealing with complaints about repairs. It says that where complex or extensive work is required, landlords should acknowledge that the repairs are outstanding, and if appropriate consider compensation. While the landlord did acknowledge the length of time it was taking to complete the repair, it could have gone further by explaining that compensation would be considered once the works had finally been completed. A recommendation has therefore been made in relation to this.
  14. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it was “now evident” reactive repairs were not providing a permanent resolution, and it had recommended senior managers make “more proactive decisions”. Nevertheless, the landlord had been aware of the reoccurring issue with the entry door for some time, which was evidenced in an internal email of 1 September 2023. It said that the issues with the doors had been ongoing for a while and contractors had attended numerous times. Therefore, the landlord should have been proactive in finding a resolution prior to the resident’s complaint.
  15. On 20 November 2023, the landlord visited the block with a director of a specialist contractor in relation to the entry doors. They advised that “the doors were high quality” and the problem was with the power operation mechanism. Following this, the landlord arranged “as a matter of urgency” for an engineer to attend. This visit was carried out on 22 November 2023. It was from this point that the landlord was prompt in its actions to resolve the problem. However, had it been more prompt in engaging the services of a specialist, a resolution may have been found sooner, preventing any unreasonable delay in resolving the issue. The evidence shows that the mechanism was replaced in early January 2024, although a specific date has not been provided to this Service.
  16. In summary, the landlord has accepted that it was aware of the recurrence of repairs to the door entry system. Despite a recommendation being made in May 2023 for a specialist contractor to attend, the landlord continued to send its own contractor to attend to the repair. It was evident from the recurrence of repairs needed to the entry door that there was an underlying fault that required a more in-depth investigation. In addition, on 17 October 2023 the landlord accepted that from a repair point of view there was “nothing more” that it could do.
  17. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to action a more in-depth investigation until 20 November 2023. This was despite advising the resident that its investigation would be complete by 3 November 2023. The landlord had acknowledged the need to update the power supply on 1 September 2023, however no meaningful action was taken until the inspection of 20 November 2023, which was 80 days later. In total the resident had been waiting for an effective and long lasting repair for 5 months (August 2023 to January 2024). The evidence shows that this caused the resident understandable concern about the functionality of the door and security of the building.
  18. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to repairs to the communal entry door. A total of £375 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is broken down into £75 per month for 5 months. This is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy in circumstances where there has been some inconvenience or distress caused to a resident through its service being below standard and a repeat failure to address something.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns relating to repairs to the communal entry door.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
    2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £375 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him in relation to the landlord’s response to his concerns relating to the communal entry door.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, if it has not already done so.