Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Golding Homes Limited (202412447)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202412447

Golding Homes Limited

17 January 2025


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her back door.

Background

  1. The resident has held an assured tenancy since June 2015. The property is a mid-terrace with a French door that leads to the back garden.
  2. In mid-January 2024 the resident reported to the landlord that her rear French door was lopsided, difficult to lock, and had gaps large enough to let in daylight and draughts. She subsequently stated that she had been reporting issues with the door for several years. The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property in the last week of January 2024. It advised her that the door was beyond repair and required replacement. The resident chased the landlord for updates during February 2024. Her initial understanding from the landlord’s response was that it was awaiting approval for the door to be replaced. On 29 February 2024 the landlord told the resident that it would need to complete its own inspection before deciding if the door should be replaced.
  3. On 2 March 2024 the resident made her complaint to the landlord concerning its incorrect information about her door renewal, the delays, and the impact on her heating bill. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 response on 22 March 2024. It advised that its own operative would attend on 26 March 2024 and, if they were unable to repair her door, the matter would be passed to its planned team. It explained that its planned team would then inspect the door within 28 days, and make a decision regarding its renewal. It apologised for the delay, stated its learning, and offered the resident £50 compensation.
  4. In early April 2024, the resident chased the landlord for an update following its operative’s attendance, and expressed confusion with a further appointment that it had booked. On 12 April 2024 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process. Her key points were as follows:
    1. She stated that an operative had attended that day and taken over 2 hours to get the door semi–functional. She said that although her door could now be locked again, the operative had said that it still was not right.
    2. She stated that the landlord had previously misinformed her about the door being replaced. She expressed her dissatisfaction with its communications, and its overall handling of the matter.
  5. On 1 May 2024 the landlord told the resident that her door would be replaced as part of its 2025–26 planned programme. It said that it would complete further repairs in the meantime, which it booked for 24 June 2024. On 13 May 2024, the landlord issued the resident its stage 2 response which reiterated its advice from 1 May 2024. It said that it had “confirmed the door meets the decent homes standard criteria”. It accepted that it had “not communicated effectively”, and apologised. It provided details of its further learning, and offered the resident £150 compensation.
  6. The landlord completed works to the resident’s door in late June and early July 2024. Regarding security, it told us in December 2024 that the works had “negated any risk and it was considered fair and reasonable for the rear door to be replaced in the 2025–26 programme”. It stated that the resident was aware that she could report any worsening of her door issues, and that it would then reconsider its decision. During this investigation it told us that the resident had reported on 10 January 2025 that her door would not always lock. It said that it had resolved this on 15 January 2025 by replacing the locking mechanism. It further advised us that her door had “been flagged as a priority” on its forthcoming programme, but that it could not yet confirm an installation date (it was unclear whether the resident was aware of the priority status).
  7. The resident asked the Ombudsman to investigate the matter, as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of it. On 30 September 2024 she told us that the lock was unreliable and often does not work. She stated that, as such, she leaves it unlocked out of fear of being unable to exit her property in the event of a fire. She said that when she opens the door in the summer, she is unable to close it again until it has sufficiently cooled down in the evening. She explained that the neighbouring properties would be aware when she is unable to close her door. She said that all the issues had remained following the landlord’s works in June 2024.

Assessment and findings

  1. Clause 2.4(i) of the tenancy agreement place an obligation on the landlord to repair doors and door frames. A landlord is required to repair and inspect within a reasonable time. The landlord’s repairs policy explained the categories and criteria that it used to prioritise repairs. It said that “day to day” repairs were prioritised as “routine”, which it would aim to complete within 28 days. It stated that where circumstances prevented it from meeting this timescale it would always contact the resident and let them know when the job would be completed.
  2. With regards to doors, the landlord’s policy stated that it would “replace locks that are faulty due to age, normal wear and tear or mechanical fault”. It further stated that “providing your externals doors are secure, safe, and weather tight, we won’t replace them”.
  3. On 15 January 2024 the landlord raised a routine priority repair in response to the resident’s reports of issues with her back doors. It was unclear from the evidence when precisely the landlord’s contractor attended the job. However, the resident called the landlord on 1 February 2024 to request an update, and referred to the contractor’s attendance the previous week.
  4. The landlord’s record of the resident’s call on 1 February 2024 stated that the contractor had told her that her back door was beyond repair and needed replacement. The record further detailed the landlord’s difficulty in contacting its contractor. It said that it had eventually reached a voicemail facility and left a message asking the contractor to contact the resident. As was subsequently established, the landlord’s process did not allow it to approve a door replacement without completing its own inspection. As such, it was unclear why the landlord wanted the contractor to contact the resident, and it has also failed to demonstrate that it did so.
  5. The landlord’s record from later in the month stated that its contractor had advised it on 6 February 2024 that the resident’s back door needed to be replaced. However, as the landlord later accepted, it then failed to update the resident, raise follow on works, or otherwise progress the matter in a proactive or timely manner.
  6. Having heard nothing further since 1 February the resident called the landlord again on 14 February 2024. The resident’s subsequent complaint stated that during that call, the landlord had advised her that it was “just waiting for commercial approval” for her door renewal. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence of what the landlord advised the resident, but it did not subsequently dispute this point. As such, it was understandable that the resident then expected her problematic door to soon be replaced. The landlord has therefore failed to evidence that it appropriately managed her expectations.
  7. It was another 2 weeks before the landlord demonstrated that it took any further action, which again only appeared to be prompted by the resident’s chasing. On 29 February 2024 the landlord’s record noted its contractor’s view that the doors should be replaced, but asked that it complete its own inspection in line with its process. It advised this to the resident the same day. The resident made her complaint to the landlord 2 days later. It was understandable that she highlighted the landlord’s lack of proactive contact, delays, and conflicting information, along with the issues that her door was still causing to her.
  8. The landlord issued the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 22 March 2024. The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are to be fair; put things right; and learn from outcomes. It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for its delays and communication failings, describe its learning, and make an offer of compensation (further considered below). Its response explained its action plan to put things right, which included a further attempt to repair her doors on 26 March 2024. The landlord’s stage 1 handling of the resident’s complaint was therefore mostly reasonable, and in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles.
  9. However, the landlord’s stage 1 response also explained to the resident its ‘referral process’ for approving a door replacement. It stated that, following the attendance and renewal advice of its contractor, its own repairs team would make a further attempt to repair the door. It said that if its repairs team were also unable to fix the door, they would refer the matter to its planned team. It stated that its planned team would then arrange to inspect the door within 28 days. It explained that its planned team’s inspection would establish if further efforts to repair the door should be made, or whether it should be replaced, and action this accordingly. It was understandable that the landlord’s process would have felt protracted to the resident.
  10. The landlord’s record on 26 March 2024 noted that its repairs team had been unable to fix the resident’s door that day, but that it was awaiting the operative’s report and photographs. On 3 and 5 April 2024 the resident chased the landlord for an update. The landlord was only able to advise that it was still awaiting the operative’s feedback, which would have been frustrating for the resident.
  11. On 8 April 2024 the landlord sent the resident a text message advising of a follow on works appointment for 12 April 2024, which the resident queried the purpose of the same day. On 11 April 2024 the landlord apologised to the resident that it was unsure what the purpose of the appointment was, and promised to confirm the following morning whether it was still necessary. While it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise, the confused and last minute nature of its communications would have added to the resident’s time, trouble, and distress.
  12. On 12 April 2024 the landlord confirmed to the resident that works were going ahead that day, and promised to provide a further update by 16 April 2024. The same day, and following the attendance of the landlord’s operative, the resident expressed her frustration at its handling of the matter, and asked that it escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  13. The landlord’s operative’s repairs record noted that the door had been left useable on 12 April 2024, but that “it will fail soon”. It described various issues with what it described as the “super heavy doors”, which could not be resolved. This included a crack in one of the glazed panels, and gaps that could not be closed. It stated that “it does need replacement”.
  14. On 19 April 2024 the landlord sent the resident its acknowledgement of her stage 2 complaint. She asked it for a door update the same day. It advised her that the matter had been passed to its planned team on 12 April 2024, and so she should expect a decision by 10 May 2024. As above, while this was in line with the landlord’s process, the overall matter would have felt very protracted to the resident. To date it had taken around 3 months to complete a temporary repair of her door. The temporary repair had still left her dealing with draughts, heat loss, and other issues. It would have been frustrating for her to be advised by the landlord of another potentially significant wait for further information.
  15. On 1 May 2024 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that her door had been added to its replacement programme, which would run from April 2025 to March 2026. It said that it would complete further repairs to her door “to improve usage in the meantime”, which it booked with her 2 days later for the following month.
  16. The evidence stated that on 24 June 2024 the landlord completed an overhaul of the resident’s door. It said that it completed an out of hours attendance the following day, after the resident reported being unable to close her door in the hot weather. It stated that on 26 June 2024 it raised a job to replace the door’s triple glazed unit, which it completed on 3 July 2024. As above, the resident said that the door issues, including her ability to lock it, persisted after these works. While the Ombudsman does not dispute this, the evidence suggests that this was not reported to the landlord until January 2025, when it attended well within the timeframe of its policy.
  17. The landlord issued the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 13 May 2024. The response reiterated its advice from the start of the month, and was again largely in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles. However, at various times, including within her complaint, the resident had highlighted the impact on the cost and her ability to heat her home with the gaps around the door. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to empathetically address this point, and it was a failing that it did not.
  18. It was appropriate for the landlord to accept its service failings, provide further details of its learning, and apologise for “the distress and inconvenience this has caused”. It stated that it had in part considered information from our website in making its offer of a further £150 compensation (£200 in total) to the resident. However, it is the view of the Ombudsman that this amount is not proportionate to the duration or impact of its failings on the resident.
  19. The landlord took around 3 months to complete works that would allow the resident to lock her door with any confidence, and over 5 months to complete more substantial repairs (which she subsequently disputed the effectiveness of). During this time the resident experienced time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience from the landlord’s undisputed communication failings, and the impact on her ability to secure and heat her home. This was not a reasonable time in which to complete the works given potential security issues with the door. The resident states that there are still problems with the door.
  20. Whilst it is reasonable for a landlord to put replacements back to planned works, it is not appropriate to do this and leave the property in poor repair. As such, we cannot say the landlord acted reasonably by waiting for planned maintenance for the door when the evidence is that the door is not in proper working order and the landlord accepts it is beyond economical repair.
  21. The Ombudsman has therefore found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her back door, and made a compensation order of £400. This is in line with our remedies guidance’s recommendation of awards in this range where “there was a failure which adversely affected the resident” and the landlord’s offer “was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation”. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £50 and £150 (if those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £400).

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with her back door.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the further failings identified in this report.
    2. Arrange an independent inspection of the door to determine if it is in working order and if it would be appropriate to wait until the April 2025 planned programme. The landlord must ensure that the resident and this Service are provided with a copy of the report within 10 days of receiving it.
    3. Pay the resident £400 compensation for the likely time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of her door issues. This amount replaces the landlord’s own compensation awards of £50 and £150 (if those awards were paid to the resident, they should be deducted from the £400). The compensation ordered by the Ombudsman should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears where they exist.
    4. Provide documentary evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review its door renewal referral process, with a view to identifying any task duplication and efficiency improvements, which may allow for a more streamlined and effective service.

 

 

 

Chat to us