Clarion Housing Association Limited (202233437)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233437

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 February 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
2. The landlord’s communication and record keeping.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about various disrepair issues in the property.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured lifetime tenancy which began on 9 September 1996. The property is a 1st floor 3 bedroom flat. The landlord is a housing association. The landlord’s records note that there is a vulnerable person within the household.

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the resident’s complaint to the landlord includes her concerns about a collapsed kitchen ceiling in 2017. According to the information seen, the landlord attended and carried out repairs to the ceiling at the time. The resident revisited the matter in her complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2022 and the landlord addressed her concerns. However, there is no evidence that the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord, about the condition of the kitchen ceiling within 18 months of the date of the complaint. For this reason, this investigation will not include the historical events regarding the kitchen ceiling. Any reference to the incident in this report will be for context only.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s reference to the adverse effect that the landlord’s handling of this matter has had on her daughter’s health. Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. Consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident.

Landlord obligations

Under the Equality Act 2010, a service provider has a duty to take positive and proactive steps to ensure that disabled people can access their services. Section 20(6) of the Equality Act specifically states that where the adjustment concerns the provision of information, reasonable steps would include action to ensure that the information is provided in an accessible format.
The Homes Act 2018 (Fitness for Human Habitation) requires that all landlords should ensure that their properties, including any common parts of the building, are fit for human habitation at the beginning of the tenancy and throughout. The Act states that there is an implied agreement between the tenant and landlord at the beginning of the tenancy that the property will be fit for human habitation.
The landlord’s repairs policy (effective July 2020 – December 2022) states that it aims to ensure that repairs to properties are carried out in a timely manner. It aims to complete:
1. Emergency repairs (a repair that presents an immediate danger to the resident or jeopardise the health, safety or security of the resident) within 24 hours to carry out works to make safe or temporary repairs.
2. Non- emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported.
The repairs policy defines legal disrepair as a civil claim for compensation arising from an allegation that repairs have not been carried out at a residential property. It further states that disrepair notices received would be dealt with in accordance with its legal policy.
The landlord implemented an interim complaints policy effective from 17 June 2022. Under the policy it operated a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to stage 1 complaints received from within 20 working days and stage 2 complaints within 40 working days of the complaint being logged. For complaints logged before the 17 June 2022, it will contact the customer and try to progress these through to resolution. If it is unable to progress all or some aspects of the complaint it will manage their expectations.
Where it is advised that legal proceedings have been issued (this is defined as details of the claim, such as the claim form and particulars of claim, having been filed at court) it will close the complaint explaining the reason
The landlord’s compensation allows for financial payments of recompense for loss of service or where a resident has experienced unnecessary inconvenience. It may offer discretionary payments of up to £700 or more in recognition of failure that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant. It may not offer compensation payments in cases where compensation claims would be dealt with as part of the legal process. It will offer 50% of the resident’s weekly rent for loss of room use such as a collapsed floor or ceiling.

Summary of events

The resident wrote a letter to the landlord dated 6 May 2022. She said:
1. There were water marks causing damage to the kitchen and landing ceiling, that needed to be investigated.
2. The ceiling had water damage from a previous leak which led to its collapse a few years back.
The resident wrote a letter of complaint to the landlord on 13 May 2022. She said:
1. Her kitchen ceiling collapsed on 8 May 2022 due to its failure to complete adequate repairs to resolve the leak from the above flat.
2. She contacted the landlord 9 May 2022, an electrician attended but the ceiling was not made safe. She asked for someone to attend to clear out the debris and rubble but no one attended and the damaged ceiling looked unstable.
3. She was unable to use the kitchen to prepare food as it was unhygienic and unsafe. For this reason, she had been relying on take away meals and she would be asking the landlord to reimburse any expenses incurred for the period the kitchen was not in use.
4. The debris from the ceiling destroyed many of her personal goods in the kitchen which she would be asking the landlord to reimburse.
5. She had had to place kitchen belongings into bags and boxes, which were scattered around rooms in the home. This was not ideal for her daughter who has chronic lung disease, cerebral palsy and learning disabilities. The condition of the home made it hazardous for her move around freely within the property.
6. Due to a previous damage to the ceiling in 2017, her cooker did not work properly as a result of water damage. In addition, the incorrect lighting installed in the kitchen was supposed to be a temporary fix but had not been replaced.
7. The landlord should refurbish the kitchen and flooring and complete the repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
8. Reimburse additional expenses spent on amenities and damaged kitchen equipment as a result of the incident.
The local authority’s environmental health team contacted the landlord on 13 May 2022. It said it had received a complaint from the resident that the landlord had not carried out any repairs to the ceiling since it collapsed on 8 May 2022. It said it was concerned about the welfare of the resident’s vulnerable daughter and asked the landlord to attend the same day.
In its internal email dated 14 May 2022, the landlord said it had spoken with the resident and the ceiling had been made safe. It said it needed to trace the source of the leak that had caused the ceiling to collapse.
The local authority contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 and said it would require a report a surveyor report to confirm the structural integrity of the ceiling and what steps were being taken to ensure the ceiling did not collapse again. It also informed the landlord that the resident had raised concerns of excess cold and damp within the property. It said it had arranged a visit to the property scheduled for 18 May 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 May 2022 and said that it had been unable to reach her earlier to discuss her complaint.
On 19 May 2022, the local authority provided a report from its inspection of the property. It said there was evidence of a leak in the hallway that had stopped and evidence of temporary repairs completed to the kitchen ceiling. It noted other works within the property for the landlord’s attention.
The resident informed the landlord on 24 May 2022 that she had been sent an appointment with no description of the repair. She also advised the landlord to ensure that it followed its procedures and send written notice of any appointments before attending the property.
The landlord also informed the resident the same day that it had received a breakdown of works required from its surveyor but appointments had not yet been scheduled for them. It said these included works to renew the damaged section of the ceiling, works in the living room, supply and fit vent to the chimney breast, fill in cracks in bedrooms and various other repairs. It noted that there was no damp found. It said the appointment for 26 May 2022 was originally for 24 May 2022 but it had been rescheduled due to staff availability. It said they were unable to reach her by phone and there was no facility to leave a voicemail. It said this was to further investigate the source of the leak following which the ceiling would be reboarded and plastered.
The resident complained to the landlord on 27 May 2022 that the landlord sent people to the property, without written notice and appointments. She said her doorbell rang a few times on the 27 May 2022, and her phone rang simultaneously as the doorbell was ringing. She said the unannounced visits were interfering with the various morning routines in place for daughter who has special needs.
On 31 May 2022, the landlord said in its internal email that it had scheduled works including repairs to the kitchen for completion by 28 June 2022 due to a notice from the environmental health team. The local authority wrote to the landlord that the resident had made contact regarding other repairs. It asked the landlord to contact the resident directly to address them.
The landlord responded to the local authority on 1 June 2022 and advised that it made contact with the resident regarding her concerns. It said following their email works had been booked in for 24 June 2022. The landlord’s internal emails also noted that the appointment for 24 June 2022 was to renew the damaged section of the kitchen ceiling and other works not in the complaint. It noted that the resident was aware.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 June 2022 and said:
1. The water mark above the staircase had got bigger and she nearly fell the previous night due to a constant drip. She reminded the landlord that this was a safety concern for her vulnerable daughter.
2. The landlord was aware of the issue and had not resolved the problem in the above flat. A plumber attended due to an emergency call out and advised that water was leaking from the above resident’s bathroom.
3. She had previously informed the landlord that she preferred to be contacted in writing.
4. To respond to her ongoing second complaint in writing.
On 7 June 2022 the landlord said in its internal email that it would attend the property above to fix the leak that week. It also said the resident’s ceiling would be repaired on 28 June 2022.
The local authority wrote to the landlord on 17 June 2022 and asked it to contact the resident to provide an update on the repair to the ceiling.
The landlord’s internal email dated 30 June 2022 indicated that it received a letter of claim from the resident’s solicitor. The letter noted various disrepair issues including repairs to the rear door, water closet (WC), staircase and kitchen ceiling.
On 1 July 2022, the landlord instructed its legal team regarding the letter of claim received.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 12 July 2022 regarding the collapsed kitchen. It apologised for the delay in providing the response and said:
1. The delay was due a cyber security incident which had caused disruption to its information technology systems.
2. It would not be addressing other repairs identified from the joint inspection with the local authority, as it did not form part of the complaint, but it would confirm the dates for the repairs scheduled.
3. Its surveyor visited on 8 May 2022 and confirmed that the ceiling had been boarded over and suitable for use. It said the damage to the ceiling in May 2022 was not related to the damage experienced in 2017.
4. Works had been agreed to renew the damaged section of the ceiling and for some additional works to other areas of the property.
5. Its planned investment team had confirmed that the property would be considered for kitchen and flooring replacement around 2025-2026 following pending budgets.
6. Regarding the cost of meals, its surveyor confirmed the ceiling was boarded up and safe for use so it would not be issuing any compensation for this.
7. It upheld the complaint as the works agreed had not been scheduled within its published service level agreement. It said works had been scheduled for 15 June 2022 and 24 June 2022 (to repair the roof).
8. It offered £150 in recognition of the service failure and £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint.
The landlord said in its internal email on 15 July 2022 that the resident’s case was being dealt with by its disrepair team. It said it had completed the ceiling works and leak works but it had not been able to gain access to check the progress of other works. It also said a member of staff had contacted the resident and would arrange an appointment for 18 July 2022 to inspect the outstanding repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 July 2022 that someone attended the property and tried to gain access without an appointment. She asked the landlord to verify, in writing, who the person was and the purpose of the visit. The resident expressed concerns that her information may have been compromised as a result of the cyber security incident experienced by the landlord.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2022 and assured her that it was one of its operatives who attended. It said:
1. The visit was arranged to assess any outstanding works as it had been experiencing difficulties in arranging appointments directly with her.
2. It had not been able to access her contact details whilst its systems were down and it had only recently been able obtain this information from its surveyor and confirmed an appointment to attend on the day at 11am.
3. Some of the repairs were raised before its system went down and this had made it difficult for its repairs team to keep track of the existing work orders.
4. A further appointment would be arranged for the outstanding works.
5. It was advised that the leaks from the above property had been resolved and the ceiling had been repaired.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 July 2022 and stated that no repairs had been carried out in the last three weeks.
The local authority chased the landlord for an update on the repairs on 4 July and 26 July 2022. On 26 July 2022, the landlord responded that its disrepair team would be dealing with the matter along with the notice from the resident’s legal representatives with a means to progress the works. It asked the local authority to close the informal notice as it had become a legal matter.
The resident informed the landlord on 15 August 2022 that she would be available on 25th and 26th August 2022 to allow access for the works. She said some of the works would cause damage to the decoration she had recently done in the property. She asked the landlord to confirm in writing that any damage caused would be restored to its original.
The housing disrepair inspection report noted that the property was inspected on 5 September 2022. It noted that:
1. The kitchen works were in progress, the ceiling had been made safe and patch plastered and was being boarded over.
2. It had renewed all the work surface and back panels and it would be returning to renew damaged wall tiles.
3. There were minor stains to decoration, the window was slightly hard to open and recommended works.
4. It also recommended works to repair some cracking around the window bay in a bedroom.
5. Rooms were adequately ventilated, works were in progress to repair stains from an historic leak in the hallway ceiling.
6. Photographs from the inspection noted the ceiling had been boarded.
The landlord issued its second stage 1 response on 16 September 2022. It said:
1. This was in response to her complaint about the kitchen ceiling and her concerns about a leak from the above flat which had resulted in damages to various areas in the property.
2. It apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint.
3. Its repairs team had inspected the property on 19 July 2022 and agreed extensive repairs to the property kitchen, living room, toilet door, back door and bedrooms. This included plastering works to the ceiling and painting. The works were scheduled for 25 August 2022 and 26 August 2022.
4. All the works had not been completed on the dates so further visits took place on 8 September and 20 September 2022 to complete the remaining works.
5. It offered £100 for the delay in responding to the complaint, £250 discretionary payment and £50 for failing to meet the service level agreement.
The landlord received an updated letter of claim from the resident’s solicitor dated 26 September 2022.
The landlord’s legal team responded to the resident’s solicitor on 21 October 2022. It said upon inspection of the property the kitchen works were ongoing and being dealt with in a reasonable time frame.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord’s legal team provided a summary of issues. It recommended that the landlord should complete the works as set out in the schedule as soon as possible.
The landlord contacted the resident on 18 January 2023 and said its legal team had confirmed that it could still investigate her complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process. It asked her to state what her desired outcomes were from the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 23 January 2023 that it had tried to contact her further to her email received on 9 November 2022, that she was dissatisfied with the response to her complaint. It said the complaint would be closed by 27 January 2023 if it did not hear back from her.
The resident wrote to the landlord 26 January 2023. She said:
1. She had sent numerous detailed emails of what the landlord needed to do to put things right.
2. The landlord had deliberately exhausted the legal assistance she was receiving by failing to progress the case.
3. It recently claimed it intended to finish works and offer a settlement.
4. It failed to make good on its promised to commence complex works at the property on 16 January 2023 as no one turned up.
5. The landlord should carry out repairs to fill cracks to the bedroom ceiling, the faulty window in the kitchen, complete works to the window sash and worktop and various other repairs.
6. She was unable to use her kitchen fully from 8 May 2022, until mid-October 2022 due to the delays in completing the works. The paint works carried out on 28 September 2022, interfered with the original décor and she had to deep clean and redecorate the whole kitchen, and replace the blinds.
7. The landlord did not return to clean up the debris from the fallen ceiling.
8. The landlord should compensate her for the damage to her flooring, items damaged in the kitchen and expenses incurred on costly take-away meals.
9. It should investigate condensation and mould, insulation within the property, sound proofing, uneven garden paving, brown water marks in the property, the faulty back door and other various repairs.
The resident wrote to the landlord (stage 2 complaint) on 30 January 2023. She said:
1. The landlord considered the kitchen was safe for use after temporary repairs were completed to the ceiling, but there was debris and other chemicals all over the kitchen floor and surfaces. This had side effects of skin and respiratory irritation, dermatitis and burns and destroyed her kitchenware making the kitchen unsafe to use.
2. Her kitchen flooring had scratches and mud embedded in it and was chipping away because of water damage.
3. The first attempt at a plaster job was carried out on 28 June 2022, six weeks after the ceiling collapsed. The contractors mixed the plaster in her kitchen without the correct safety measures and did not protect the stairway that they used or any other space in her home. This caused further permanent and irreversible damage to her kitchen blinds which she had to replace.
4. The contractors attended in September 2022 to carry out additional works but they ruined her internal decorations in the process.
5. There were outstanding repairs that it had failed to resolve such as the issues with damp and cracks within the property.
The landlord said in its internal email dated 2 February 2023 that it needed to send a full response to the complaint as it was not litigated.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord discussed visits made to the property. It noted that it was unable to gain access on numerous occasions between 28 July 2022 and 2 January 2023. It said a new appointment had been booked for 24 February 2023.
On 24 February 2023, the resident complained that workmen were being sent to the property without an appointment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 1 March 2023 and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. It said the delay was due to the active disrepair claim as its complaints policy does not cover legal claims and should not be investigating any matters which the disrepair claim related to. It said it was working with the disrepair surveyor to determine which points it could address under the complaints procedure.
The resident informed the landlord on 1 March 2023 that her solicitor was no longer dealing with her disrepair claim due to the lengthy time and unsatisfactory action by the landlord. She said she had enough evidence to seek assistance from this Service with her ongoing disrepair issues and compensation for the inconvenience caused due to the kitchen ceiling collapsing twice.
The landlord said in its internal email on 7 March 2023 that it was unable to gain access to the property on 24 February 2023. It noted that the resident said she was not aware of the appointment and should have been notified in writing.
The landlord issued its final response on 15 March 2023. It said:
1. Whilst it was investigating her complaint received in May 2022, it incorrectly registered a new complaint received from her in July 2022 about the same issues. Both complaints were incorrectly dealt with as separately and both were closed with future appointments agreed for works and 2 different amounts of compensation were awarded.
2. During this time its systems were affected by the cyber incident which impacted its complaints handling. This was still a mistake and would have caused a level of confusion and misdirection. It now had processes in place to ensure that there were no duplication of complaints as it had regained full access to its systems.
3. She issued a disrepair claim regarding the same matters but legal action, insurance claims and disrepair claims were not covered within its complaints policy and should have been made clear upon receipt and acceptance of her disrepair claim that the complaint investigation would be closed.
4. The outstanding concerns listed in her complaint remained part of the active disrepair claim being investigated. Her solicitor was her point of contact in regards to any enquiries or concerns regarding the repairs, any appointments and any additional compensation in relation to the works.
5. The team had advised that they were currently trying to arrange a convenient appointment with her to progress the works. Once the works were completed, they would contact her to confirm she was satisfied with the works. It would then review any repairs related compensation under special damages as part of the disrepair claim.
6. However, it was able to review compensation in terms of its complaints handling and apologised for the failure of service. It awarded a sum of £750.00 in compensation including the previous offers.
7. This was broken down as the £600 previously offered, an additional £100 for complaint handling failures and £50 for delay in responding to the stage 2.

Summary of actions taken after the complaints process had been completed.

The resident wrote to this Service on 23 March 2023 and said:
1. The condition of the kitchen ceiling and how the landlord had handled her concerns had affected her and her daughter’s health.
2. The landlord sent strangers to her home without warning.
3. She wanted compensation for items lost, inconvenience caused and reimbursement for additional expenses incurred on take away meals.
4. The landlord should address the outstanding repairs including the back door, insulation, sound proofing and windows.
5. The landlord had replaced and painted the kitchen ceiling, carried out repairs to damaged kitchen cupboards and drawers and some completed some additional works to the stairway ceiling.
The landlord noted on 29 March 2023 that there was an active legal disrepair case. It said it was unable to gain access on the day as arranged through the solicitors.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2023 and expressed her dissatisfaction with its response. She said remained unhappy with the repairs to the kitchen ceiling. The compensation offered did not cover expenses incurred and damage to goods.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 March 2023 and advised that it had concluded its investigation of her complaint. It advised her to contact this Service but this had to be 8 weeks after the date of its final response.
On 14 April 2023, the landlord’s solicitors asked if they could close the case.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 30 May 2023 about its handling of the repairs. She complained that it continued to send operatives to the property without prior notice of the appointments. She said the landlord was not listening as she had previously expressed her preference for appointments to be confirmed by email or in writing.
The landlord responded on 6 June 2023 that all contact had to be through her legal representatives as she had a disrepair case open. The resident responded that she had not had legal representative since January 2023. The open disrepair had been closed and she received the final closure letter dated 15 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
1. be fair
2. put things right
3. learn from outcomes.
This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen ceiling.

We have seen from the evidence that the landlord did not attend the resident’s property to make the ceiling safe within 24 hours of her reporting that it had collapsed. It took a complaint from the resident on 13 May 2022 and intervention from the local authority before the landlord attended to carry out emergency repairs to the ceiling on 14 May 2022. This is not appropriate nor is it in line with its repairs policy. The delay of about 6 days would have caused some inconvenience to the resident and a safety concern for her vulnerable daughter. According to the landlord’s compensation, 50% of her weekly rent (50% of £170.39 = £85.20) should have been offered to the resident for the loss of use of room. It did not offer this to the resident so an order will be made for this payment to be made to her.
The resident said in her complaint on 13 May 2022, that she was unable to use the kitchen and asked the landlord to reimburse the additional expenses she had incurred on take-away meals. In its response to the resident on 12 July 2022, it said it had visited and confirmed the ceiling was boarded over and safe to use on 8 May 2022. This contradicts the information held on its repair records and its internal communications, which noted that the ceiling was made safe on 14 May 2022. Moreover, the local authority contacted it on 13 May 2022 and instructed that it made the ceiling safe that day. This is unreasonable as it refused to consider the resident’s request to be reimbursed based on this. This would have caused the resident some confusion and frustration.
The evidence shows there were further delays in completing the repairs to the ceiling after temporary works were carried out in May 2022. Whilst the reason for the delay is unclear from the evidence, this Service notes that communication was one of the factors that would have contributed to the delays. In an email dated 24 May 2022, the resident said she had been offered an appointment with no details of the works. She asked the landlord to be clear in its communication in future and send written notices ahead of appointments.
However, we have seen that the resident reported that operatives turned up on 27 May 2022, but she refused access as she was not aware of the plans for works. The landlord noted in its internal email on 7 June 2022 that it would be attending on 28 June 2022 to repair the resident’s ceiling but there is no evidence of this being communicated to her in writing. This led to a further chase from the local authority on 17 June 2022, asking the landlord to update the resident on the works. These delays and the landlord’s poor communication would have caused the resident frustration and distress. The Ombudsman has seen from the evidence that it learned from this and agreed the appointments scheduled for 25 August 2022 and 26 August 2022.
The landlord’s internal communication on 15 July 2022 indicated that further works had been completed to the kitchen ceiling. This was confirmed in the housing disrepair inspection report on 5 September 2022 and the landlord’s second stage 1 response on 16 September 2022 that additional works had been carried out to the kitchen ceiling in August and September 2022. However, the exact dates the works were completed are not known but the evidence indicates there was a delay of approximately 4 months. The resident also advised this Service on 23 March 2023 that the landlord had replaced and painted the kitchen ceiling.
Overall, the landlord acknowledged in its response to the resident that it did not adhere to the timeframe published in its policy for handling repairs. It explained that the incident that occurred in 2017 was not linked to the collapse of the ceiling in May 2022. It apologised for the inconvenience caused as a result of the delay and offered the resident a total of £400 in recognition of the service failing. Whilst the offer is in line with its compensation policy, the landlord failed to acknowledge the initial delay that occurred when the ceiling collapsed. It took over 5 days to carry out emergency repairs which fell far outside of the 24 hours noted in its repairs policy. It did not recognise this as a failing or consider the resident’s request for compensation for the period she was unable to use the kitchen. In light of this, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen ceiling.

The landlord’s communication and record keeping.

As noted earlier there were some issues in how the landlord communicated regarding appointments for works in the property. On 24 May 2022 she asked the landlord to pass her email to its contractor so that they could email her to give notice of any appointments. The landlord responded that it was not usual process for its repairs team to confirm appointments in writing. In another email dated 27 May 2022 she advised the landlord that she has a vulnerable adult in the property and operatives turning up without warning interfered with her morning routine. The landlord appeared to have learned from this as it agreed appointments with the resident in August 2022 prior to attending.
However, the Ombudsman notes that the resident complained on 24 February 2023, that it continued to send operatives to the property without confirming an appointment. Having reviewed the landlord’s repair records for the property, there is no evidence that it recorded the resident’s preferred method of contact or noted any special arrangements for booking appointments. It failed to take the resident’s daughter’s vulnerability into account and consider if reasonable adjustments needed to be put in place in line with its provision of the Equality Act 2021. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident distress and frustration.
It is a fundamental part of providing a good repairs service to keep accurate records of repairs. This should include dates of repairs were requested, accurate detail of the works required, dates for appointments and works completed. In our assessment of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report about the ceiling, this Service was unable to ascertain the reason for the delay between May 2022 and September or October 2022 when the repairs were completed. We were also unable to establish the exact dates that works were completed from the repair records. The evidence suggests that its poor record keeping also caused a hindrance to the landlord’s investigation as it said in its internal email on 2 February 2023, that it had no notes or feedback from an appointment booked for 26 August 2022 and 16 September 2022. These are factors that would have significantly caused confusion, a lack of trust and further distress to the resident.
Further to this, there is evidence of poor communication with the resident throughout the life of the case. For example, the resident informed the landlord on 26 January 2023 that the legal assistance she was receiving had been exhausted. The landlord responded on 1 March 2023, that it was still looking into her active disrepair claim but the resident advised the same day that her solicitor was no longer dealing with her claim. The landlord should have contacted her to find out how she intended to proceed with the claim. This is unreasonable as it continued to advise her that she had an active disrepair claim under investigation until it closed the complaint on 15 March 2023. This would have caused the resident further frustration, uncertainty and distress. In light of this, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s communication and record keeping.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about various repair issues in the property.

The Ombudsman’s position with regards to complaints that are also the subject of a housing disrepair claim is clear, in that they should be handled in line with the landlord’s complaints policy unless legal proceedings have been issued. This is further reinforced by the pre-action protocol itself, which encourages the use of alternative dispute resolution procedures, and states that litigation should be viewed as a last resort.
When assessing cases involving potential legal claims, we will often consider how the landlord handled both the substantive repairs complained of and the associated formal complaint. Even when a landlord receives correspondence initiating the protocol, it is important that they do not disengage from either the internal complaints process or the repair issue itself. Commencing the protocol does not constitute legal proceedings and alternative disrepair resolution can be pursued at any stage of the protocol. The Ombudsman’s view is that a matter does not become ‘legal’ until proceedings have been ‘issued’. The issuing of proceedings involves filing details of the claim, such as the claim form and particulars of claim, at court. The court will then serve this on the respondent for them to answer to.
This aligns with the landlord’s complaints policy in that it would close a complaint once legal proceedings have commenced. The Ombudsman notes from the evidence that the landlord received a letter of claim from the resident’s solicitors dated 28 June 2022 regarding various issues within the property including the repairs to the kitchen ceiling. It advised the resident on 18 January 2023, that its legal team had confirmed that it could investigate the stage 2 complaint. It also said in its internal communication dated 2 February 2023 that a full response would be sent to the complaint. It is therefore unreasonable that the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it was unable to address any of the issues raised in the stage 2 complaint as they remained part of its active disrepair claim. The resident waited several weeks for the response and she would have been disappointed to hear that it was unable to address the concerns raised. This was not appropriate and failure of the complaint handling.
This has also severely hampered the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the substantive issues that the resident raised in her complaint. This has been further compounded by the lack of evidence of its investigation that sought to understand what had gone wrong, and what might be learned from it. The landlord concluded its response by offering no clear redress, beyond its advice that she should liaise with the disrepair team for further progress on the repairs and her request for compensation. The resident informed this Service on 6 February 2024 that the landlord has not made any attempt to carry out what was proposed in its stage two response. During our investigation we asked the landlord if it had been able to come to a resolution with the resident since it issued the stage two response and reviewed the resident’s request for compensation as it committed to do. It responded on 9 February 2024 that it had not been able to gain access and failed to provide any further explanation. This is not appropriate and would have caused the resident further distress and frustration and a lack of trust in the landlord.
Furthermore, from reviewing the evidence, there was a delay of approximately:
1. 8 weeks in responding (12 July 2022) to the stage 1 complaint received on 13 May 2022.
2. 12 weeks to respond (response sent on 16 September 2022) to the resident’s correspondence received in June 2022 but logged as a complaint.
3. 5 weeks to respond (15 March 2022) to the stage 2 complaint received on 30 January 2023.
The landlord acknowledged its failings in running 2 stage 1 complaints concurrently, regarding the same matters and it apologised to the resident for any confusion this may have caused. It also apologised for the delay in responding to both of the stage 1 complaints and offered a total of £250 for the failures identified in its overall handling of the complaints. It assured her that measures had since been put in place to prevent duplication of complaint handling. Whilst the Ombudsman welcomes the steps taken by the landlord and its offer of redress, this did not go far enough to address the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident. Whilst it acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaint, it provided conflicting and misleading advice to the resident but it later decided not to respond to the issues raised in her stage 2 complaint. In view of above, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about various repair issues in the property.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s communication and record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there is evidence of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint about various repair issues in the property.

Reasons

The landlord failed to carry out emergency repairs to the kitchen ceiling within 24 hours in adherence with its repairs policy. It also took approximately 4 months to complete the repairs to the ceiling which also fell far outside the 28 days stated in its policy for responding to non-priority repairs. It recognised the failings in its overall handling of the repairs and offered financial redress to the resident. However, it did not acknowledge the initial delays in making the ceiling safe throughout the life of the case.
The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident or take note of vital information she consistently sent to it regarding its administration of the repairs in the property. An instance of this is her repeated request for confirmation of appointments in writing, to prepare her for visits as she has a vulnerable adult in the home. There is no evidence that the landlord cascaded this information to the relevant partners or staff which caused the resident some distress. Its actions do not show that it considered the resident’s needs in line with the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints were delayed and it duplicated the handling her stage 1 complaint. The landlord acknowledged the delay in responding to the complaints and offered compensation. However it failed to investigate any of the issues raised by the resident at stage 2 and stated that this was due to an active disrepair claim. This prevented this Service from investigating the substantive issues raised by her in the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £1285.20 broken down as:
  1. £200 for the inconvenience to the resident for failures identified in its handling of the repairs to the kitchen ceiling.
  2. £85.20 for the loss of use of the kitchen due to its failure to make the ceiling safe within 24 hours.
  3. £500 for the distress and frustration to the resident due to its handling of the communication and record keeping.
  4. £500 for the time and trouble to the resident for the failures identified in its complaint handling.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £750 previously offered if it has not been paid to the resident.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Reconsider the resident’s request to be reimbursed for any additional expenses incurred due to the collapsed kitchen as requested and respond to her in writing.
2. Revisit the resolution offered at the end of the stage 2 complaints process, including its review of compensation and respond to the resident in writing. It should agree an action plan with the resident to resolve any outstanding repairs identified. This should confirm the works required and the dates for completion.
3. If it has not already done so, the landlord should assess itself against this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information. It should consider carrying out a review of its communication in relation to repairs internally and with residents.
4. Share this report with the relevant staff and emphasise the importance of adhering to its internal policies:
  1. especially when dealing with vulnerable residents.
  2. Ensure that the relevant complaint handling team provide full responses to all points raised in complaints in adherence with this Service’s complaint handling code.
5. Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.

Recommendations

Review its complaints policy with a view to providing clarity on how it would approach complaints regarding disrepair claims and provide training to staff so they are clear on its use.
The landlord should review its compensation policy for loss of use of room to take account of the duration of the loss. It currently appears to use a standard calculation where it offers a percentage of the resident’s weekly rent without consideration for the length of time the resident has been inconvenienced.