Citizen Housing (202404305)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202404305

Citizen Housing

16 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak and associated repairs.
2. Request for the landlord to buy back the property.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Background

The resident has been the leaseholder of the flat since 2006. The building is owned and managed by the landlord.
The evidence provided confirms the resident has been reporting problems with the property leaking since at least November 2020 and that a previous complaint has been made regarding this around June 2021. These events have been referred to for context; however, they will not form part of this investigation.
On 23 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that water was leaking through the windows into the flat. The landlord inspected the property on 27 February 2023 and said the problem was with the frames and possibly the seals. The landlord raised a repair for the seals. With the leak continuing, a further inspection on 19 June 2023 confirmed:
1. the internal seal in the bedrooms and lounge had failed and needed to be raked out and resealed
2. the fixed window and balcony door showed no sign of staining but when a section of the window was removed the moisture reading was plus 30
3. the cills and skirting boards needed to be renewed
The roofers attended on 19 July 2023 to seal the windows and address any roof related issues but confirmed the problem was with the frames and not the seals. On 22 August 2023 a contractor attended to assess the windows and reported back that 3 new patio doors were needed. On 22 September 2023 the landlord confirmed the order for the 3 doors had been received. By 22 November 2023 the resident was still chasing the landlord for an update on the replacement of the doors.
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 27 November 2023 in which she said:
1. she had been reporting a leak into the property since November 2020
2. she had a complaint that was still ongoing from 2021
3. 3 months had passed since the contractor had measured for new patio doors, but she did not have a date for the work, and the leak was ongoing
4. the landlord’s communication and customer service had been poor
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2023. In summary, it said:
1. a different contractor would attend the following week to take measurements of the patio doors as the original quote was too excessive
2. it was sorry for its failure in providing an update as to when the doors would be fixed and offered £100 for the impact of the delay
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 March 2024. She remained dissatisfied that:
1. the repairs were still outstanding, and the leak was causing damp and mould and damage to her belongings
2. she was unable to use the patio doors and wanted them replacing sooner than the 8 to 10 weeks advised
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 30 April 2024. It said:
1. an inspection had taken place in November 2020 and although repairs were completed on what it thought was the cause of the leak, it later identified the leak was from the windows and patio doors
2. following a formal complaint in 2022, the windows were resealed, then replaced; however, the replacement of the patio doors remained outstanding
3. an inspection was completed in June 2023; however, it acknowledged unreasonable delays in requesting the repairs needed, despite numerous chases from the resident
4. a further complaint was made in 2023, and the outstanding issues were highlighted to the Head of Repairs; however, further delays were experienced while seeking quotes and raising the work
5. once the order was raised, conflicting information regarding the timescales had been given to the resident which added to the frustration
6. it was unable to buy back the property as requested by the resident as delays in repairs was not a criteria for buying back a leasehold property
7. it aimed to replace the patio doors by 30 May 2024
8. there had been significant impact and inconvenience, and it offered £1,000 compensation (£250 for poor communication, £250 for complaint handling, £250 for the delays in raising orders, and £250 for the impact on the resident)
The resident referred her complaint to us on 18 June 2024. She remained unhappy with the action taken to resolve the leak that she reported was causing damage to her property. As a resolution the resident asked for the landlord to:
1. complete the repairs
2. buy back the property

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the damage caused to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to belongings. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. If the resident wishes to pursue this, she has the option to seek legal advice.
There is reference to a previous complaint with the landlord in relation to the issue brought to us, however it is unclear if a final complaint response was provided by the landlord. While we may refer to the previous complaint, this will be for context only and will not be assessed as part of this investigation. Considering the evidence received, this investigation will look at events from November 2022 to 30 April 2024, the date of the final complaint response.
In the resident’s contact with us, she has referred to an ongoing issue with water penetration following the replacement of the patio doors. It is not evident that these most recent events have been raised as a formal complaint which has completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. As a landlord must have the opportunity to respond formally to matters reported to it before we investigate, this investigation will focus on the issues raised within the complaint process. If the resident is continuing to experience issues with the property, she has the option to raise a new complaint with the landlord.

Report of a leak and associated repairs

The resident’s lease agreement states the landlord shall maintain, repair, and renew roof foundations and main structure of the building and all external parts thereof, including all external windows and doors on the outside of the flats within the building.
The landlord’s website confirms it will:
1. complete emergency repairs in 24 hours or make them safe until a permanent repair is possible
2. complete routine repairs within 28 working days
On 23 November 2022 the resident told the landlord that water was leaking via the windows into the flat. There is no evidence the landlord responded to this. After further contact from the resident on 26 January 2023, the landlord arranged an inspection for 27 February 2023. This may have been the appropriate action to take; however, the 3-month delay was unreasonable and not in line with its repair timescale. Further, there is no evidence the landlord explained or apologised for its lack of response. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence of the landlord’s findings from the inspection on 27 February 2023; however, according to the information provided by the resident, it was agreed the problem was with the window frames and possibly the seals. The landlord measured the frames and confirmed it would contact the resident with an update. There is no evidence it did, and between 28 March 2023 to 17 April 2023 the resident had to invest time and effort pursuing the landlord for an update. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have followed up on its commitment to update the resident and fulfil its repair obligations.
On 17 April 2023 the landlord confirmed it had asked for the seals to be repaired. This was challenged by the resident who asked why it had changed the conclusion from the visit on 27 February 2023, that it was the frames that were the problem. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident despite several requests for clarification she made until 15 May 2023. This was a further communication failure by the landlord.
On 19 June 2023, the landlord completed a second inspection of the property to assess the possible cause of the leak. This may have been necessary to confirm the work required; however, while the repairs recommended by the inspector (see background section) were requested on 22 June 2023, there is no evidence the landlord raised the orders. This was unreasonable and demonstrated ineffective repair management by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair records confirmed that its roofers were to seal the windows on 19 July 2023. The resident told the landlord the roofers inspected the windows and confirmed the issue was with the frames and not the seals. The resident said the roofers agreed to report their findings to the landlord, but there is no evidence this happened. The resident was inconvenienced further in pursuing the landlord for an update. This was unreasonable and demonstrated a lack of effective communication by the landlord who then failed to progress the matter further.
On 28 July 2023 the inspector who attended the property on 19 June 2023 told the resident he had spoken to the roofers who confirmed the problem was with the frames, but the sealing should be done also. He said the matter would be raised in a meeting on 31 July 2023. There is no evidence the landlord updated the resident, and on 9 August 2023 she asked the landlord what was happening. The landlord was responsible for monitoring and completing the repairs; therefore, it was not appropriate that the resident had to pursue updates.
On 15 August 2023 the landlord confirmed a contractor would inspect and measure the 3 patio doors on 22 August 2023. The contractor attended but a month later, on 21 September 2023, the resident had to ask the landlord for an update. She was told the order for the doors had been received and would be issued by 25 September 2023; however, she was later told the deadline had been missed, and the order would be placed the week of 4 October 2023. This was a further failure by the landlord which contributed to the delays in the repairs. While acknowledging the terms and conditions of the lease agreement, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider any interim work that it could do while waiting for the doors to be replaced. This could have included the use of dehumidifiers to reduce the impact on the property. There is no evidence it did this. This was unreasonable.
The resident sent several chases between 3 October and 9 November 2023. On 10 November 2023 the landlord advised that scaffolding was needed, and it was meeting the scaffolding company and contractor on site on 16 November 2023 when it would update the resident. The resident stated it had been aware scaffolding would be needed from the beginning and asked why it had taken a further 3 months to highlight this. While it was reasonable for the landlord to wait until it had received the experts opinion regarding the scaffolding, the landlord should have addressed the resident’s concerns and provided its position on the matter sooner than it did. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
Following the resident’s complaint on 27 November 2023, the landlord advised that it was waiting for a new quote from a different contractor as the original one was too excessive. The landlord is entitled to explore quotes from different contractors, but it was not appropriate that the resident had to submit a complaint to be told this was a reason for the delay. The landlord apologised for its failure to provide the resident with an update and offered £100 for the impact from the delay. This was not a proportionate offer of redress. It was not in line with its compensation policy and does not reflect the impact the delays had on the resident over a year long period.
The new contractor inspected and measured for new patio doors on 12 January 2024 but a lack of communication from the landlord led to the resident sending several emails between 26 January 2024 and 23 February 2024 requesting updates. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord, who did not demonstrate effective management of the repairs.
On 1 March 2024 the landlord told the resident the contractor would confirm the appointment date in the next few days; however, by 13 March 2024, there was no evidence of any contact. After further chases from the resident, on 26 March 2024 the landlord confirmed the purchase order had been issued to the contractor and it expected the work to be done within 8 to 10 weeks, allowing for the manufacture and delivery of the doors.
The complaint was escalated to stage 2 on 28 March 2024 due to the outstanding repairs, the timescales for the doors to be replaced, and the impact on the property which included damp and mould.
It is apparent from the evidence provided there was confusion as to when the doors would be replaced as different timescales had been provided by the landlord and the contractor. This was recognised by the landlord in its final complaint response when it confirmed it aimed to replace the doors by 30 May 2024. The landlord has confirmed that the patio doors were replaced on 14 August 2024 after delays with the manufacturer. This was 3 months after the expected date and 13 months after it was agreed in July 2023 that the patios doors needed to be replaced. It is noted some delays were due to the manufacturing of the doors which is out of the landlord’s control; however, this did not account for the full period of delay, which caused distress and inconvenience for the resident.
In summary, based on the failings identified above, we find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak and associated repairs. Throughout the period of the complaint, there were unreasonable and unexplained delays, a lack of communication from the landlord which led to the resident investing time and effort chasing it for updates on many occasions. This was recognised by the landlord. It offered a total of £750 for the repair management and the impact on the resident.
While the landlord made the offer of £750, this was not in line with our remedies guidance. As such an order for an additional £250 compensation has been made to align the offer to our remedies guidance which recognises the impact on the resident caused by the delays.

Request to buy back the property

On 19 April 2024 the resident told the landlord the delays in repairs had cost her the sale of the property and asked if it would buy the property back.
The landlord provided its response as part of its final complaint response on 30 April 2024 in which it confirmed it would not buy back the property. Further to confirming its decision, it advised delays in repairs were not part of its criteria for buying back leasehold properties and that it would only buy back properties in areas where there was a ‘regeneration scheme.’
The landlord was not legally obliged to purchase the property and was therefore entitled to use its discretion to make this decision. Therefore, in our assessment we have considered if the landlord communicated its decision and reasons behind this to the resident in a timely manner. The landlord’s evidence confirmed it did this. As such, we find no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to buy back the property.

Complaint handling

The landlord operated a 2-stage complaint policy which states it will acknowledge complaints within 5-working days of receipt. It will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and stage 2 complaints within 20-working days. If more time is needed, this would be explained to the resident and a new response date agreed.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident
4. track outstanding actions and actioned promptly with appropriate updates provided to the resident
The resident submitted a complaint to the landlord on 27 November 2023 and the landlord acknowledged it on 4 December 2023. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 December 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy.
The landlord’s response acknowledged the resident’s reason for complaining however it did not provide enough detail to evidence a thorough investigation. As such the landlord:
1. did not confirm the actions it had taken to date
2. did not use the complaint process to reflect on any service failures or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence
3. did not commit to monitoring the progress of the outstanding issues which in turn offered little reassurance to the resident that the issues would be resolved
4. did not follow our Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair, putting it right and learning from outcomes
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 March 2024. The landlord acknowledged it on 28 March 2024 and gave a response date of 29 April 2024. This was appropriate as it was in line with the policy and the Code.
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 30 April 2024, 1 day later than expected. This is noted however it is unlikely to have had any serious detriment on the resident or the final outcome of the complaint.
The landlord confirmed the reason for the complaint and the resolution requested by the resident. While it used the complaint process as an opportunity to confirm the history of the case and the actions taken, it also identified failings in terms of a lack of communication, failings in its processes which contributed to the delays, and the conflicting information provided regarding timescales.
In acknowledgement of the complaint handling the landlord offered £250 compensation. This is at the higher end of what we would expect to see for such a failing when considering the impact on the resident. As such, we find reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Record keeping

As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Failure to do so can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This includes limited or no information regarding inspections and repairs of which we have relied on evidence provided by the resident. This has contributed to the other failures identified in this report. As such we find service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to buy back the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident which acknowledges the service failures highlighted in this report and the learning to prevent a recurrence
2. paid the resident a total of £1000 made up of the following:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of reports of a leak and associated repairs
  2. £250 for the lack of communication to the resident
  3. £500 for the impact on the resident caused by the delays
  4. This is inclusive of the compensation previously offered by the landlord. Therefore, the landlord may deduct from this total any compensation it may already have paid in relation to this complaint
  5. The payment should be made direct to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed

Recommendations

If it has not already done so, the landlord should pay the resident the £250 that was offered in the final complaint response. The Ombudsman’s finding of reasonable redress for the failures in the landlord’s complaint handling is made on the basis this compensation is paid.
Confirm its position to the resident regarding the compensation for damage caused by the leak in the property.