Clarion Housing Association Limited (202222119)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202222119

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 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

The complaint is about the way the landlord handled the resident’s:
1. Reports of an ongoing leak from a roof terrace.
2. Temporary decants.
3. Complaint.
This report has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom flat on the third floor of a block. He is an assured tenant of the landlord and has occupied the property since March 2013. According to the records, the resident has a learning disability and struggles with sending and receiving emails due to his dyslexia.
On 3 November 2022, the resident reported a leak from the roof that had caused “a flood in his flat”. The landlord decanted him into hotel accommodation for 1 night and carried out a repair to the roof area the following day. The landlord arranged for an operative to meet the resident at his property on 7 November 2022 to check the electrics. The records state that the landlord was unable to gain access because the resident was not present. The landlord spoke to him on 9 November 2022 to rearrange the appointment. However, he stated he was in a hotel and could not give access as he did not have transport. He added that there was still a leak and he had turned the power off.
A surveyor was booked to inspect the property on 11 November 2022 but was unable to gain access. The resident spoke to the landlord on 15 November 2022. He told it he was “very distressed regarding the leak in his property”, which the landlord had still not repaired. He said there was water going into his electric cupboard. On 1 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord through a councillor. He raised concern about its “poor communication” and stated he had made clear his preference to be placed in temporary accommodation or moved to alternative permanent housing. The decant team had told him he would return to his property within 4 weeks but this period had “long been exceeded”. He added that he had not been “able to live with any sort of dignity or independence”. The contractor contacted the resident on 24 February 2023 and told him it would start works that morning and should complete them on 28 February 2023.
On 6 June 2023, the resident contacted the Service about a complaint he had made to the landlord over the telephone that it had not responded to. He did not provide the date of the complaint (Complaint A) but gave us details of the concerns he had raised. The Service wrote to the landlord on the same day and asked it to respond to the following by 27 June 2023:
1. The landlord’s handling of the repair work following a leak.
2. The time taken to complete the works.
3. The lack of communication from the landlord about the repair.
4. The landlord’s handling of the decant into a hotel.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 13 June 2023 and issued its stage 1 response to Complaint A on 20 July 2023. It stated that:
1. Before its contractor started works in February 2023, it had contacted the resident to explain the reason for the decant and the works that were required.
2. The repair was delayed because its repair team was unable to complete the “large scale of works” and its surveyor therefore had to source a contractor.
3. With regard to the decants:
  1. The resident was first decanted from 4 to 9 November 2022. It extended this to 18 November 2022 because he had not granted access to his property and therefore the works were unable to go ahead.
  2. On 9 to 10 November 2022 the resident was moved to a different hotel after advising it the then current one was “unclean”.
  3. On 10 to 25 November 2022 he was moved to another hotel in a different area. This was because it had tried to extend his stay at the previous one but this was refused due to “the hotel reporting abusive behaviour”. It needed to extend the decant. However, the hotel had asked him to leave. It had therefore found him an alternative hotel from 25 November 2022 until 9 March 2023, where the decant period ended.
4. As it had been unable to extend his bookings, it had no choice but to move him to different hotels.
5. The “extensive works” at his property and his “lack of engagement” in allowing access for the contractors and surveyor had contributed to the longer than expected decant.
6. It wanted to “sincerely apologise” for the delay in completing the repairs and offered him £200 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £100 for inconvenience caused.
  2. £50 for the delay in repairing the leak.
  3. £50 for poor complaint handling.
The resident contacted the landlord through his local councillor on 21 September 2023 to report that his ceiling was leaking again. The landlord attended to complete an emergency repair on the same day. A surveyor then visited the property on 22 and 25 September 2023 to investigate further but was unable to gain access. On 25 September 2023, the resident raised a second complaint (Complaint B). The landlord has not provided a copy of the correspondence, or call note relating to the complaint, but the resident’s concerns were summarised in its stage 1 response. The resident stated that:
1. The leak had returned and was affecting the area where he slept. This leak had reoccurred over a number of years.
2. It had not contacted him in September 2023 to offer him a decant.
3. The fire alarm panel in the communal hallway was faulty.
4. He wanted to be decanted while necessary works were being carried out.
5. He wanted a face-to-face meeting to discuss his concerns.
6. He wanted a recording of the telephone call he had had with the landlord about the decant.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2023 and left a message asking him to call it back. The records show that it informed him that he was “in breach of his tenancy” by refusing access. The resident agreed for the contractor to access his property on 11 October 2023 to carry out a dye leak test. It found “multiple areas” where water was entering through the cracked render. The contractor carried out a temporary repair on 16 October 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 November 2023 to report that the leak had returned. It is unclear what date an operative attended to inspect the property. However the records state it was “a few days later”. The landlord then met with him at its offices on 4 December 2023 to discuss his ongoing concerns. During the meeting, he told it he was “tired of the problems” and wanted a management move. He stated that his desired outcome was either to be given compensation and the opportunity to move out, or to stop paying rent. The landlord apologised to him for the inconvenience caused but mentioned his “refusal” to give it access as having contributed to the delays.
On 5 January 2024, the landlord issued its stage 1 response for Complaint B. It stated that:
1. It had made “numerous” unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident in September 2023 so it could assess the extent of the damage.
2. Without allowing access to his home, it was not be able to inspect the extent of the damage and determine whether a decant was required. However, he was decanted from 25 September 2023 to 28 September 2023 as he had “refused” to provide access into his home.
3. It spoke with him in October 2023, where it was agreed its operatives would gain entry to carry out a water dye test. During this period it had offered him a decant but he refused advising it he had not agreed to the hotel offered.
4. It had carried out a temporary repair by using a “fire-rated” covering. Its surveyor confirmed there was no further evidence of water ingress into his home.
5. It would cover the cost of a permanent repair and had asked its contractor to provide a quote.
6. Following a meeting with him on 4 December 2023, it inspected his property and did not find any presence of a leak.
7. Having reviewed his case and all his supporting evidence, he did not meet the criteria for a management transfer. It provided details of other options available to find a new home.
8. It had called him twice between 21 and 25 September 2023 to offer him a decant. He had called it on 22 September to request an update and then on 23 September 2023 to say he was “frustrated” that nobody had arranged travel for him to get to the hotel.
9. With regard to the faulty fire alarm panel, it confirmed it had installed a new one in October 2023.
10. It acknowledged it had not resolved the leak in line with its repairs policy. This was “mainly due to delays” with its roofing contractor. However, the delays were also exacerbated by the resident’s “refusal to allow operatives access” into his home.
11. It had provided feedback to senior management to ensure its staff received additional customer service training.
12. It wanted to offer him £800 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £650 for inconvenience suffered, failure to consider vulnerabilities, repeat visits and repeated failures to reply to letters and phone calls.
  2. £50 for delays.
  3. £100 for poor complaint handling.
The resident responded to the landlord on 5 January 2024. He said that the compensation it offered did not cover the costs he had incurred or the damage to his health and personal possessions. He stated that he wanted to escalate his complaint and meet with the landlord to go through all the evidence he had. The landlord called the resident on 16 January 2024 to discuss his concerns and issued its stage 2 response on 2 February 2024. It stated that:
1. It had discussed with him that, at times, it had tried to make contact but had been unable to reach him or get him to respond. He had advised it that he always answered the phone and had “never declined access or been out at a time for a repairs appointment”.
2. Its repairs team had advised that appointments were made on numerous occasions and that no access was available. This had happened both during decants and when the resident was at home. This would have contributed to the delays in completing repairs.
3. On 16 January 2024, it confirmed it would call him again before issuing its stage 2 response. It had called him back on 3 occasions and left voicemail messages as he “did not answer the phone”.
4. It felt a face-to-face meeting was “a good idea”. As the resident had mentioned he had learning disabilities, he could bring an advocate or representative to the meeting if he wanted.
5. It provided temporary accommodation on 25 September 2023 but this was ended on 28 September 2023 as the resident had not granted it access to assess or complete the repairs.
6. A second decant was arranged on 13 October 2023 and ended on 17 October 2023 as it was determined that the repairs could be completed whilst he was at home.
7. It had replaced the fire panel in June 2023. The current faults were caused by detectors in individual properties, where access was still required for checks to be carried out. It assured him that this would not prevent the alarm from working.
8. It did not see any reason to increase the compensation it had offered. However, it would add £500 compensation it had offered to all residents in 2018 for a previous, unrelated, issue, and that he had not accepted at the time. This made a total revised offer of £1,300.
The resident approached the Ombudsman on 14 February 2024 and stated he was not happy with the landlord’s stage 2 response. He said he was still waiting for it to offer “appropriate compensation” and still “getting water dripping” when he is trying to sleep. On 2 April 2024, the resident met with the landlord to review its offer of compensation. Following the meeting, both parties exchanged communication between 11 April and 23 May 2024 regarding a revised offer. On 23 May 2024, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that:
1. He had told it he would accept its amended offer of compensation in “full and final settlement” of his repairs complaint and issues with his flat up to that point.
2. The compensation was in recognition of “all the disruption to date” that he had outlined to it during the meeting.
3. It’s revised final offer was £12,090.19, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £1,300 for damage to personal possessions.
  2. £190.19 for costs incurred during decants.
  3. £1300 that it had offered in its stage 2 response.
  4. £9.000 rent refund.
  5. £200 decorating costs.
  6. £100 for food lost due to the leaks.
The records show that permanent repairs to the roof were completed on 19 July 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that he has been reporting leaks from the roof terrace above for around 12 years. We do not dispute his comments. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account, and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the period from the end of November 2022 onwards. The records indicate that this was the beginning of the events that led to the resident raising a formal complaint. Any references to events prior to this are made to provide context.
The resident has stated that the impacts of water ingress into his property has negatively impacted his mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not doubt his comments regarding his health. However, we are 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. These are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one), as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident has also raised concerns about the landlord’s response to reports of pests in his property. As this issue was not part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. He may then approach the Ombudsman if he remains dissatisfied.

Reports of an ongoing leak from a roof terrace

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident has experienced distress over a lengthy period of time, while reporting leaks into his property. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been for him while living with the impacts from this. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether it acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
In line with Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. This includes walls, ceilings and roofs. The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work, or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out 2 categories of responsive repair; emergency and non-emergency. Emergency repairs are those that present an immediate danger to the resident or property. The landlord will respond to these within 24 hours to make safe. The landlord will aim to complete non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The evidence shows that, from November 2022 to November 2023, the resident reported leaks into his property from the roof on 4 occasions. The landlord raised the leak he had reported on 4 November 2022 as an emergency repair and attended within 24 hours. This was in line with its repairs policy.
However, the leak returned on 15 November 2022. This time it took the landlord around 15 weeks to complete a temporary repair, which was significantly outside its 28 day timescale. It is unclear from the evidence why it took it so long to carry out works on this occasion. Internal correspondence suggests that this may have been due to the landlord awaiting a quote from its contractor and delays caused by the holiday period. There is evidence however that the roof was covered in the meantime. This was a reasonable temporary measure to ensure there was no further damage to the property while waiting for the repair to take place. Furthermore, the resident had been placed in temporary accommodation during this period, which was appropriate. It follows that the impact of the delay on the resident was mitigated during this period.
The resident did not report a further leak until 21 September 2023, whereupon the landlord completed a temporary repair within 26 days. This was in line with its timescale for non-emergency repairs. Furthermore, the temporary repair was appropriate in the circumstances. However, once the resident reported later that the leak was persisting only a month later, the landlord’s investigations should reasonably have resumed. This should have entailed finding a long-term/permanent solution as soon as was practicable.
It was not until 17 January 2024, some 52 weeks after the resident’s initial report, that the landlord obtained a report from its contractor with recommendations for a permanent roof repair. Although it is evident the landlord had issues gaining access to the property, this does not explain the full extent of the delay. There is no evidence the landlord made sufficient efforts to chase up the works with its contractor. Given the history of ongoing leaks into the property, it would have been reasonable in the circumstances for it to have treated the matter with greater urgency. That it has not been able to demonstrate that it was proactively progressing the matter was a failing.
Following receipt of the contractor’s report, it took the landlord a further 26 weeks to complete the permanent repair. Due to the nature and extent of the works that were identified, it is acknowledged that the repair would have taken longer than usual to complete. It would also have constituted major work rather than a non-urgent repair. However, there is no evidence the landlord had shared the outcome of the report with the resident, explained the work that was required, or provided him with an estimated completion time. In addition, the landlord has not demonstrated that it provided him with any regular updates on the repair. It would have been appropriate for it to have done so as this would have provided him with some reassurance it was working towards a permanent solution.
It is appreciated that landlords and their contractors are sometimes limited in their ability to carry out certain works. It is also acknowledged that there are also budgetary constraints when it comes to major works like roof replacements. However, the resident had been reporting leaks into his property for a long time. Given this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered arranging a timelier and more comprehensive roof survey once it was made aware of recurring leaks. This would have identified the structural issues contributing to the water ingress at an earlier stage, and minimised the length of time the resident was impacted by water ingress. That the landlord delayed efforts to establish the full extent of the work that was required meant the resident was subject to avoidable distress and inconvenience.
The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving a leak is not always straightforward and can be a case of ruling out causes until the source is identified. In some cases, where the cause of a leak is not immediately apparent, it is reasonable for it to make several visits to identify and resolve. Where a process of elimination is required, we would expect to see an action plan developed by the landlord. This should be overseen and closely monitored to ensure the source is identified at the earliest opportunity, and a prompt remedy is then implemented. As mentioned above, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it had taken appropriate and timely action to find the cause of the leak and to then complete a permanent repair.
The evidence shows there were numerous instances when contractors and surveyors were unable to gain access to the property. There is also evidence the resident had not been at his property for pre-arranged appointments and that the landlord was often unable to make contact with him. Under the resident’s tenancy agreement, one of his responsibilities as a tenant is to provide the landlord and its contractors with reasonable access to the property, to enable it to meet its repairs obligations.
The Ombudsman accepts there can be many reasons why it may not be convenient for the resident to allow work to go ahead. However, delays to repairs being resolved because of issues with gaining access to the property cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. Unless the landlord could gain reasonable access to the property, it would have been unable to carry out required works in a timely manner. It is evident the landlord’s difficulties in gaining access to the property contributed to the delays in carrying out inspections and completing repairs.
It is noted that the landlord reminded the resident that failure to grant access was a breach of tenancy, both in writing and via a telephone call. It is generally responsible and appropriate for a landlord to remind residents of their obligations under the tenancy agreement. However, in this case the landlord could have done more before taking such action. Given the resident’s vulnerability, it would have been appropriate for it to have made some enquiries about any support it could provide. It could have also engaged in further discussion about why there were access difficulties. These measures should reasonably have been taken prior to reminding the resident of his tenancy obligations
The records show that because of his vulnerabilities, the resident had difficulty sending and receiving emails. For this reason, it is assumed most of the contact between the landlord and resident took place over the phone. The landlord has not provided a log of the telephone calls. It has therefore been unable to evidence that it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with updates, or to keep him regularly informed about forthcoming repairs. It is evident the landlord often had difficulties getting through to the resident, which would have made communication difficult at times.
The Equality Act 2010 provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision or practice that puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled.
The difficulty in gaining access to the property impacted on the landlord’s ability to complete repairs. Given the known vulnerability of the resident, it would have been appropriate to have considered a more effective approach after repeated failed or cancelled repairs visits. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to minimise the disadvantages suffered because of a resident’s protected characteristics.
The landlord could reasonably have done more to consider the resident’s unique circumstances. It could have asked him if there were any reasonable adjustments it could make or support it could provide to facilitate better access to the property. It could have also considered agreeing a formal contact plan, with details on the best ways of contacting him, and convenient times. Furthermore, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered facilitating an advocate or assigning a single point of contact to liaise between the landlord and resident. These measures may not have achieved a different outcome. However, it would have demonstrated that the landlord was making reasonable efforts to resolve the communication difficulties contributing to the delays. It is noted that the landlord was responsive in arranging face to face meetings at the resident’s request, which was appropriate.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress it had offered to put things right resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged its failings that contributed to delays in carrying out repairs, and its poor communication. It also stated how it would learn from the complaint and that it would provide staff with additional customer service training. In its stage 2 response, it re-stated the offer of £800 it had made at stage 1. It also offered an additional £500, which it had previously offered him in 2018 for a different issue but that he had not accepted at the time. Following further correspondence after the conclusion of the complaints process, the landlord agreed to a higher offer of £12,090.19. This included a rent rebate for loss of amenity and reimbursement for damage to personal property. This Service acknowledges that the compensation offer was substantial and fairly recognised the impact that the delays in undertaking the repair work had on the resident.
The financial remedy provides, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, an appropriate level of redress in accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance. However, the length of time taken to address the issues and offer appropriate compensation was unreasonable and was not in line with our dispute resolution principles. For this reason, as the landlord’s increased final offer of compensation was made after the conclusion of the complaints process, and after the resident approached us, it cannot be considered reasonable redress. Although we will not order any additional redress, for the reasons stated above the Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration.

Temporary decant

The landlord’s decant policy states that it will only move tenants to temporary accommodation in exceptional circumstances. These are where the property is uninhabitable and it is not possible to undertake the works with the tenant in-situ. Temporary decants are where a resident is moved out to enable work to be carried out at the earliest opportunity. Where an unplanned event occurs, such as a major leak, resulting in an immediate move, temporary accommodation will be arranged until the situation can be fully assessed.
If the situation occurs out of office hours and the resident cannot stay with family or friends, the landlord will arrange 1 night’s hotel accommodation until a full assessment can be made the following working day (or up to 3 nights if it occurs during a Friday evening).
The same policy states that the option of hotel accommodation can be considered for unplanned emergency decants but that the stay would be for up to a maximum of 3 weeks. When the resident is to be decanted for longer than 4 weeks, the landlord will use one of its own void properties for the temporary accommodation, wherever possible.
The evidence shows the resident reported that his property had been flooded due to a leak on 4 November 2022. The landlord arranged an unplanned emergency decant and found him temporary hotel accommodation on the same day. Although there is nothing to show that the landlord gave him any detailed information about the decant at first, this would not have been unusual in an emergency situation. That the landlord moved the resident quickly so it could assess and complete a repair was appropriate.
The landlord has not provided any contemporaneous telephone records. It is evident in communication from a local councillor that it had initially informed the resident that he would be able to return to his property within 4 weeks. The records show that, due to delays in completing the repair works, the landlord had to extend the decant a number of times. However, it has not demonstrated that it kept the resident adequately updated during the period of the decant or explained the reasons for the delays. This would have caused him uncertainty over when he would be able to return to his home.
The evidence shows that the decant lasted from 4 November 2022 to 9 March 2023. This means he had been moved into hotel accommodation for around 18 weeks. The records show that the reasons the resident had to move to different hotels during the decant period was beyond the landlord’s control. However, that the landlord left the resident in hotel accommodation for an excessive amount of time was a significant departure from its decant policy. Once it was clear the decant would last longer than 3 weeks, there is no indication the landlord explored whether there was any temporary accommodation it could provide. Having to stay in hotel accommodation for such an extended period of time would have caused the resident considerable disruption and distress. It is evident from communication from his councillor that he was struggling to carry out daily activities such as preparing meals or washing his clothes. The landlord’s failure to make reasonable efforts to follow its own policy and the impact this would have had on the resident amounts to maladministration.
There is evidence that during the 20 month period from when he reported the leak to when the landlord completed the permanent repair, the resident was decanted on 2 other occasions. This was on 25 September and 12 October 2023. In both instances he was moved into hotel accommodation but this time for periods of only 4 and 5 days respectively. This was reasonable.
However, it is evident from internal correspondence that communication between the landlord and resident about those decants had been difficult and challenging at times. It is also noted that the landlord had significant difficulties contacting the resident. This would have contributed to confusion around the decants, which it is noted in the records resulted in the resident having to spend 1 night in a tent. Although it is acknowledged this was an unfortunate situation, the records show it was not wholly within the landlord’s control. However, as mentioned previously, having had the services of an advocate or single point of contact could have helped facilitate better communication. That the landlord did not explore this was a failing.
It is noted that the landlord cancelled one of the decants early because the resident would not allow it access to inspect his property. The landlord is entitled to inspect its properties to assess the extent of the damage, and whether a decant is necessary. For this reason the landlord’s actions in cancelling the decant on this occasion were reasonable.
However, internal correspondence states that it had arrived at this decision “in line with the decant policy”. The policy does not mention that the landlord will only agree a decant once it has inspected a property. Furthermore, there is internal correspondence that shows there was confusion over whether the landlord had an active decant policy in force at the time. This suggests there was confusion among staff over the policy and this would have contributed to the difficulties the resident faced over the decant arrangements. The Ombudsman will make an order that the landlord reviews its decant policy. It should consider implementing more specific guidelines concerning the factors which will affect the landlord’s decision whether or not to decant a resident. It should also consider providing additional training on its decant procedures to all relevant staff.

Complaint

At the time of the resident’s complaints the landlord was operating what it referred to as its “interim” complaints policy. This was a 2-stage process and was operational following a cyber incident. The procedure states that both stage 1 and 2 complaints must be acknowledged and logged within 10 working days of receipt. It aimed to respond to new complaints received since 17 June 2022 within 20 working days of the complaint being logged. It refers to the stage 2 as a “peer review”, which it will aim to conclude within 40 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that responses to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 30 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
On 6 June 2023, the resident approached the Ombudsman as he stated he had not received a response from a complaint he had made. Neither the landlord or resident has provided the service with a copy of the original complaint. However, it is understood this may have been raised via the telephone. As the landlord has not provided contemporaneous telephone records, it is unclear when the resident raised the complaint or what was discussed. Once the Service contacted the landlord to ask it to respond to Complaint A, the landlord acted appropriately by issuing a response within the timescale we had given.
Although the resident has stated that he asked the landlord to escalate Complaint A, there is no evidence to show this was the case. Again, it is understood this may have been done via the telephone. However, the lack of telephone records means we are unable to determine whether the complaint was escalated and when.
The records show the resident made a further complaint about the same issues on 25 September 2023, and the landlord recorded this as a new stage 1 complaint (Complaint B). The landlord had already issued a stage 1 response regarding its handling of the ongoing leak and decant 2 months earlier. It is unclear why it did not offer to escalate the complaint at that point. This only served to make the process longer than it needed to be, which would have caused unnecessary inconvenience. That the landlord did not consider escalating the complaint to its peer review stage in September 2023 was a failing.
The landlord did not issue a stage 1 response to Complaint B until 72 working days after the resident raised it. It provided no explanation until nearly 3 months later as to why it was delayed. In addition, it did not attempt to agree new timescales with the resident until it wrote to him on 19 December 2023 to say it was working to issue a response by 5 January 2024. This demonstrates excessively protracted complaint handling and a departure from both its own complaints policy and the Code, which amounts to maladministration. It is noted that the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 2 complaint within 21 working days, which was in line with its interim complaints policy.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre- and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates”. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results 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 that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs and complaints to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Effective record keeping means landlords are also able to carry out effective investigations when things go wrong.
Apart from a report produced by a contractor on 17 January 2024, the landlord has not provided copies of any other reports from its inspections. Furthermore, its repair log is unclear as to when it completed repairs and it was only from internal correspondence that this investigation was able to estimate when repairs were carried out. The landlord has not provide contemporaneous records of telephone calls between the landlord and resident and written correspondence was very limited.
The landlord’s poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify the cause of the leak and complete the required outstanding repairs within a reasonable amount of time. It would have also contributed to the landlord’s poor communication, poor complaint handling and lack of updates to the resident. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023, we published our spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of an ongoing leak from a roof terrace.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s temporary decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide an apology to the resident from a senior member of staff for its failings, in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance for making apologies.
2. If it has not done so already, pay the resident the compensation amount of £12,090.19 that it offered in its letter dated 23 May 2024, following conclusion of the complaints process. This includes the £100 it had offered in its stage 2 response to Complaint B, for its poor complaint handling.
3. If it has not done so already, pay the resident the amount of £200 it offered in its stage 1 response for Complaint A, which includes the £50 it offered for its poor handling of that complaint.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination, the landlord to review its decant policy. It should consider what safeguards it could put in place to ensure residents are not kept in hotel accommodation for excessive periods of time. It should also consider implementing more specific guidelines concerning the factors that will affect the landlord’s decision whether or not to decant a resident. The landlord to contact the Service with the outcome of its review within the timeframe stated above.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider additional training to complaint handling staff with emphasis on correctly following its most up to date complaints policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should also consider providing additional training on its decant procedures to all relevant staff.