ForHousing Limited (202209394)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209394

ForHousing Limited

24 April 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom following a leak.
2. The associated complaints.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house, which was built in 1921. The resident has an assured tenancy, which began on 11 June 2021.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair and for carrying out repairs to basins, sinks, baths, showers fitted by the landlord, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes.
The landlord’s records state that the resident’s daughter has a disability and uses a mobility scooter.

Summary of events

On 15 February 2022, the landlord raised an order to repair a leak from the pipes under the bath. The contractor attended on 23 February 2022 and concluded that the wall-mounted mixer above the bath was leaking into the wall and seeping through to the landing to form a damp patch. The contractor noted that the existing mixer system was not functioning well and recommended fitting a bath mixer with a shower attachment.
The landlord raised a follow-on order on 25 February 2022 to replace the existing mixer system with a bath mixer and shower attachment. The contractor attended on 24 March 2022 and fitted the new mixer taps. The contractor noted that follow-on works were required to tile around the bath as the existing tiling was uneven and the gap between the tiles and the bath was too wide to form a permanent seal.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 14 April 2022 to remove the tiles around the bath, replaster the wall, grout and seal around the bath. The job notes stated that the plasterer had removed the tiles up to the old mixer system but had noted that the plaster on the whole wall had perished due to the previous leak. The plasterer recommended that the mixer system should be removed by a plumber before the remaining tiles could be removed and then replaced. The plasterer noted that at the time of his visit, the resident still did not have use of the shower but was able to use the bath. The plasterer noted that the bare walls above the bath had been covered with refuse sacks in order to prevent them getting wet while the resident’s children were bathing.
The landlord’s records stated that its contractor attended a job at the property on 6 May 2022 and removed the wall tiles and duct casing in the bathroom to enable a plumber to carry out a detailed inspection of the pipework.
The contractor attended the property on 9 May 2022 to carry out further plastering in the bathroom. The operative noted that more tiles and plaster had fallen off the wall and therefore further plastering and tiling were needed in the bathroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2022 to report problems with her bathroom. The landlord therefore logged a stage one complaint and noted the following in its records:
1. The resident stated that the contractor’s plumbers had attended on various occasions because of problems with the mixer system in the bathroom.
2. Many of the tiles had fallen off the wall during previous repairs and the plaster under the remaining tiles had ‘blown’.
3. The resident stated that the previous tenant had installed the bathroom in the 1980s and therefore in the resident’s view it was no longer fit for purpose.
4. The resident stated that her daughter was disabled and suffered from skin allergies. Therefore, the resident was unable to use the shower as some of the tiles were missing from the wall and material was falling from the walls into the bath. The resident stated that this situation had existed for a month.
5. The landlord had spoken with the resident on 13 May 2022 and noted that she was happy to wait for an answer on when a site supervisor could attend to carry out an inspection.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 May 2022 and advised her that the work to the toilet had been arranged to take place on 25 May 2022 and the tiling would take place on 9 June 2022. The landlord’s notes stated that the resident accepted these appointments.
An internal email from the landlord stated on 25 May 2022 that its stock condition survey carried out in 2011 had noted the age of the bathroom as being 13 years old at the time. The landlord therefore estimated that the bathroom would be renewed in 2028.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 May 2022 and advised her that the bathroom was not due for renewal until 2028. The resident stated that she was dissatisfied with this outcome and with ongoing issues regarding the toilet and therefore she requested the landlord to escalate her complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 30 May 2022 to acknowledge her complaint and advised her that it would be dealt with at stage one of its process. The landlord advised the resident that she would receive a reply by 15 June 2022.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord’s contractor completed works in the bathroom to hack off the wall tiles and make good afterwards. The job notes stated that the operative had resealed around the bath as a temporary measure and that follow-on work was needed to apply bonding plaster to the walls.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 14 June 2022 to advise her that it was awaiting further information and would therefore reply to her complaint by 22 June 2022.
On 22 June 2022, the resident submitted a further complaint requesting the renewal of her bathroom. The landlord noted that it already had a stage one complaint open from the resident regarding the bathroom. Therefore, it would address all of the issues in its response to the initial complaint, including the question of whether the bathroom would be renewed.
The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 28 June 2022 and on the following day advised the landlord that the toilet was too close to the bath and therefore recommended renewing the toilet. The contractor also advised that the bath panel had been cut too short and therefore needed replacing, the wall around the bath needed patch plastering and tiling, the bath needed sealing and a shower riser rail was needed.
On 7 July 2022, the contractor attended and carried out patch plastering. The plasterer stated that he had sealed around the bath as a temporary measure and noted that follow-on work was required to completely remove 5 square metres of plaster around the bath and shower walls and re-tile.
On 11 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord via its webchat to ask about the outcome of her complaint. The landlord’s records show that the resident also chased the landlord for a reply on 18 July 2022. However, they also stated that the resident declined to provide access to the contractor for a pre-arranged appointment on 20 July 2022 to carry out work to the bathroom. The notes stated that the resident refused access because her complaint had been referred to the Ombudsman.
On 28 July 2022, the resident requested the landlord via its webchat to escalate her complaint.
The landlord’s maintenance records stated that the contractor attended the property on 29 July 2022 and 5 August 2022 to replace the toilet, to replaster the walls, re-tile around the bath, seal around the bath, fit a new shower riser rail, renew the bath panel and renew the vinyl flooring. However, the job notes stated that the resident refused access on both days. The notes for the job on 29 July 2022 stated that she had declined the works because she had referred the matter to the Ombudsman and on 5 August 2022 that she was just going out and therefore could not provide access. The landlord’s records stated in both cases that the appointments had been pre-arranged with the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 August 2022 with its stage one complaint response in which it stated the following:
1. Arrangements had been made for the landlord to inspect the repairs on 29 August 2022.
2. The landlord apologised for the ongoing communication issues.
3. The resident had declined the works on 20 July 2022 due to the handling of the complaint.
4. The works agreed so far included replacing the toilet, plastering and tiling around the bath, fitting a shower riser rail, renewing the bath panel and replacing the bathroom floor tiles. However, the landlord stated that if its surveyor identified other works, these would be done within its 30–day priority timescale.
The landlord’s records showed that on 5 September 2022 it instructed its contractor to install a new bath. The new bath was installed on 23 September 2022.
The landlord’s maintenance records show that the contractor attended on 19 September 2022 to carry out tiling around the bath. However, the operative stated that more plaster and tiles became loose when he attended. The contractor had therefore raised a follow-on job for a plasterer to attend.
The contractor wrote to the landlord on 29 September 2022 to advise that the plastering work was scheduled to take place on the following day. The landlord’s records show that the contractor attended on 30 September 2022 and removed the defective plaster. The contractor also delivered the bath panel, although it was noted that this could not be fitted until the plasterwork had been completed.
The landlord’s records show that it completed the re-tiling around the bath and the wash basin on 24 and 25 October 2022. The job notes stated that the wall where the shower screen was to be fitted had not been level enough for the shower screen to be fitted.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2022 to ask for a date when the shower would be refitted as she had been told this would be done when the tiling was completed. The resident also asked when the bathroom flooring would be renewed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2022 and advised that she had asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 but had not been contacted regarding her request. The landlord therefore escalated the complaint to stage 2 on this date.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 November 2022 to express her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not escalated her complaint to stage 2. She stated that her daughter was in hospital again and that she believed this was partly due to the bathroom issues.
The resident phoned the landlord on 17 November 2022 to advise that the contractor had arrived to renew the floor tiles. However, she stated that she had previously been advised that the flooring would not be renewed until the plastering work had been completed as this could damage the new flooring.
On 22 November 2022, the landlord held a stage 2 review meeting to consider the resident’s complaint. The resident had been invited to the meeting and had attended.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 December 2022 to advise her that it had made an appointment for a tiler to attend the property on 11 January 2023. The resident responded to the landlord on the same day and stated that she had previously been told the work would be completed on 19, 20 and 21 December 2022 and then by one of the operatives that it would be done by 4 January 2023. She expressed her dissatisfaction that she had to chase the landlord as the extra costs and inconvenience were affecting her mental health.
The resident contacted the landlord on 19 January 2023 to enquire about the shower screen that could not be fitted because the wall was uneven. The resident stated that the landlord had attempted to rectify the wall on 4 previous occasions. The resident then wrote on 26 January 2023 and 6 February 2023 to chase the landlord for the outcome letter relating to her stage 2 complaint. The resident’s email dated 6 February 2023 also included a request for the landlord to advise her when the plastering would be done.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2023 with the findings from the complaint review meeting that had been held on 22 November 2022. The letter stated that the main findings of the meeting were:
1. The landlord had received the resident’s complaint on 12 May 2022 regarding repairs to the bathroom.
2. The resident had declined works on 20 July 2022 due to the ongoing complaint.
3. Arrangements had been made for a supervisor to attend the property on 29 August 2022 to agree the outstanding works, which were:
  1. Replace the toilet and make good the surrounding areas.
  2. Replaster and tile around the bath.
  3. A plumber was to seal around the bath and fit a shower riser rail.
  4. Renew the bath panel.
  5. Replace floor tiles in the bathroom.
4. The resident had confirmed at the meeting that the works had started in September 2022 but had not been completed and had taken longer than 30 days.
5. The resident had stated at the meeting that she was unhappy with the communication throughout the process and because operatives had left rubbish in the property, which the resident had to remove.
6. The complaint review panel acknowledged and apologised for the problems the resident had faced and noted that the bathroom repairs had still not been appointed at the time of the meeting.
7. Works orders had been raised to hack off tiles on the shower wall, renew the tiling to enable the shower to be fitted flush to the wall, tile the bathroom floor and for bonding to be removed from the wall so it could be replastered. The works were due to take place on 20 and 22 December 2022 but did not go ahead.
8. The flooring had been completed.
9. As of 9 February 2023, the landlord had attempted to carry out the works several times but had been unable to proceed as the wall was not flush and therefore the shower screen could not be fitted.
10. The landlord apologised for the delay and stated that an operative would attend on 10 February 2023 to complete the repairs.
11. The landlord offered compensation of £450.
During a conversation with the landlord on 10 February 2023, the resident declined the landlord’s offer of £450.

Events after the landlord’s final response letter

The contractor attended on 12 April 2023 and re-enamelled the bath to repair a chip in the bath that the resident had reported.
On 20 April 2023, the landlord wrote to its contractor to advise that it had given approval for the resident’s bath to be renewed as the re-enamelling had not been effective.
On 25 April 2023, the resident wrote to this Service to advise that her bath had been chipped when the bathroom works were carried out. The landlord had attempted to repair the bath 3 times by re-enamelling but the issue had not been resolved. The resident had been advised that someone had signed on her behalf to state that the job had been completed. The resident was unhappy that someone had signed the form on her behalf.
The landlord’s records show that a new bath was fitted on 16 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident informed the landlord on 8 November 2022 that her daughter was in hospital and she believed this was partly due to the bathroom issues. She also wrote to the landlord on 29 December 2022 to say that the events were affecting her mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her daughter, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom following a leak

The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy that was in operation at the time set out the following priorities for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs: to be completed within 24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs: to be completed within 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs: to be completed within 30 working days.
4. Damp repairs: to be completed within 40 working days.
5. Priority I repairs (replacement): to be completed within 80 working days.
The Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that a decent home should have reasonably modern facilities and services, which includes a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less). However, a home with a bathroom that is over 30 years old would not automatically fail the DHS unless there are at least 2 other facilities that require modernisation.
The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 23 February 2022 in response to the resident’s report on 15 February 2022 of a leak under the bath. The landlord’s plumber attended and recommended the replacement of the existing tap mixer system. The mixer system was replaced with a new bath mixer and shower attachment on 24 March 2022.
The landlord had therefore taken 21 working days from the contractor’s initial visit on 23 February 2022 to the replacement of the mixer system on 24 March 2022. This was a reasonable timescale as the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence to indicate that the leak was an emergency.
The landlord’s contractor noted while replacing the mixer that follow-on tiling was needed around the bath as the existing tiles were uneven and the gap between the tiles and the bath was too wide. The contractor therefore attended the property on 14 April 2022 to remove the tiles, replaster the wall, grout and seal around the bath. The contractor removed as many of the tiles as was possible up to the level of the mixer system. The contractor had therefore attended within a reasonable period of time to remove the tiles (15 working days after the contractor replaced the mixer system on 24 March 2022).
During the visit on 14 April 2022, the contractor identified that the plaster on the bathroom wall had completely perished due to the previous leak. The contractor therefore recommended that the new mixer system should temporarily be removed to allow the remaining tiles to be removed from the wall. The contractor noted that the resident did not have use of the shower and the exposed brick walls had been covered above the bath with refuse sacks to provide some protection from water splashing while the bath was in use.
The contractor visited the property on 6 and 9 May 2022 to remove tiles/ducting to allow a detailed inspection of the pipework and to carry out further plastering of the walls. Although these visits show that the landlord was still investigating the pipework and seeking to rectify the plastering defects in the bathroom, it had been nearly a month since the contractor had reported on 14 April 2022 that the resident was without the use of the shower and was living with exposed brickwork on the bathroom walls. It was therefore unreasonable at this stage that the landlord had not taken a more co-ordinated approach to identify all the works that were required to bring the bathroom back into full use and to produce a plan for these works to be undertaken to minimise disruption to the resident.
The lack of a planned approach to resolving the situation was particularly unreasonable as the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord took the disability of the resident’s daughter into account when identifying works to the bathroom. As a result of the landlord’s lack of effective overall planning in relation to the bathroom, the resident submitted a stage one complaint on 12 May 2022 in which she advised the landlord that various plumbers had attended the property regarding the mixer system and many of the tiles had fallen off the wall during previous repairs. She also reported that the plaster under the remaining tiles was ‘blown’. The resident stated that she had been unable to use the shower for a month because some of the tiles were missing and brick dust and other material from the walls was falling into the bath. She stated that her daughter was disabled and had skin allergies and therefore could not use the shower while the dust and other material was falling into the bath.
The contractor attended on 9 June 2022 to remove the wall tiles and make good afterwards. The operative resealed around the bath as a temporary measure and advised that further plastering work was required to the walls. The contractor also attended on 28 June 2022 and identified the need for patch plastering, tiling and other works such as renewing the toilet and replacing a bath panel that had been cut too short.
The contractor attended on 7 July 2022 and carried out patch plastering. However, the operative noted that follow-on plastering and re-tiling were needed. Therefore, during June and July 2022 the contractor had visited on 9 June 2022, 28 June 2022 and 7 July 2022 to carry out plastering and/or re-tiling and each time had identified the need for further works. This again showed that the landlord had not assessed the bathroom as a whole and identified the works required. The lack of a co-ordinated and planned approach to the work meant that the resident experienced unnecessary disruption in relation to the bathroom and had not received a clear overall plan of when the bathroom works would be completed.
It was unreasonable that the landlord had not produced an overall plan to complete all of the work to the bathroom in such a way as to minimise disruption to the resident. The landlord was aware that the daughter was disabled and had skin allergies and should therefore have prioritised the need for an inspection at an earlier stage to identify all of the works that were required. These works could then have been planned around the needs of the family. This approach would have been in accordance with the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, which states that it “responds to the needs of, and offers choices to tenants, with the objective of completing repairs and improvements right first time”.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor was unable to obtain access to the property to carry out works on 20 July 2022, 29 July 2022 and 5 August 2022. The resident has disputed that she refused access on these dates and has suggested that she may not have been home on one or more of these days and her daughter advised the contractor to return when she was home. Regardless of the reasons for not being able to access the property, the contractor’s records show that there was no access to the property on these dates, even though appointments had been made. This therefore hampered the contractor’s ability to carry out the repairs and delayed the completion of the work.
In its stage one reply letter dated 26 August 2022, the landlord accepted that there had been communication issues and the resident had not been sufficiently advised about the ongoing works. The landlord apologised and said it had arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 29 August 2022. Given that there had been a lack of coordination of the works and communication, it was appropriate for a surveyor to inspect the property to identify any remaining works that were needed.
The contractor visited the property on 19 September 2022 to carry out tiling around the bath. However, during the visit, further plaster and tiles became loose and therefore a follow-on order was raised. The contractor attended on 30 September 2022 and removed the defective plaster. The re-tiling was done on 24 and 25 October 2022. Therefore, it had taken 6 months for the tiling and plastering around the bath to be completed from when the contractor first identified the defective plaster on 14 April 2022. Even taking into account that the contractor was unable to access the property during parts of July and August 2022, the overall time taken was unreasonable.
The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2022 to ask when the shower would be fitted as the tiling had been done. Therefore, the landlord had not coordinated the work so that the shower would be fitted once the tiling had been completed. Instead, the landlord relied on the resident to request the next stage of the work. This was unreasonable as the landlord should have prepared a plan which coordinated the necessary work and it should have advised the resident of the plan in advance.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 10 February 2023 setting out the outcome from the stage 2 review meeting that had taken place in November 2022. The landlord noted in its letter that as of 9 February 2023 the shower had not yet been completed because the shower screen could not be fitted due to the wall not being flush. The landlord apologised for the delay and stated that the contractor would attend on 10 February 2023 to complete the work. The landlord offered compensation of £450.
While the landlord attended the property on various occasions and completed a series of jobs in response to the resident’s reports, it is evident by the repeated reporting of issues that the works were not sufficiently coordinated by the landlord. It is also evident that the level of communication with the resident was lacking as she had to contact the landlord on various occasions to request updates and to chase for repairs to be carried out. The Ombudsman accepts that there were access issues in July and August 2022 and to some extent some of the problems with the plasterwork would not have been apparent until work such as the removal of the tiles was carried out. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord should have done more to plan, coordinate and communicate the works to the resident.
The landlord’s lack of planning, coordination and communication meant that the resident was inconvenienced for a long period when she could not use the shower. It would also have been unpleasant for the resident to use the bath while the bare brickwork was visible. The sequence of events shows there was a lack of urgency on the landlord’s part to resolve the plastering and tiling work so that the bathroom could be brought back into full use. The resident has stated that this was particularly problematic because her daughter had a disability and skin allergies.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will 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.
In this case, the landlord offered compensation of £450. This sum was within the range of financial redress recommended in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for situations where there was a failure which adversely affected the resident. Therefore, the view of this Service is that the landlord’s offer went some way to address the failings identified in this report. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident. In particular, it did not adequately reflect the period the resident and her daughter were unable to use the shower, the level of disruption caused to the resident as a result of several visits by contractors and the stress caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of effective communication.
Therefore, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, this Service has still made a finding of maladministration and ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation. The amount ordered is £300, which brings the total compensation to £750 and, in the Ombudsman’s view is more reflective of the level of distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident and her family.
It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the work to fit the shower screen was completed on 10 February 2023. Therefore, an order has been included in this report to complete any outstanding work to ensure the shower is fully functional.
The resident expressed her concern that the landlord had not been prepared to renew the bathroom. For example, she wrote to the landlord on 12 May 2022 and stated that the bathroom was no longer fit for purpose. However, the landlord advised her on 26 May 2022 that the bathroom was not due for renewal until 2028 based on its last stock condition survey.
Landlords are able to programme modernisation works in accordance with their priorities and resources in order to ensure their homes meet the DHS. Therefore, the landlord was entitled to use the information from its latest stock condition survey to decide that the bathroom was not due for renewal. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to convey this to the resident.
The resident also expressed her concerns that the landlord tried to re-enamel the bath after it was chipped and only replaced the bath after the re-enamelling had twice failed to resolve the problem. While the Ombudsman understands the resident’s frustration in not being offered a new bath sooner, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was reasonable for the landlord to attempt to re-enamel the bath before deciding to renew it. It is reasonable for landlords to try to meet their repair obligations in a cost-effective way and in certain situations, re-enamelling a bath can be more cost-effective than replacing the bath.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

At the time of the resident’s complaints, the landlord operated a 2–stage complaints process as follows:
1. Stage one investigation: the landlord’s redress procedure stated that this would involve a full investigation being carried out and a response sent to the resident within 10 working days of the complaint being escalated to this stage.
2. Stage 2 review: the redress procedure stated that the resident would be provided with a response by the landlord’s Customer Feedback and Improvement Team within 5 working days of escalation or, where a Complaints Panel was required, the response would be provided within 21 working days of escalation. The resident would be provided with the outcome of the Complaints Panel within 5 working days of the hearing.
The landlord’s redress policy stated:
1. Complaints would automatically escalate to the next stage if the landlord failed to agree an appropriate remedy or timeframe for delivery, or it failed to deliver the agreed remedy or timeframe.
2. Complainants would be given the option to escalate their complaint should they be dissatisfied with the proposed remedy or the outcome of their complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2022 to make a stage one complaint. The landlord spoke to the resident on 13 May 2022 and she stated that she was happy to wait for a site supervisor to carry out an inspection. The landlord also spoke to her on 18 May 2022 and on 26 May 2022. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 30 May 2022 to acknowledge her complaint and advise her that her complaint would be replied to by 15 June 2022.
On 14 June 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise her that it would reply by 22 June 2022 as it was awaiting further information. The resident chased the landlord on 11 and 18 July 2022 for the outcome of her complaint. The landlord sent its stage one reply on 26 August 2022, which was 74 working days after the resident made her initial complaint on 12 May 2022. Although the evidence shows that the landlord was in contact with the resident during the intervening period, the time taken to respond was nevertheless unreasonable. It meant that the resident had to spend time and effort chasing the landlord for a reply to her complaint.
The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 7 November 2022. The resident said that she had previously requested the landlord to escalate the complaint but it is not clear from the evidence seen when the resident had initially requested this. On 22 November 2022, the landlord held a stage 2 review meeting and the resident attended the meeting. The landlord had therefore taken 11 working days from the date it escalated the complaint on 7 November 2022 to the date of the meeting. This was reasonable given that it had to convene the meeting and ensure participants were available.
The landlord has advised this Service that it attempted to phone the resident on various occasions to advise her about the review meeting but had been unable to reach her. It had therefore sent an email inviting her to the meeting, which was appropriate in the absence of being able to speak to her.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 February 2023 to outline the outcome of the stage 2 review meeting. It had therefore taken 55 working days from the meeting on 22 November 2022 to send the letter. This was unreasonable and it meant that the resident had to spend time writing to the landlord on 26 January and 6 February 2023 to chase the landlord for the letter setting out the outcome of the review meeting.
The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the review of the complaint. However, the landlord did not offer any financial redress to put things right in relation to the delay and did not identify any learning from its failings in dealing with the repairs to the bathroom. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery. This Service has therefore found there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling because of the lack of learning and because of the delay in issuing the stage 2 letter.
The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100, which is in the range of financial redress set out in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom following a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged some of its failings and offered financial redress. However, the redress did not adequately reflect the level of detriment to the resident. In particular, it did not adequately reflect the period the resident and her daughter were unable to use the shower, the level of disruption caused to the resident as a result of several visits by contractors and the stress caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of effective communication.
The landlord apologised for the delay in completing the review of the complaint. However, it did not offer any financial redress to put things right in relation to the delay and did not identify any learning from its failings in dealing with the repairs to the bathroom.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £750 for the landlord’s handling of the bathroom repairs (this sum includes the £450 already offered by the landlord).
3. Pay the resident £100 for complaint handling failures.
4. Complete any outstanding work to ensure the shower is fully functional.