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

Housing For Women (202225916)

Back to Top

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225916

Housing For Women

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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of replacement flooring in the resident’s property following a flood.
  2. This Service has also investigated the landlord’s:
    1. Complaint handling.
    2. Record keeping.

Background

  1. The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since May 2006. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat.
  2. On 27 February 2022, a burst pipe in the flat above caused flooding in the resident’s property. The landlord has not submitted any information on its actions in relation to the flood.
  3. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 28 March 2022. She said:
    1. After the property had flooded, the landlord’s contractor attended on 3 March 2022 and measured all the rooms in the property. She received an email from the landlord on 9 March 2022 advising that the work was for the bathroom only. She felt this was unacceptable, particularly as the contractor had removed the carpet in the hallway and had advised her to remove all the remaining carpets.
    2. She had sent an email to the landlord on 11 March 2022 with a list of the items that had been damaged, but the landlord had not responded. She felt she had allowed the landlord sufficient time to communicate with her before making the complaint.
    3. She asked that the landlord adhere to its complaint procedure by acknowledging her complaint within 5 working days and providing a full response within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 29 March 2022. It allocated reference number 1601 and advised it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days. The resident responded the same day requesting that it add a number of points in relation to its communication failures to her complaint. The landlord confirmed it had noted the additional points and would ask that they were addressed.
  5. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 April 2022. She said the response deadline of 11 April 2022 for her complaint had passed and she had not received a response. She expected her email to be taken as her request for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2 and asked the landlord to respond by 11 May 2022.
  6. The landlord held a stage 2 complaints panel hearing on 30 May 2022. The landlord has not submitted information to show the resident was invited to the panel hearing.
  7. On 13 October 2022, the resident made a further complaint using the landlord’s online complaint form. She said:
    1. She wanted to discuss issues with her rent account with her housing officer.
    2. Her kitchen needed updating.
    3. She had tried to contact the landlord, but nobody had got back to her.
  8. The resident sent an email the same day advising she had called and sent emails to the landlord, but no one had called back or responded to her emails. She said she felt that she had to make a complaint to get a response.
  9. Between 13 October 2022 and 27 October 2022 there were a number of emails between the landlord and resident about the complaint made on 13 October 2022. The landlord confirmed it had passed her requests to her housing officer and the finance department.
  10. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 October 2022 advising she was escalating the complaint to stage 2, because:
    1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response to her request for the kitchen to be updated. It had not assessed her kitchen. She could therefore not understand how it could determine the kitchen did not need to be updated.
    2. She was also still waiting for a response on queries previously raised about the flooring.
  11. The resident contacted the landlord on 3 November 2022 advising she had not received a stage 2 escalation acknowledgement email. It responded the same day asking if she could supply a copy of its stage 1 response as it could not locate the original. It said it required a copy to investigate if a stage 2 complaint was justified.
  12. On 3 November 2022, the landlord emailed the resident. It said:
    1. All its planned works for kitchen replacements were based on individual property assessments conducted by an external surveyor.
    2. It did not own or manage all the flats in the resident’s block. Neighbouring properties having new kitchens could belong to different landlords.
    3. It had no programmed work scheduled for her block for the coming year. It had not yet published the planned work for the following years. It was therefore unable to provide any further information on the timescales for a kitchen refurbishment.
    4. It would write to her as soon as her property became due for a kitchen replacement.
  13. On 4 November 2022, the landlord sent a complaint acknowledgement with complaint reference 2022000042. It then sent the resident another email on 9 November 2022. It asked her to provide full details of her complaint regarding flooring that would allow it to provide a comprehensive response.
  14. In her emailed response on 14 November 2022, the resident said the stage 1 complaint was not only about the flooring but was also about the kitchen. The complaint related to the landlord’s lack of communication, which she had raised an additional complaint for on 13 October 2022. She sought answers to the following questions:
    1. When was the planned kitchen refit for the few tenants who did not have a kitchen refit at her block 2019?
    2. Who would be responsible for any remedial work to the floor if damaged by water prior to flooring being replaced?
    3. How would the landlord reimburse payments if she got her own contractor?
    4. Why had the landlord only registered her complaint 1 month after it had been made?
  15. On 21 November 2022, the resident told the landlord she wanted to escalate the complaint made on 13 October 2022 to stage 2. This was because it had failed to provide its stage 1 response within the required timescale.
  16. The landlord sent its stage 2 acknowledgement letter to the resident on 23 November 2022. She advised it that the letter was unacceptable because of a number of errors with the dates. It amended the letter and forwarded the amended copy on 28 November 2022.
  17. The same day, the landlord emailed the resident to tell her that it would not be escalating her complaint to stage 2. It said:
    1. The issue with the flooring had been through its complaints process and had been resolved. It had therefore decided that her complaint did not meet the criteria set out in its complaints policy.
    2. It had previously offered her the 2 following options and asked her to confirm which she would choose:
      1. She could request its contractor to attend the property and carry out the works.

Or

  1. It would pay her £2,616 compensation for a contractor of her choice to conduct the works.
  1. The resident responded to the landlord on 29 November 2022, stating:
    1. The complaint she had raised initially on 13 October 2022 was due to the lack of communication about the payment of compensation and who would be responsible for remedial works.
    2. After 6 weeks and countless emails, and an acknowledgement of a stage 2 complaint, it was now stating her complaint was not in line with its policy.
  2. The landlord sent an email to the resident on 30 November 2022. It said:
    1. The complaint had been resolved; it had made an offer of compensation for £2,616.
    2. To complete her complaint, she must inform the landlord if she wished to use its contractor or choose her own. If she chose her own contractor, she would have to provide an invoice for the payment to be processed.
    3. Since her email on 13 October 2022, it had been in constant communication with her via phone or email. If she was unhappy with its conduct or performance, she could make a formal complaint.
  3. On 1 December 2022, the resident responded stating the following:
    1. She was unhappy with the landlord’s response in relation to her kitchen. The kitchen was in a poor state of repair and had been for years. She had asked for the landlord to look at this previously, but nothing had happened.
    2. She could not wait for the kitchen works to be scheduled some time in the future. Other residents had their kitchens replaced after individual assessments. She asked if the landlord was willing to accept a rent reduction until it had brought the kitchen up to the decent home standard.
  4. The resident emailed the landlord on 19 December 2022 advising that it would be easier for the landlord’s contractors to complete the work. She asked what the process was for this to happen. Having not had any resolution, the resident approached this Service on 27 February 2023.
  5. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 12 May 2023, and asked that it escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord responded to this Service on 5 June 2023 with the following comments:
    1. The resident had refused to allow its contractor access to her property to measure the flooring on 13 June 2022.
    2. The stage 1 response had been issued with resolutions listed to resolve the complaint. The resident had not communicated her request to the landlord that would have allowed it the opportunity to resolve the complaint.
    3. It had cancelled the stage 2 complaint as it had offered the resident a reasonable solution. It would not raise a stage 2 complaint until it had received correspondence from the resident advising which action she wished to take.
  6. On 11 July 2023, the landlord emailed the resident. It stated:
    1. The Ombudsman had contacted it about the outstanding repairs at her property. It apologised that it had not resolved her complaint at stage 1 of its complaints process.
    2. It had sent her correspondence on 28 November 2022 advising her of the actions it was taking to resolve her complaint.
    3. It had given the resident 2 options in its stage 1 response.
    4. It had refused her stage 2 escalation request as the options provided resolved the complaint. It had still not received instruction from her on how she wished to proceed. To prevent further delays it asked her to respond and provide her instruction.
  7. The resident contacted the landlord on the same day attaching the email she had previously sent to it on 19 December 2023. In the email she had asked the landlord how she could proceed with its contractors to have the work completed.
  8. On 8 August 2023, the Ombudsman served the landlord with a complaint handling failure order for not escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process.
  9. On 15 August 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm it had asked its contractor to contact her to arrange an appointment for one of her chosen dates. Once it had received the quotation it would get in touch to discuss the next steps.
  10. It is the understanding of this Service that the resident has accepted the payment of £2,616 from the landlord, which it paid directly to her on 7 February 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The landlord has not been able to provide all the evidence that it would be expected to possess. This Service has made a number of additional requests for evidence. While this has resulted in the submission of some additional documents, there remains a significant amount of information missing. This has had an impact on the Ombudsman’s investigation.

Delays in replacing the flooring

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including floors, walls and ceilings. This obligation is confirmed in the landlord’s responsive repairs policy, which lists 3 categories of repair: emergency, urgent and routine. The timescales for each category are 24 hours, 7 days, and 28 days respectively.
  2. Where a resident’s property is damaged due to a flood from another property, it would be its responsibility to undertake any repairs necessary. This would include the replacement of floor coverings, which would come under the routine repair category that should be actioned in 28 days. After the flood there was confusion on what the landlord was taking responsibility for. The landlord’s contractors removed the resident’s hall floor covering and advised her to remove the remaining floor coverings. Initially the landlord told the resident it would only replace the bathroom flooring; however, this was later resolved as it accepted responsibility for all floor coverings. It is unusual that in this case the landlord provided the resident with a choice between 2 options. The first, where its contractors would conduct the work and the second where it offered the resident compensation to arrange the work herself. This Service views the money offered by the landlord not as compensation, but money for the resident to arrange and pay for repairs that were the landlord’s responsibility. This has inevitably caused confusion in the repairs process that has led to a delay approaching 2 years. This delay significantly exceeds the repair timescales required by the landlord’s repairs policy, which is unacceptable.
  3. The landlord has indicated the delays were partly due to the resident. It said that she has refused contractors access and not informed it of her chosen option to facilitate the repairs. In its evidence submission the landlord included notes from its contractor stating that the resident had refused them access on 13 June 2022. This would appear to be incorrect; the evidence shows the resident called the contractor on the morning of the appointment to check where they were. The contractor told her they were attending in the afternoon. She explained that she thought the appointment was for the morning and would not be available in the afternoon. This represents a miscommunication rather than refusing access. The landlord was wrong to indicate that she had refused access. Instead of apportioning blame, it would have been reasonable for it to get in touch to investigate what had caused the confusion and to assist the resident to arrange an alternative date and time for the visit.
  4. The resident has informed this Service that the landlord’s contractors visited her property on 3 occasions to take measurements for the floor coverings. This information and the missed appointment described above indicates that she had accepted the landlord’s offer to have its contractors conduct the work. In an email to this Service on 6 June 2023, the landlord stated that the resident had not informed it of the option she wanted to pursue, which had prevented it from resolving her complaint. It also told the resident this in an email on 11 July 2023. This is not correct, the resident had emailed the landlord on 19 December 2022 and said: “In regard to the flooring, it would be easier if the landlord’s contractors undertake the work. What is the process?” However, there is no evidence to show the landlord acted upon the resident’s request, which is unacceptable. She re-sent the email on 11 July 2023. Having no response, she emailed again on 19 July 2023 and asked it to confirm receipt of her email. The landlord has not provided evidence to show it responded, which demonstrates a further communication failure.
  5. After more delays, the landlord informed this Service on 12 October 2023 that the repairs had been authorised. However, it then emailed the resident on 22 December 2023 to advise its contractor was experiencing delays and was unable to provide a date for the work to begin. It said it was hopeful an appointment would be made before the end of January 2024 and again offered the resident the money to conduct the repairs herself. This was unreasonable. The delays and additional offer of money led to further confusion, inconvenience and frustration being caused to the resident.
  6. The resident has still not had the floor coverings replaced 24 months after her property was flooded. This will have had an impact on her daily life with issues such as draughts, heating, cleaning and feeling comfortable in her property. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s poor communication, record keeping, and delays in managing the replacement flooring in the resident’s property amount to severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. It commits to acknowledging stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and providing a response within 10 working days. Its complaints policy says it will make contact prior to the investigation to discuss the case and understand what is being sought as an outcome. It will also make contact before the decision is issued, allowing residents to respond and challenge.
  2. If residents are not satisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, they can contact the landlord within 10 days to escalate their complaint. They can choose to have their complaint reviewed by an executive director or heard by a complaint panel. If heard by an executive director it will contact residents within 2 working days to acknowledge the request, they will be informed who is dealing with the complaint and then receive a response within 10 working days. If heard by a complaint panel it will contact residents within 2 working days to acknowledge the request. The complaint panel is made up of executive team members and/or trustees and will take place within 20 working days. Residents can attend and present their complaint to the panel and are able to have a person with them to offer support. The panel will issue a written decision within 10 working days.

Complaint made on 27 March 2022

  1. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint within 2 working days. However, on 19 April 2022, having not received any further communication, she asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In line with its policy, the landlord should have contacted her, informed her of the delay, and advised her whether or not it accepted the escalation request, and explained its reasoning. In not doing so it failed to comply with its policy.
  2. The landlord told this Service in an email on 6 June 2023 that it “had sent the stage 1 response letter with resolutions to resolve the complaint”. It also told the resident on 11 July 2023 that it had provided her with 2 options for the flooring in its stage 1 response. This Service made 3 requests for it to provide a copy of the stage 1 response. This was not submitted following the first request. No explanation was given. In response to the second request made on 28 November 2023 it told this Service that any evidence not originally submitted was missing. In response to the third request made on 30 January 2024 the landlord said: “Having reviewed the complaint history, it appears that we did not provide a response to the complainants stage 1 complaint received at our offices on 28 March 2022.” This portrayal of events demonstrates a significant failure in how the landlord manages complaints.
  3. On 30 May 2022, the landlord held a complaint panel hearing into the stage 2 escalation for complaint reference 1601. It has not provided any evidence to show that it informed the resident of her right to choose whether an executive director or panel considered her complaint. Further, it has not shown any evidence to demonstrate that it informed the resident she could attend the hearing to present her own evidence. In failing to provide her with this information it had departed from its policy and had excluded her from the complaints process, which was unacceptable.
  4. There is no evidence from the landlord to show it communicated the results of the complaint panel hearing or provide any of the information the panel had considered. As such it failed to respond to a number of the resident’s complaint points, including her questions on why her emails and calls went unanswered; why she had to make complaints to get a general enquiry responded to; and her opinion that the landlord was biased towards her, which was an ongoing issue that was causing her anxiety, stress and dismay. In response to the landlord’s failings the resident said she had been “left totally confused by the experience.” The landlord’s omissions therefore caused further distress and frustration to the resident, which was unacceptable.
  5. The landlord said it would not consider the complaint at stage 2 because it had offered a resolution at stage 1. This Service made repeated requests for the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, it failed to do so, which resulted in the Ombudsman having to issue a complaint handling failure order.

Complaint made on 13 October 2022

  1. This was the second complaint raised by the resident. It related to the landlord’s poor communication, its opinion on the need to update the resident’s kitchen, and the ongoing flooring issues, which remained unresolved. It did not acknowledge the complaint in line with its policy or register it as a complaint. This was further evidence of the landlord denying the resident access to its complaints process. However, 2 officers did contact the resident about specific parts of the complaint and the landlord did email the resident in relation to her enquiries about the kitchen. As in the previous complaint, the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response. When the resident made a request to escalate the complaint the landlord had to ask her for a copy of the stage 1 response because it could not find its own copy. This was evidence of poor record keeping and unreasonably put the onus on the resident to provide copies of documents which did not exist.
  2. The landlord did not escalate the complaint and did not provide a stage 2 response. Despite the resident’s numerous communications in relation to the complaint made on 13 October 2022, and her requests to have it escalated, it never informed her it had not registered her concerns as a complaint, which was unacceptable.

Complaint made on 4 November 2022

  1. The landlord acknowledged this complaint on 4 November 2022. It has not, however, provided a copy of the complaint to this Service. The resident emailed the landlord on 21 November 2022 to escalate the complaint. It issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 23 November 2022, but had to re-draft it due to the number of errors highlighted by the resident.  It then re-issued the acknowledgement on 28 November 2022. The same day it emailed the resident, stating “After investigating your complaint, I have determined that this does not fall under the category of a complaint in line with our complaints policy, as the issue with the flooring has been through the complaints process and resolved.”
  2. The complaints policy provides the following reason as an example of when the complaints process does not apply: “A resident has made repeated complaints about the same or related matters that we have already addressed.” It is difficult for this Service to understand the landlord’s reasoning when it had failed to provide any responses to the previous complaint and failed to acknowledge many of the complaint points. It would have been reasonable for it to process the complaint in line with its policy, allowing it to address its previous failures and omissions. Not doing so was unacceptable.
  3. Throughout this complaint the landlord has operated without any consideration of its complaints policy and has had little regard for its published process or procedure. There are widespread and significant failures that have had a negative impact on the resident, leaving her feeling understandably stressed, frustrated, and confused. When told she could make a further complaint if she was not satisfied, she said “the thought of it left her feeling exhausted.” Overall, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, every aspect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint was poor and this amounts to severe maladministration.

Record Keeping

  1. A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken and failure to keep adequate records indicates that the landlord’s complaints processes are not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area. 
  2. It is clear from this case that the landlord does not compile and log communications in a manner that links information to a case, which are then easily retrievable. The landlord was unaware of the email the resident had sent on 19 December 2022, where she said she wanted to opt for the landlord’s contractors. Failing to store and maintain this information caused unnecessary delays and confusion in the repairs and complaints process.
  3. Due to the absence of information surrounding the resident’s complaint, this Service asked the landlord to provide records of its complaints panel hearing. This included any electronic, handwritten or contemporaneous notes that reflected the discussions and decisions of the panel. The landlord was unable to provide this information. This was in addition to the absence of stage 1 and 2 complaint responses as well as complaint acknowledgements. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (The Code) requires landlords to be maintain full records of the complaint, any review and outcomes at each stage. This should include the original complaint and the date received, all correspondence with the resident, correspondence with other parties and any reports or surveys.
  4. This Service has not been able to identify the exact sequence of events in this case, due to the lack of evidence that has been submitted. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its communications. It recorded the missed appointment on 13 June 2022 as the resident refusing access. However, the resident states she could not attend because the contractor had the incorrect appointment time. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the landlord regarding the particulars of a case, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that it had provided accurate and timely information, which met a satisfactory standard. However, the landlord failed to provide accurate records showing its communication with the resident. Overall, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the failures in the landlord’s record keeping amounts to maladministration.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s delays in managing the replacement flooring in the resident’s property.
    2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
    3. Maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks from the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive for the failures detailed in this report.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £2,500 compensation, made up as follows:
      1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the delays in managing the replacement flooring in the resident’s property.
      2. £1,200 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
      3. £300 for the distress, inconvenience, time, and trouble associated with the landlord’s poor record keeping.
      4. This compensation is in addition to any money already paid to the resident. It must not be offset against rent arrears and must be paid directly into the resident’s bank account.
  2. Within 12 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must carry out a review of the resident’s case and her complaint to determine lessons learned and what action it should take to ensure the failures are not repeated. The landlord must advise this Service of the outcome of the review and provide its action plan.
  3. Within 12 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must review its record keeping in relation to complaint investigations and provide an action plan setting out how it intends to ensure it retains key information. Reference should be made to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) that highlights important recommendations for landlords to ensure record keeping forms a key part of effective housing management. The landlord must provide this Service with a copy of its review and action plan.
  4. Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must arrange an inspection and assessment of the resident’s kitchen and provide in writing to the resident, the outcome of that assessment, including when it intends to update the kitchen in her property.
  5. The landlord must provide this Service with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the time limits set out.