Clarion Housing Association Limited (202207370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207370

Clarion Housing Association Limited

13 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s concerns about the electrics in the property.
2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos in the garden.
3. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom, including broken glass and a blocked sink.
4. The resident’s reports of damaged bathroom and hallway flooring following a leak.
5. The replacement of an airbrick that led to pest infestations.
6. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the plaster in the bedroom.
7. The resident’s concerns about repairs to the exterior doors.
8. Concerns about record keeping.
9. The associated complaint.

Background

The tenancy agreement is a legally binding document that both the resident and the landlord are bound by. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement. We understand that the resident has an assured tenancy agreement that started in 2016. The property is a 3-bedroom house. The landlord told us that, at the time of the resident’s complaint, it had no vulnerabilities recorded for her. It said it had since updated its records to reflect that she is disabled and has a son who has autism.
The resident complained to the landlord that an appointment to carry out replastering work in the bedroom had been cancelled. It is not clear when that complaint was made. However, in response at the end of April 2021, the landlord said that this work had been deemed decorative and that it would look into the missed appointment.
On the same day the landlord issued a stage one complaint response and apologised for the delay in doing so. In relation to the issues being dealt with in this report, the main points were:
1. It acknowledged a missed appointment on 23 March 2021.
2. It explained that the plastering had been assessed as decorative and therefore was the resident’s responsibility.
3. It offered compensation of £65 made up of £15 for the missed appointment on 23 March 2021 and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 9 June 2021 the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of a repair to an airbrick. She said mice had entered the property via this broken airbrick and, while the mice infestation had been dealt with by pest control, the airbrick was still broken.
On 20 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage two complaint response in relation to the resident’s complaints about the replastering. (Note we have not seen the stage one response.) The main points were:
1. An inspection was carried out in January 2021, and it was determined there was no structural damage to the walls. It said any job raised for the plastering work (including the appointment for 26 May 2021) would have been cancelled as a result of that inspection on the grounds that the plastering work was decorative.
2. It said that it was confident that the named staff member had not acted with malicious intent and that the decisions would have been based on photographic evidence. It apologised it had not told her that the decision about the replastering would be based on photographic evidence and also for its communication in relation to the missed appointment.
3. It had identified that a section of the bedroom wall did require plastering and a job was booked for 10 July 2021, which it understood the resident had cancelled.
4. It offered compensation of £115 made up of £15 for the missed appointment of 26 May 2021; £50 for distress and inconvenience and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman. The resident first approached this Service in early July 2022.
On 21 October 2021 the resident complained to the landlord that she had found asbestos in the garden and that the airbrick repair remained outstanding. She said, while she had received some compensation from the landlord, this did not reflect the “accumulative stress” caused to her. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 26 October 2021.
On 8 December 2021 the resident complained again about the plastering decision. She said the original operative had agreed the wall required replastering as it was blown. She said she believed a named member of staff was wrong to over-ride the decisions of operatives. The resident also said that the complaint about the broken airbrick had been ignored.
On 21 December 2021 the resident raised concerns with the landlord about a circuit board fire in the property that the fire service had had to attend. She also complained that sheets of asbestos had been left in the garden which had put her and her children in an unsafe situation. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 14 January 2022 after the resident had chased it up.
On 2 February 2022 the landlord issued a stage one complaint response and apologised for the delay in doing so. The main points in relation to the issues being considered in this report were:
1. The repairs team would undertake the airbrick repair on 21 February 2022. It apologised for any lack of communication.
2. It had found service failure relating to delays in communication and upheld the complaint. It offered £50 as the repairs were not completed within its service level agreement and a further £25 for the delay in responding to the complaint. (It also offered £200 for lack of communication; however, as the main complaint issue in this response related to a delayed kitchen installation, we have considered it reasonable to assume that this sum related to that).
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 21 February 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint as the repairs had not been carried out that day as agreed. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 24 March 2022 trying to find out what repairs were outstanding. On 28 March 2022 it acknowledged the escalation request.
On 4 April 2022 the resident told the landlord that a number of repairs had since been carried out, but she had waited in all day on 21 February 2022. She said the missed appointments were a waste of her time and energy and the landlord failed to acknowledge the accumulative effect they had on her mental health.
On 8 April 2022 the resident made an urgent complaint to the landlord about a broken socket in the hallway that had exposed wires. She said she had a toddler and an older child with autism who had no sense of danger, and this was very dangerous for her family. She said the landlord had repeatedly raised an emergency repair, but no-one had turned up. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 14 April 2022.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord issued a stage two response relating to this complaint. The main points were:
1. It apologised that the resident had not received the standard of customer service that it would expect. It also said it was sorry that the issues had taken longer than expected to resolve.
2. The repair to the dangerous socket was completed on 22 April 2022. It apologised for the previous missed appointments. It explained that, if its team was unable to attend an emergency appointment during the daytime, it was passed over to its out of hour’s contractors, however it was not always possible for them to attend within its estimated service level agreement of 24 hours.
3. It offered compensation of £185 made up of £45 for 3 missed appointments (we understand these were on 5,6 and 8 April 2022); £50 for the resident having to chase up this repair; £15 for a missed appointment on 21 February 2022. £25 compensation for the inconvenience caused by waiting over an hour on the phone to the out of hours line; and £50 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
On 17 June 2022 the resident complained to the landlord about a blocked sink in the bathroom and that the appointment that day had been cancelled and rearranged for 21 June 2022 which was not convenient for her. She said she had waited in all day and her mum had come to the house to wait while she was on the school run. She said this had caused a lot of distress and inconvenience.
On 23 June 2022 the resident complained about a slug infestation that was a result of the broken airbrick that had still not been repaired.
On 30 September 2022 we asked the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about various issues and acknowledged that some issues might have been considered at stage one previously. The matters raised were:
1. Electrical problems.
2. The removal of asbestos sheets from the garden.
3. Glass in the bathroom sink plughole which arose from the removal of the glass sheets on the bathroom wall. This was now causing the sink to be blocked and flood the room.
4. The delay in replacing an airbrick.
5. Plaster in the hallway and bedroom which had blown.
6. A fault with the newly installed boiler and the loss of hot water and heating.
On 14 October 2022 the landlord responded to the complaint about outstanding repairs at stage one of its complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. It had attended on 12 September 2022 and resolved the majority of the repairs. The glass, hinges and the draft excluder for the door were on order, and its operative would return to the property on 1 November 2022 to complete these outstanding repairs.
2. It had identified a service failure on this occasion as it had failed to follow its process to respond to her email within 5 working days and she had repeatedly been contacting it to chase this. It awarded £50 in recognition of the service failures identified.
The landlord explained how the resident could escalate the complaint.
On 1 November 2022 the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said it had not addressed all issues including the bathroom flooring that had been damaged by a leak.
On 17 February 2023 the landlord issued its final complaint response and apologised for the delay in doing so. The main issues were:
1. It apologised for the missed appointment on 12 December 2022 and awarded £15 for that.
2. It confirmed that the front and rear entrance doors had been made functional (locking and watertight), but they had also been referred to its planned investment team on 1 December 2022 to be considered for replacement. They would contact the resident in due course about that.
3. It had renewed the bathroom flooring on 23 September 2022. With regard to damage to the laminate flooring, the landlord said it was not responsible for replacing flooring that had been removed to complete a repair and that that would need to be dealt with as an insurance claim under the resident’s household contents insurance.
4. It apologised for any stress and inconvenience she had experienced and offered a goodwill gesture of £250 in relation to damage to the laminate flooring.
5. It also offered compensation of £100 for the delayed complaint response.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
When the resident approached the Ombudsman, she said that not all the work had been completed. She said that the front and back doors had not been replaced as agreed; that the boiler only produced hot water when the heating was on; the plastering had still not been carried out; and the bathroom was not fit for purpose as it was in poor condition with a metal part sticking out of it which made the room unsafe for her and her children. She added that some mould had developed in the property also and mice were present. The resident said that she wanted the outstanding repairs resolved and compensation for the inconvenience and distress caused to her and her family.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns about the risk posed to herself and her children by the asbestos in the garden. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts 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 by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. However, we have considered any inconvenience and distress the resident experienced as a result of errors by the landlord.

I will deal with each complaint issue in turn.

The electrics in the property

The landlord’s main repairing obligation is under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This requires landlords to make repairs to the structure and exterior, as well as to installations such as boilers, pipes and electrics. The landlord is also responsible for electrical testing.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy explains that there are 2 categories of repairs:
1. Emergency repairs are those that present an immediate danger to the resident, the public or the property or would jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident. Any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. Further repairs may then subsequently be required.
2. Non-emergency repairs are appointed by the contact centre at the initial point of contact. These appointments are termed as ‘at residents’ convenience’ offering the next available appointment that suits the resident and will be offered within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The repair log evidences a report of an emergency electrical repair on 1 October 2020 as smoke was coming from the fuse box. The engineer attended the same day and noted that the miniature circuit breaker that fed the kitchen sockets had burnt out. They noted they had replaced it and tested the circuit and made sure everything else was safe on the fuseboard. That was appropriate action by the landlord to ensure the property was left in a safe condition.
We understand that the resident subsequently asked for an electrical check of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree to this request given the recent emergency repair. We can see the landlord subsequently carried out an electrical check and the repairs log suggests that this took place on 18 February 2020. The evidence suggests a previous check arranged for 13 December 2019 did not take place as the engineer “did not have the right tools”. This caused some delay which would have caused some frustration to the resident.
The repair log evidences that the resident reported on 3 March 2020 that the fuse box kept “smoking”. It notes this was assessed as a routine repair and remedied on 21 August 2020 but again there were no details of what work was carried out nor was there any explanation of why it took so long to attend and remedy this problem. There is also no evidence to explain why this was assessed as a routine repair, rather than an emergency repair, given its potential to jeopardise the safety of the resident and her family.
The time taken to resolve this issue was not appropriate as it was not in line with the landlord’s timescales which are set out in its repair and maintenance policy.
On 5 April 2022 the resident reported wires exposed from a socket in the hallway. This was appropriately assessed as an emergency repair and passed to its out of hours service. While the repairs log makes reference to the contractor not gaining access on 6 April 2022 the job was noted as being completed, which meant the resident had to chase report the repair again. The evidence suggests the repair was carried out on 22 April 2022. In its complaint handling the landlord explained it was not always possible for them to attend within its estimated service level agreement of 24 hours.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have followed up on this repair, following the contractor not gaining access, given the nature of the fault and the vulnerabilities of the resident’s household. The landlord’s handling of this repair was not appropriate.
In respect of the electrical issues, the landlord offered the resident a total of £120 as set out in its complaint response of 31 May 2022 (made up of £45 for the missed appointments and £50 for the resident having to chase matters and £25 for waiting on the out of hours line. In a later complaint response of 14 October 2022, the landlord offered a further £50 for delay in carrying out repairs which related to several issues but mainly focused on electrical issues.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to 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 the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s health condition) may justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
The compensation of £170 offered by the landlord was not proportionate to the inconvenience, frustration and distress caused in this instance. While the landlord offered compensation for the many missed appointments outlined in this report, it did not always consider the wider impact on the resident – that is the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused. Financial compensation of £300 is appropriate here for that impact on the resident and her family by the delay of almost 6 months in resolving the electrical issues (that includes the previous offer of £170).
The sums awarded in this report are in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website) which sets out our approach to compensation. This includes cases where there have been delays in investigating repair issues. The sums ordered also reflect the fact that the resident’s vulnerabilities are an aggravating factor.

Asbestos in the garden

The resident raised the issue of asbestos as a formal complaint; however, this matter was not addressed by the landlord. (This is considered further, below under handling of the associated complaint.) Given that failing, we have used our discretion to consider the resident’s concerns in this report.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy says that it will take all reasonable steps and measures to mitigate any risks associated with asbestos and exposure during occupation or during works in its properties. The landlord is responsible for removing or containing asbestos identified by an asbestos survey.
The repairs log demonstrates that the landlord was aware that there were asbestos sheets that required removal in July 2015 prior to the resident moving into the property. The log evidences that this job was cancelled; no reason was given for that cancellation. The landlord did not act appropriately here because it did not mitigate the risk of the asbestos by removing it from the garden. That was a serious failing.
The resident first reported asbestos in the garden to the landlord in June 2021 when a contractor she had hired to clear garden waste had refused to move it. Almost 2 years later, in May 2023, she reported finding more asbestos in the garden. The landlord acted appropriately on each occasion by arranging for an appropriately qualified contractor to remove the asbestos within a week. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected the garden after June 2021 to ensure all the asbestos had been removed.
While the resident was unaware of the asbestos until 2021, it is evident this matter has caused her great distress. Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for that impact.
The landlord’s asbestos management policy makes no reference to asbestos found in the exterior of a property but focuses on asbestos identified inside a building. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to consider if its policy should be amended to include guidance on what steps should be taken when asbestos is identified in the exterior grounds of a building.

The condition of the bathroom, including broken glass and blocked sink

The landlord is responsible for sinks, baths, showers, toilets and taps as well as water mains, pipes and waste pipes. The resident is responsible for minor blockages to sinks, baths and toilets.
The repair log evidences that the resident reported a blocked sink on 11 July 2022. It noted this was resolved on 18 July 2022, but no details of the work undertaken were noted. It also notes that broken glass had been left in the sink by its contractors while fixing some mirrored tiles. It noted the resident had young children and that it needed to “clear this up”. A further entry noted the glass was stuck and could not be removed. There is no evidence of any further action at that time to remove the broken glass from the sink. This was not a minor blockage and therefore the landlord’s responsibility to repair. Further, given the fact there were young children in the household, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have taken further action at that time to remove the glass. The evidence suggests that this matter was resolved a few weeks later when there was a flood in the bathroom and the glass resurfaced into the sink.
In its complaint handling, the landlord did not consider its handling of the glass in the sink and the impact of that. The evidence suggests that the glass was stuck in the sink for almost one month until the flood on 22 August 2022 which suggests the bathroom was in an unsafe condition for that period. This caused evidence distress and inconvenience to the resident. Financial compensation of £100 is appropriate to reflect that impact on the resident and her family.
The resident told us that she believed the bathroom needed upgrading and it was dangerous as there was a sharp metal piece of metal that stuck out which we understand is above the bath. An order has been made for the landlord to inspect the bathroom to assess whether it is in a safe condition and fit for purpose and write to the resident with the outcome of that inspection and what work, if appropriate, the landlord intends to carry out and when.

Damaged bathroom and hallway flooring following a leak

The landlord is responsible for flooring and floorboards; the resident is responsible for any floor coverings that they install.
The repairs log evidences that on 22 August 2022, a few weeks after the bathroom flood, the resident reported a leak which had caused a flood in the bathroom and hallway to the out of hours service. The landlord acted appropriately by raising an emergency repair. The evidence log notes this was remedied the same day, but no details were given of the action taken. The resident disputes that the flood was resolved the same day but that it took several days and that led to the rotten flooring.
The repairs log evidences a further emergency repair on 31 August 2022 as the flooring in the hallway had a large hole due to the wood rotting away. It noted that it was possible to fall through as the hole was big and there were young children in the property, so it needed to be made safe. It noted that this was remedied the same day. The repairs log evidences on 29 September 2022 that it would take one day to renew the rotten bathroom flooring. It noted this was resolved the next day.
The evidence suggests that the flooring needed renewing as a result of the leak from the bathroom on 22 August 2022. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have identified the work required to the floorboards more quickly following this leak rather than leave the hallway to become an emergency repair; however, the evidence suggests the work was undertaken promptly after being reported by the resident.
In its complaint response of 17 February 2023, the landlord said the resident should claim on her insurance for the replacement flooring. Given the resident’s contention that the leak had not been repaired promptly, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided her with information about how to make a claim to its public liability insurer. The insurer could then make a decision on liability for the leak and therefore who was responsible for replacing the flooring. An order has been made for the landlord to give the resident that information.
In that complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £15 for a missed appointment on 12 December 2022 as well as £250 as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused in relation to the laminate flooring. We consider that sum to be proportionate to the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident. We have, however, found service failure in this instance because it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have signposted the resident to its personal liability insurer in the first instance, rather than her own insurer.

Damaged airbrick that led to pest infestations

The landlord is responsible for removing pests from the property and sealing openings that allow pests into it.
The landlord noted that the airbrick should be replaced in March 2020 and a temporary fix was carried out with wire wool while a new airbrick was sourced. In its complaint response of 2 February 2022, the landlord noted that it would be replaced on 21 February 2022. However, that was a missed appointment for which the landlord has offered £15.
It is evident that the temporary fix was not robust as the landlord noted a slug infestation in May 2022 and recommended that the exterior brickwork was sealed. The evidence demonstrates that the airbrick was replaced on 24 June 2022.
The time taken by the landlord to replace the airbrick was not appropriate and the work was only undertaken following a second infestation into the property. In its complaint response of 2 February 2022, the landlord offered the resident £15 for a missed appointment on 21 February 2022 as well as £50 for the inconvenience caused to the resident by its delay in repairing the airbrick. That sum is not proportionate to the impact on the resident and her family. Financial compensation of £200 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident as well as the time and trouble she spent pursuing this matter in June, October and December 2021. (This includes the sum of £65 previously offered.)

Condition of the plaster in the bedroom

The landlord is responsible for walls and plaster while the resident is responsible for decorating and minor defects or imperfections in the plaster. On 6 January 2021 an operative attended the property in person. The repair log includes their notes of that visit, “all of the wall has blown. All paper off. Hack off and replaster”. A job was raised and subsequently cancelled for 23 March 2021.
On 22 February 2021 the landlord noted that no works would be completed as the wallpaper was peeling off. It noted a named member of staff had seen the photos of this one and no works were needed, “it’s all decoration works”.
Only after chasing this matter with the landlord, did it explain that it considered the bedroom plaster repair was decorative and therefore the resident’s responsibility.
In its complaint response of 20 July 2020, the landlord said the work had been deemed as decorative but went on to say that a more recent inspection had identified that a section of the bedroom wall did require plastering. It noted a job had been booked for 10 July 2021, which it understood the resident had cancelled. The landlord apologised it had not told the resident that the decision would be made by looking at photos and also apologised for its communication and offered £15 in relation to the missed appointment.
The landlord’s handling of this matter was not appropriate. It was not fair to overturn a decision made by an operative who had seen the walls in person by solely looking at photos. If the landlord had doubt about the work required, it would have been appropriate to have sent a qualified expert in this field for an independent opinion before making a final decision. Neither was it appropriate to cancel the replastering appointment without informing the resident of the reason why. At a later date, it was found that replastering of at least some of the walls in the bedroom was required. The resident told us that this work was still outstanding.
In its complaint responses of 18 May and 20 July 2021, the landlord offered the resident £30 for 2 missed appointments on 23 March and 26 May 2021 relating to plastering appointments as well as £50 for the inconvenience caused to her. That sum is not proportionate to the impact on the resident. Financial compensation of £300 is appropriate here for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the plaster repair as well as the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing this matter. (This includes the £80 previously offered.)
An order has also been made for the landlord to write to the resident with a date of when the re-plastering of the bedroom will take place.
The resident has raised concerns about the plasterwork throughout the property including that some has been affected by mould. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to inspect the all the plasterwork in the property and write to her with the outcome of that setting out what further work it will undertake if appropriate.

The resident’s concerns about repairs to the exterior doors

The landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the exterior doors. Its repairs and maintenance policy says that major component replacement (kitchens, bathrooms, roofs, etc.) are not responsive repairs and these items should be referred to the relevant teams to deliver through planned programmes. The policy adds that, prior to the referral process, all repairs needed to keep an item safe and serviceable should be completed.
Following a report from the resident on 13 October 2022, the door was inspected and follow-on works identified for the front and rear doors. The evidence suggests that work was undertaken on 1 November 2022 to the back door (renewing the hinges and glass and fitting a brush draft excluder) and the front door was adjusted. The landlord’s action to try to resolve matters was appropriate; however, it is clear from an internal email that this work was not successful. This email from 1 November 2022 says “there was no way of closing the approximately 10mm gap on hinged side to stop both doors from catching on the closing edges. The back door being the worst but with the [front door] following very close behind”.
On that day the landlord acted appropriately by completing a ‘property maintenance to planned investment referral report’ noting the doors were “beyond repair”. It noted further, “[rear door] very difficult to open and close due to closing edge catching – nothing can be done to remedy this. Same with [front exit door]. Both need replacing especially the kitchen [back door]”. The repairs log evidences that the landlord chased its planning team on 11 January 2023. However, there is no evidence of any further efforts to get an update on progress.
In its complaint response of 17 February 2023, the landlord said that it had confirmed that the front and rear entrance doors had been made functional (locking and watertight). It said the planned investment team would contact the resident in due course about the replacement doors.
The repairs log evidences a further report from the resident regarding the front door in February 2024 which she said was not secure and blew open at night when they were sleeping. The landlord acted appropriately by raising an emergency repair and noted the door had been eased but that the door would need to be replaced soon.
The resident told us that the doors had still not been replaced. The landlord did not act reasonably here by ensuring that its referral to planned works was taken forward promptly given that the doors were beyond repair. The resident has been living with draughty and latterly seemingly at least one unsafe door. There was also a lack of communication with the resident about the replacement of these doors meaning that she had to chase the landlord for updates.
It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have replaced the doors within 6 months therefore the delay in resolving this issue has been calculated at 12 months. Financial compensation is appropriate here of £480 is appropriate here for the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident and her family by this delay. This sum also takes into account that there were 2 doors as well as the time and trouble taken by the resident in pursuing this matter.
An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident setting out when it expects to replace the front and rear exterior doors.

Record keeping

The landlord’s vulnerable tenant’s policy says that, as a responsible social landlord, its overall objective is to ensure that its vulnerable residents receive the services and assistance they require to sustain their tenancy. To achieve this it aims, among other things to record any vulnerabilities on the residents contact record and keep this up to date; use all available information to identify if a resident is vulnerable and take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management.
The landlord told us that at the time of the events complained about, it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It has since updated its records. However, the repair log regularly notes (and as far back as 2019 in relation to a fence repair) that the resident was disabled with a child with autism. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have updated its records at that time to reflect the vulnerabilities of the household. That it did not do so was a failing. An order has been made for the landlord to apologise to the resident for this record keeping failure.
We have seen that the resident asked for communication from the landlord in writing and told us that this did not always happen which was distressing for her. An order has been made for the landlord to write to the resident to confirm that, as far as possible, all future communication will be in writing.

The associated complaint

The landlord had a limited complaint policy in place from June 2022 following a cyber-security attack which impacted on its day-to-day activities. Under this policy the landlord aimed to respond at stage one within 20 working days and at stage two within 40 working days.
This report has considered several complaints from the resident for which the landlord issued final complaint responses in July 2021, May 2022 and February 2023.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged its delays and offered a total of £275 in compensation for the inconvenience caused.
As well as delays, the landlord did not address all issues that were raised including the handling of asbestos left in the garden (which the resident asked it to look into as a complaint in October and December 2021, and as we did in September 2022). That enquiry from this Service also asked the landlord to consider issues with the new boiler. The landlord also did not consider the issue of the airbrick until February 2022 by which time the resident had raised it as a formal complaint 3 times (in June, October and December 2021) Financial compensation of a further £200 is appropriate for the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its failure to address all the issues raised.
While we have considered the landlord’s handling of the asbestos in this report, the resident told us recently that the problems with the central heating were continuing and that the boiler only heated water when the heating was on. She said she had reported this, but nothing had happened. An order has been made for the landlord to look into the issues reported in relation to the new boiler under its formal complaint procedure. It should respond to the resident at stage one and copy that response to us. It will be open to the resident to escalate the matter from there if she considers that to be appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the electrics in the property.
2. The resident’s concerns about asbestos in the garden.
3. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the bathroom, including broken glass and blocked sink.
4. The resident’s reports of a damaged airbrick that led to pest infestations.
5. The resident’s concerns about the condition of the plaster in the bedroom.
6. The resident’s concerns about repairs to the exterior doors.
7. Concerns about record keeping.
8. The associated complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of damaged bathroom and hallway flooring following a leak.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance of these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. A senior manager to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the apologies guidance on our website.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £2,055 made up of:
  1. £300 for the impact caused by the delay in resolving the electrical issues in the property.
  2. £200 for the impact caused by the failings relating to the removal of asbestos from the garden.
  3. £100 for the impact of having an unsafe bathroom for a period of almost one month.
  4. £200 for the impact of the delay in repairing the airbrick at the property.
  5. £300 for the impact of the landlord’s mishandling of the re-plastering to the bedroom.
  6. £480 for the impact of the delay in replacing the front and rear exterior doors.
  7. £475 for the impact of its complaint handling failings made up of the £275 previously offered for the complaint handling delays plus £200 for its failure to address all issues raised.
3. This sum includes the £855 offered by the landlord during its complaint handling. The sum of £2,055 should be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any rent arrears and any amounts previously paid should be deducted from this figure.
4. Inspect the bathroom at the property to assess whether it is in a safe condition and fit for purpose and write to the resident with the outcome of that inspection. This should also include what work, if appropriate, the landlord intends to carry out and when.
5. Write to the resident with details of:
  1. A date when the re-plastering of the bedroom will take place.
  2. A date when it expects to replace the front and rear exterior doors.
  3. Its public liability insurer so that she can decide whether to make a claim for damage to the flooring following a flood.
  4. Confirmation that, as far as possible, all future communication will be in writing.
6. Consider a formal complaint about the issues reported in relation to the new boiler. The landlord should respond to the resident at stage one and copy that response to us. It will be open to the resident to escalate the matter from there if she considers that appropriate.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Considers if its asbestos management policy should be amended to include guidance on what steps should be taken when asbestos is identified in the exterior grounds of a building.
2. Inspect all the plasterwork in the property and write to the resident with the outcome of that inspection setting out what work it will undertake in relation to the plaster and the reported mould, if appropriate.