Hyde Housing Association Limited (202119268)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119268

Hyde Housing Association Limited

13 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 external and internal repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a maisonette on the first and second floor of the building. A leaseholder lives in the ground floor flat. The landlord has recorded that the resident has a heart condition. The resident said that other household members, including her grandson, have medical conditions.

Scope of Investigation

Timescales

In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident had advised that the roof leak and dampness had been ongoing for 6 years. The landlord has not disputed that the issues were reported as early as August 2018 within its complaint responses.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that suggests the resident first made the landlord aware that issues involving a leak into her home were ongoing around February 2020. She has provided evidence of communication sent to her by the landlord on 4 February 2020 which indicates that a previous complaint was closed at stage 1 on 21 August 2019 and that the landlord intended to ask its repairs team to investigate her ongoing concerns as a service recovery request. This aligns with the landlord’s records at the time which shows that it received a report of water penetrating the walls into the living room on 4 February 2020.
In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to February 2020. The historical issues provide contextual background to the current complaint, but the assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaints made between 2021 and 2023.

Subject Access Requests

Within her communication to the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident raised concerns about how the landlord had handled her subject access requests. Complaints that relate to a landlord’s use and management of personal data fall under the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). We are unable to adjudicate on this matter, as this is not under the remit of this Service. It is therefore advised that the resident contacts the ICO for further information on taking this element of the complaint further if she wishes.

Impact on Health

The resident has also stated that the issues experienced have had an impact on her health and wellbeing. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.

Recent issues

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident recently raised further complaints with the landlord regarding her bathroom, subsidence impacting various areas of the property, and the presence of asbestos. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about subsidence and cracking alongside her formal complaints related to the leak/dampness in the living room. However, as the more recent complaints are separate issues to the complaints under consideration, they are not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage. The landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these matters. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident and address any outstanding concerns in relation to these issues.

Summary of events

2020

The landlord’s records show that it received a complaint of water penetrating through the walls of the resident’s living room on 4 February 2020. Following this, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that:
1. An inspection took place on 11 February 2020 of the roof and loft which identified that some pointing looked to be missing around the kneeler slab of the roof but that the roof was otherwise dry. The job notes show that scaffolding was required.
2. A visit was booked for 1 April 2020 in relation to water penetrating the walls in the living room, but there are no further notes to confirm what happened.
3. On 2 June 2020 there was a cancelled work order to erect scaffold and check the roof for leaks affecting the lounge. The record noted that damp patches appeared on the walls and front elevation.
4. A repair order was raised on 17 August 2020 to investigate the leak into the loft space. An inspection took place on 3 September 2020 which found that the parapet wall needed repointing but there was no roof leak.
5. A further inspection was raised in November 2020. This was in response to the resident’s reports that the ceiling in a bedroom may collapse and the floor was bowing as well as her concerns about damp in the living room due to the roof issues. The records note that the ceiling was slightly loose and needed refixing in one area, the floorboards needed screwing down and a joint inspection was booked for 17 November 2020 to go through all works required internally and externally.

2021

The resident called on 29 January 2021 to report that the roof was leaking into her lounge and had been ongoing for years. The record notes that she said she had complained about this before but the leak had continued.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 9 March 2021 and apologised for the delay. It responded on 18 March 2021 and apologised for the recurring leak issues. It noted that there had been previous pointing works but the issues continued. It said that a surveyor would attend on 24 March 2021 to inspect the internal and external issues reported and would then see the issue through to completion. It apologised that the issue had been difficult to diagnose and repair and confirmed the complaint would be reviewed by its contract manager to ensure it learnt from the complaint. It offered £250 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the recurring leak.
A survey of the property was completed on 7 April 2021 by a third party building consultant. The subsequent report, issued to the landlord on 8 April 2021, confirmed:
1. The property had a degree of damp penetration in the walls to the first floor living room which appeared to be due to defects in the parapet wall and the top part of the gable wall. The brickwork was soft in some areas and had deteriorated after a long period of being damp. The parapet leaned in toward the roof and there was inadequate pointing to the external face of this area. They were unable to view this area fully as there was no scaffolding in place.
2. Works were recommended to take down the parapet wall to the front facing roof slope and rebuild this, and install concrete copings over a full damp proof course. The slates and lead flashings would also need to be repaired and the render renewed to the inside face of the parapet. It recommended that soft brickwork within the roof space was replaced with the installation of a damp proof membrane. It also recommended that the pointing to the gable-end wall was raked out and renewed. Some of the internal plaster in the living room was soft and needed to be hacked off and renewed. The landlord was provided with a copy of the surveyor’s report on 8 April 2021.
The landlord’s records show that scaffolding was erected on 18 June 2021 to inspect the top level of the flank wall, parapet wall and copings as instructed by a structural engineer.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2021 as she was dissatisfied with the lack of progress. She said the scaffolding had been placed but no work had been carried out. The landlord has advised that the complaint was not escalated at this stage as the “stage 1 commitment was still ongoing”. The landlord’s records show that the resident pursued an update on 14 September 2021.
The resident raised a further complaint on 28 September 2021. She maintained that the leaking roof was impacting her lounge and had been ongoing for years. The walls had blown in the property and were in need of repair. She said that scaffolding had been erected before the summer but no works had been carried out. She felt the delay was causing more work and the landlord was not taking responsibility. She pursued a response on 4 October 2021 and asked to be contacted.
The resident contacted her MP and copied in the landlord and the Ombudsman on 28 November 2021. She explained that:
1. She had raised numerous complaints with the landlord about a leaking roof which had gone on for years. She had continuously advised the landlord that 3 walls were wet and after 2 years an operative had confirmed that the previous works had not resolved the issues.
2. Due to the delay, 3 walls in the living room had blown and were continuously wet. The walls in the loft also crumbled when touched. Surveyors had attended and provided a report so that the works could commence. She had received differing accounts of the works needed by different surveyors but no action had been taken.
3. The structural engineer had informed her that due to the delay in resolving the roof and wall issues, the roof insulation was also wet and they had reported this. She had asked the landlord to give her the engineers report but it had refused to provide this.
4. She added that the communal hallway lighting was also linked to her electricity meter which had not been addressed. She had also raised concerns about the property subsiding, with one of the beams in her son’s bedroom dropping. She was promised that this would be fixed at the start of 2021 but this had not happened.
5. She also said that her grandson had needed oxygen due to being born prematurely and informed the landlord that the damp issues would need to be resolved before he came home in June 2020, however, the issues had yet to be resolved over a year later. She believed that the landlord had been negligent in its handling of the matter.

2022

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint via a phone call on 7 January 2022. It sent an acknowledgement letter on the same date. It sent a holding letter to the resident on 21 January 2022 to advise that it was waiting for confirmation of who was responsible for the works and that it aimed to respond by 4 February 2022.
On 24 January 2022 the resident expressed concern that scaffolding had been taken down and no works had started. She had not received communication and the scaffolders had broken her front gate. The landlord responded on 25 January 2022 and apologised that the scaffolding had been taken down. It understood the resident’s frustration with the level of communication she had received and would investigate.
The resident responded to the landlord on 27 January 2022 and explained that the landlord’s contractors had called to apologise that the works had not been completed since 2018. She was told someone would contact her in the next few days to arrange for the scaffolding to be erected again. She raised concerns about the landlord’s internal communication. She said that the landlord was continuing its failure to resolve the issues and that the its contractors had initially said that they could not complete the works due to the extent of the issues. She said that the landlord needed to communicate effectively as its poor service had impacted her and her family, and caused a great deal of stress.
The landlord responded on 31 January 2022 and apologised that the resident’s experience had not been straightforward. It clarified that it was investigating any service failures that had occurred and aimed to respond by 4 February 2022. A surveyor from its special projects team would be the main point of contact to ensure that the necessary works were completed. Its contractors had taken down the scaffolding and the special projects team would arrange for this to be re-erected. It confirmed that its contracted repairs team would have no further involvement.
The landlord informed the resident that the works had been clarified and it was arranging the relevant dates on 2 February 2022. A holding response was sent to the resident in relation to the complaint.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 February 2022 via email and explained the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the complaint. It had an increase in customer contact and was taking longer that it should to commence investigations. It could have completed the repairs sooner and upheld the complaint. It could only look back 6 months prior to her original complaint on 28 September 2021 but acknowledged that the complaint was regarding outstanding works from August 2018.
2. It could not find a reason for the delay other than a breakdown in communication between it and its contractors. It noted that there had been previous complaints regarding the lack of progress and that the delay was contributed to by poor communication. The matter had now been communicated to its special projects team to take ownership of the works.
3. It acknowledged a delay in the repairs being passed to its special projects team but that it had now requested a quote. It would need to issue a Section 20 notice to affected homeowners within the building allowing them 30 days to confirm that they were happy with the quoted works, as this would impact their service charges. It was not legally allowed to begin repairs until the Section 20 process was completed.
4. It apologised that issues were ongoing and that it had not communicated. It offered the resident £250 compensation and an apology for the service experienced. It said that the details of the complaint would be passed to the relevant contractors, as well as its own employees who did not follow up on the works, to give them the opportunity to identify where it went wrong.
5. It committed to provide regular updates to the resident through a point of contact, notify her when the quotation had been received, initiate a Section 20 notice on receipt of the quote, and provide an updated timeline for work to be completed. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
The landlord’s records from 24 February 2022 show that the resident had previously reported that a window had blown to its contractors but that they had referred her back to the landlord.
The landlord’s records from 4 March 2022 show that a repair was raised following the resident’s reports that a scaffolder had broken her front gate. This was reported as completed on 23 March 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 23 March 2022 as it had not heard from her following its complaint response. The resident then escalated her complaint on 30 March 2022 and explained the following:
1. She did not feel that the landlord’s offer of £250 compensation was appropriate given the stress and inconvenience caused, interior repair works required, or the severity of neglect to a vulnerable resident with a household of medical needs.
2. She had made numerous complaints and was dissatisfied that the landlord had responded to her complaint of 29 January 2021 over a year later. She believed the landlord had constructed barriers, and failed in communication and its obligation to maintain the property to a reasonable standard.
3. She did not feel the internal remedial works should be her responsibility. She noted that she had a heart condition and the level of stress caused had exacerbated her symptoms.
4. As a resolution, she wanted the landlord to offer significant compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused or a refund of rent for the 4 year period, resolve the leak and interior damage (including decorating in a colour of her choice), offer a meaningful apology, provide regular updates and the surveyor’s report under the freedom of information act, find a suitable alternative property if it was unable to resolve the issues, and provide a response from the staff member who had been responsible for the delay. She added that she wanted the landlord to complete repairs to fix a dropped beam in between the floorboards, and repair the stairs and window due to subsidence she had previously reported separately.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 12 April 2022 as she had not had any further communication in relation to her complaint. The landlord responded and confirmed that it had asked for the complaint to be escalated, but there was currently a delay at stage 2 of its complaints process.
The resident sent a further request for an update on 21 April 2022. The landlord’s records show that it issued a Section 20 notice to the other occupiers of the building on the same day.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 9 May 2022 and asked it to respond to the resident within its published timescales. The landlord formally acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 12 May 2022 and said it aimed to respond by 14 June 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2022 and explained the following:
1. A Section 20 notice was issued to the leaseholders on 21 April 2022 and was due to expire on 26 May 2022. It would then pass on the instruction on 27 May 2022 to confirm that works could progress. It had been speaking with its contractors in the lead up to this in order to avoid further delay and its surveyor had continued to keep the resident updated each week.
2. It had appointed an external contractor to complete works to the exterior of the building and detailed the works required to the property. In relation to the internal works, it would attend to carry out a damp meter survey and run some tests focusing on the living room wall. Its surveyor would then determine what internal works were required and raise these. It noted that it may be required to leave the wall to dry out.
3. It acknowledged that the resident wanted it to make good the ceilings, skirtings and doors, and apply undercoat and redecorate in a colour of her choice. It was unable to commit to the internal works that may be required. Its focus was to address the affected areas from the roof leak and the redecoration of the items mentioned would be the resident’s responsibility.
4. It felt its response was fair taking into account that it was only able to fully investigate service failures which had occurred within 6 months.
5. It apologised for the ongoing impact on the resident and increased its offer of compensation to £500, comprised of:
  1. £50 for the delay in acknowledging the resident’s complaint;
  2. £50 for the poor communication and the resident’s time and trouble;
  3. £250 for the delay in progressing the repairs;
  4. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
6. It confirmed that the resident could approach the Ombudsman for further investigation should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord’s internal records confirm that the scaffolding had been erected and the external works were in progress by 20 June 2022. The landlord’s records confirm that the works were completed in “summer” 2022.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported a number of cracks in the property within her bedroom walls and ceiling, her son’s bedroom and the hallway on 9 September 2022 and a work order was raised. On the same day, the landlord’s records show that a work order was raised as the resident’s front window was reportedly hanging off. The evidence suggests that this was attended to on the same day.
The landlord’s internal records show that an inspection was raised on 22 September 2022 and it asked for several works to be raised on 29 September 2022. These included hacking off an affected area of plaster, leaving it to dry for a few weeks, and sealing and redecorating the brickwork once dry.
The Ombudsman has not seen further evidence of communication between the landlord and the resident regarding the issues until 2023.

2023

The resident contacted the landlord on 15 March 2023. She said that only the external works had been completed. She added that she had limited contact and failed call-outs, the walls were soaking wet and she was not satisfied. She had approached the Ombudsman at this time and awaited the landlord’s response.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint at stage 1 on 30 March 2023 and confirmed that it aimed to respond by 14 April 2023. It noted that the internal damp works remained outstanding, she had also reported that her windows had blown the previous year but nothing had been done, and she had reported cracks in the walls and ceilings of her son’s room and that the floor was bowing.
The landlord sent a holding letter to the resident on 13 April 2023 and said it aimed to respond by 28 April 2023. It then issued its stage 1 complaint response on 27 April 2023 and explained the following:
1. It was only able to investigate service failures which had occurred within the 6 months prior to a complaint being raised. It noted that internal works were due to be carried out following the major external works in the summer of 2022. It had failed to arrange the internal works and said an appointment would take place on 2 May 2023 to commence the damp works. The surveyor would inspect the ceiling cracks on the same day and the window repairs were then scheduled for 10 May 2023.
2. It acknowledged that the resident had reported issues with her windows and cracks in the property on several occasions but it had failed to arrange for the works to take place despite her efforts to chase them. Its surveyor had previously advised that the cracks were not considered to be structural issues and that there were no signs of bowing or significant movement following a visual inspection but it would review this.
3. It acknowledged that the resident had contacted it to complain in March 2023 and apologised for the time taken for it to respond. It acknowledged this was outside of its expected response timescales and apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused. It identified that it needed to respond faster when a customer reported a repair.
4. It offered the resident £500 compensation comprised of £50 for the delay in acknowledging the complaint, £50 for customer effort, £200 for the delays completing the repairs and £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint should she remain dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord’s records show that the works were not completed as scheduled on 2 May 2023 as the resident had asked for the works to be rescheduled due to them disturbing her son (who was studying for an exam).
The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated on 18 May 2023 and explained the following:
1. The interior works had not commenced and she had received no contact form the surveyor who was meant to be a point of contact. She was concerned that the landlord consistently failed to maintain the property.
2. She expressed specific concern about the surveyor who had misdiagnosed the issues, caused delays, and did not follow-up. She asked for a mutually convenient time for the works to commence. She worked full time from home and the previous appointment was during a teacher strike, meaning her children were at home. Since this, she had heard nothing further.
3. She was dissatisfied that the landlord said it could only look back 6 months when the complaint had been ongoing for years. She did not feel the comments regarding the cracks in the property were valid as they were made by the same surveyor who failed to diagnose the leak issue form the outset.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation on 19 May 2023, following a call. It noted that the resident had said works had not progressed and that works to assess cracks and the bowing floor, as well as the window repair, were not attended to.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had advised that she would be available on 30 May 2023 for an inspection.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2023 and explained the following:
1. She had not been provided with an itinerary for the completion of works and workers turned up without notice.
2. Her carpet, flooring, and bath was covered in plaster and the laminate was uncleanable despite her efforts. Her blinds and furniture were covered in dust and debris and the light in the living room was broken. She was dissatisfied that she would now need to spend money to replace her carpets, flooring and furniture items and believed that the landlord should replace these as the dust sheets used were not fit for purpose.
3. She was dissatisfied that the remedial works had caused further inconvenience. She asked the landlord to source a cleaning company or offer compensation for the damage caused. She did not want the landlord to refer her to her own insurer as she felt it was liable for the damage. She had asked the worker to leave once she saw the state of the room and they had refused which left her feeling unsafe in her own home.
4. She added that she did not feel she should have been staying in the property while the works were undertaken due to the amount of dust created. She said that her family members had been coughing due to the dust and her grandson (who was on oxygen for health reasons) and daughter had needed to stay elsewhere.
5. She asked that these issues were added to her complaint or raised as a new complaint as she did not feel her health and safety was adequately considered. She added that she wanted a member of the landlord’s staff to attend with the contractor due to attend the following day. She also sent photos and a video of the room.
The landlord’s records show that the resident called on 9 June 2023 to report that she had asked workers to leave the previous day due to their demeanour as they were swearing. The landlord responded on 9 June 2023 and apologised for the inconvenience and damage caused by the contractor’s lack of care. It said it took the matter seriously. It arranged for the property to be professionally cleaned on 9 June 2023.
The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 3 July 2023 to advise that it needed additional time to complete its complaint response. It said it aimed to respond by 17 July 2023.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023 and explained the following:
1. It acknowledged that the resident remained dissatisfied with delays following its previous resolution letter. The delays had continued into the stage 2 complaint, it did not complete the repairs when it should have, and it did not communicate (both to the resident and internally) to a good enough level. It also failed to provide reassurance on how it would rectify the outstanding repairs.
2. It confirmed that while it was able to attend on 2 May 2023, the necessary works remained outstanding and this was not the level of service that she deserved. It noted that it needed to improve its communication which it was constantly working on.
3. It offered an additional £400 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process
  2. £150 for the delays completing the repairs
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused
4. It confirmed that it would attend on 26 and 27 July 2023 to complete plastering, thermal board the flank wall, decorate the living room and replace the blinds. It also confirmed that it had agreed to replace the downstairs flooring and carpet on 15 and 16 August 2023. It confirmed that the resident could approach the Housing Ombudsman Service if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
The landlord called the resident on 24 July 2023 and summarised the call in an email on the same day. It summarised the following:
1. The resident had raised concern that only 2 of the 3 internal walls affected had been attended to and a further appointment was booked for 26 July 2023. Operatives had also caused damage to the flooring in the hallway and living room, along with her blinds, due to failing to place protective covering when exposing the walls. The landlord confirmed it had committed to replacing the floor covering and blinds.
2. The landlord committed to reviewing the compensation offered due to the ongoing issues the resident had faced. It also discussed the points of learning from the complaint. This included ownership of the repair commitments and considering the impact that work of this nature had on her and her family and whether a decant (temporary move) while works were carried out would have been appropriate.
3. The landlord confirmed it would review the compensation offered and query the resident’s request for a permanent move. It apologised that the issues were ongoing and for the impact this had.
The landlord issued a follow-on response on 26 July 2023 and explained the following:
1. It had reviewed the compensation previously offered to the resident and noted that she experienced further issues with the repairs following the complaint. It did not feel that the current award of compensation fully took into account the further impacts and distress and inconvenience caused.
2. Its increased offer of compensation took into account the impact on the resident’s home life with her remaining in the property, the distress caused by the damage to the property, the vulnerabilities of both the resident and her grandson, and the unacceptable length of time it had taken to reach a point where all works were completed.
3. It noted that the resident had said that she no longer wished to live in the property due to the constant problems. It was currently looking into the resident’s housing options and would provide an update by 4 August 2023.
4. It had failed to correctly enforce and adhere to its internal complaints process as time went on both in terms of responding to her initial contact and taking ownership and accountability. It had also failed to manage the complaint commitments after the point of resolution. This meant that the resident had to chase it to ensure the repairs progressed.
5. It had taken a number of actions to ensure improvements to its service. This involved a system that allowed it to track and communicate all complaint investigations and commitments better. It had also delivered training for complaint handling staff to agree communication preferences and timeframes, and understand the nature of the problem being reported.
6. It had increased its overall compensation offer to £3,151.96 inclusive of its previous offers of £500 and £900. This was comprised of:
  1. £300 for complaint handling failures.
  2. £250 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints and repairs processes (this has been split equally for the purposes of the Ombudsman’s investigation below).
  3. £100 for the resident’s customer effort.
  4. £500 for the delays completing the repairs.
  5. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
  6. £1,501.96 as a 10% rent reimbursement for the period of September 2021 to September 2023 (rent rate of £144.42 per week) in recognition of the loss of enjoyment and use of the property.
7. It confirmed that works to expose the third living room wall, apply thermal boarding, replaster, redecorate and replace the hallway and living room floors and damaged blinds would take place on 26 and 31 July 2023, and 14 and 15 August 2023 respectively. It provided a compensation acceptance form which noted the Ombudsman’s case reference number for the resident to fill in if she wished to accept the compensation and settle her complaint.
The landlord has confirmed that works to plaster and thermal board were completed on 31 July 2023. Decoration was completed on 11 August 2023 and the flooring was installed on 16 August 2023.
On 16 August 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and confirmed that she would accept the compensation offered to be paid towards arrears on her rent account. The landlord’s internal records show that it arranged for this to be processed on 18 August 2023. The landlord’s records show that it continued to discuss the resident’s rehousing options with her following the complaint.
The landlord’s records show that the replacement blinds were delivered to the resident’s property on 30 October 2023 as she said she would install these herself.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property, including the roof, external walls, and windows. It is also responsible for internal walls, floors and ceilings but not painting and decorations. It is responsible for plasterwork (but not minor cracks). The agreement further states that the resident would be responsible for allowing access to the landlord and its staff to inspect or carry out work. The landlord would normally give at least 24 hours notice unless it was an emergency.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 4 hours and make safe within 24 hours. Follow-on works would be treated as an anytime repair. Anytime repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The policy does not provide a specific timescale for major or more complex works. The landlord would be expected to communicate effectively with residents and complete repairs within a reasonable timescale.
A landlord must consult leaseholders before carrying out “qualifying” works where the cost of the work will impact the service charge they pay for the property. This is called a Section 20 consultation. Qualifying work are works on a building or any other premises (including improvements) where the work will cost over £250 (including VAT and management fee) for any one homeowner or tenant. Leaseholders must be allowed at least 30 days to respond to the landlord’s intention to complete works.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If there is likely to be a delay, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide an expected response date. In exceptional circumstances, it may take an additional 10 working days to respond.
The policy states that the landlord may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific service failure which happened over 6 months prior to the complaint being made. Discretion would be used, particularly where there is evidence of a longstanding or continuing problem. It would rely on evidence of an unreasonable delay before the complaint was lodged.
The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), effective from December 2020, sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code stated that:
1. Landlords should not unreasonably refuse to escalate a complaint through all stages of the complaints procedure and must have clear and valid reasons for taking that course of action.
2. Where a landlord decides not to escalate a complaint, it should provide an explanation to the resident. It should make clear that its previous response was its final response to the complaint and provide information on referral to the Housing Ombudsman.
The landlord may pay compensation where it has failed to deliver a service, in recognition of the time and trouble spent by a resident, in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused due to a service failure, and to reflect where a resident suffered a loss due to a service failure.

The landlord’s handling of external and internal repairs to the resident’s property.

While the landlord had only reviewed its handling of the resident’s repairs from September 2021 within its complaint responses, the Ombudsman has considered the earlier complaint made by the resident in January 2021 and its handling of her reports from February 2020 when she reported that issues were continuing following previous reports. The landlord’s decision to only investigate matters that had occurred within 6 months of the complaint being made will be addressed further as part of its complaint handling below.
In this case, it is evident that the resident has been pursuing repairs to her property for a significant period. Given the history of the recurring issue in the property, and that the resident had initially reported her concerns in 2018, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to take a proactive approach to diagnosing the cause of the issue following her additional reports in February 2020.
While several inspections took place in 2020 which identified that the parapet needed repointing, there is little evidence that any work was undertaken to address or resolve the issues at the time. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who continued to pursue a resolution. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord suitably communicated with the resident during 2020 or explained the reason for any delay at this time.
In addition, while the landlord acknowledged the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the recurring “leak” in its stage 1 response of March 2021, it failed to analyse the steps it had previously taken or fully acknowledged its failings.
The structural survey undertaken in April 2021 identified that various external repairs were needed and that brickwork had deteriorated after a long period of being damp. This confirms that the issues had been ongoing for an extended period of time, and it is evident that the 14 month delay in diagnosing and addressing the leak reported in February 2020 had contributed to the identified damage to the property.
Once it was aware of the extent of works required to remedy the ongoing issues in April 2021, there was a further 14 month delay in beginning the works until June 2022. While some of the delay, including the time needed to complete the Section 20 consultation, was outside of the landlord’s control, the delay in beginning the consultation and subsequent works was significant and unreasonable. This was likely to have caused significant concern to the resident and necessitated in an unreasonable amount of time being spent by her in pursuing a resolution due to poor communication. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps to reassure the resident as to how it would resolve the issues or kept her adequately updated throughout the process.
Within its subsequent complaint responses through 2022 and 2023, the landlord has acknowledged that it should have completed repairs sooner, there were delays in passing work to the relevant teams, there was poor internal communication which contributed to significant delays and there was poor communication with the resident meaning that she needed to chase repairs. It also acknowledged that it had failed to progress internal repairs once external works were completed in the summer of 2022 and that it had failed to arrange for works to take place on several occasions. These issues are not disputed.
It remains unclear as to when the external works were completed, however, the Ombudsman has seen evidence that the internal works to hack off an affected area of plaster, leave it to dry for a few weeks, and seal and redecorate the brickwork once dry were raised on 29 September 2022. The Ombudsman has not seen clear evidence to confirm the reason for the delay in these works being carried out. While the landlord sought to progress works, this was not until the resident raised a further complaint in March 2023.
It is noted that there was some delay due to the resident asking for the appointment on 2 May 2023 to be rescheduled which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, given the longstanding nature of the issues, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been proactive in rebooking the works and there were further delays and inconveniences caused to the resident following this. It is noted that the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the property to be cleaned following the resident’s reports that it had been left covered in dust by contractors on 9 June 2023, yet following this there was a further delay in works being completed. The landlord ultimately acted reasonably by arranging for the flooring to be replaced and decoration to be completed given the damage caused.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the circumstances for severe maladministration apply in this case. The repeated failures to resolve the issues impacting the resident’s property between February 2020 and August 2023 warrant a significant level of compensation given the extent of the failings and the cumulative impact on the resident as a result. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s household vulnerabilities which is an aggravating factor in its handling of the repairs as it should have done more to act proactively and resolve the issues within a reasonable timeframe given the potential impact. If not for the attempts at redress made by the landlord and the compensation offered, the Ombudsman would have found severe maladministration.
Within its formal complaint responses between 2022 and 2023, the landlord offered a total of £1,200 compensation to the resident for the delays in completing the external and internal works, its poor communication and her time and trouble, customer effort, and distress and inconvenience. This is in addition to its previous offer of £250 made in March 2021. The total offer awarded by the landlord within its formal complaints process (£1,450), while significant, is not considered proportionate in view of the extensive failings identified in this report and the impact on the resident over approximately 3 and a half years.
It is noted that the landlord increased the compensation offered to the resident on 26 July 2023, shortly after its stage 2 complaint response on 21 July 2023. The landlord increased its offer for this aspect of the complaint significantly, bringing the total offered for this aspect of the complaint to £2,976.96 (including the £250 offered in March 2021).
This offer took into account the resident’s patience and time and trouble, the delays in completing the repairs, the distress and inconvenience caused and a 10% rent reimbursement due to its failure to complete internal repairs. While the landlord’s increased offer goes some way to acknowledge the impact of the failings on the resident, including the loss of enjoyment of the living room and use of the property between September 2021 and September 2023, it remains unclear as to why this offer was not made within the landlord’s complaints process, and whether the offer would have been made had the case not been pending investigation by the Ombudsman at the time. The landlord’s decision to issue a follow-on response will be discussed below as part of its complaint handling.
While the increased offer of £2,976.96 can be said to have put things right for the resident, this offer did not fully take into account the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing her concerns or the inconvenience caused by the delay in diagnosing and progressing works to resolve the damp issues from the outset in February 2020. Given the longstanding issues and the impact caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay additional compensation to the resident as set out below.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

In this case, it is not disputed that the landlord failed to respond to the resident within its published timescales at each stage of its complaints process for both complaints. The landlord has acknowledged delays in its handling of the resident’s complaints within each of its stage 2 complaint responses on 17 May 2022 and 21 July 2023 respectively. Within its formal complaint responses, the landlord offered a total of £200 in view of the delay in acknowledging and responding to the resident’s complaints and her patience. It then increased its overall offer to £425 for this aspect of the complaint within its follow-on response on 26 July 2023. Despite this, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the complaints.
It is evident that the resident initially expressed her concern in February 2020 about recurring issues since her previous complaint, This was treated as a service request at the time. Following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction on 29 January 2021, it was reasonable for the landlord to raise a formal complaint. This was not acknowledged until 9 March 2021.
While the landlord apologised for the delayed response at this stage, it failed to offer suitable redress for the delay within its subsequent response on 18 March 2021 or fully investigate its failure to progress works in the period leading up to the complaint. In line with its policy, the landlord should have, at a minimum, considered the history of its actions from July 2020 onward given the longstanding nature of the issues. While the response said that the complaint would be passed on to ensure it learnt lessons in order to improve its service moving forward, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord took sufficient points of learning at this stage.
The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 16 August 2021 due to a lack of progress with the works. The landlord has advised that the complaint was not escalated at this stage as “the stage 1 complaint commitments were ongoing”. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the landlord explained the reasons why the complaint was not escalated to the resident at the time.
In addition, the landlord’s reasons for not escalating the complaint are not considered reasonable. The commitments agreed at stage 1 were for a surveyor to inspect the property. At the time of the escalation request in August 2021, this had taken place and a structural survey had also been completed. Given the resident’s dissatisfaction with the lack of progress, the landlord should have escalated the complaint and provided a final complaint response. Alternatively, it should have provided the resident with escalation rights to the Ombudsman if the previous response in March 2021 was its final complaint response.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord missed the opportunity to investigate its handling of the resident’s reports, provide reassurance to her on the steps it had taken, and would take, to resolve her concerns, and offer suitable redress for its service failures up to that point. Its failure to respond appropriately at this stage created barriers to its complaints process, meant that the resident was left without sufficient redress for this period, and evidently led to the resident spending additional time and trouble pursuing her concerns through a further complaint in September 2021.
The landlord acted reasonably by admitting to and apologising for the delay in acknowledging the new complaint between September 2021 and January 2022. Within its complaint responses, the landlord maintained that it was unable to consider service failures which dated back more than 6 months. The landlord’s policy states that it may decline to investigate a complaint about a specific service failure which happened over 6 months prior to the complaint being raised and that discretion would be used, particularly where there is evidence of a longstanding or continuing problem.
In this case, the landlord failed to correctly apply the exclusion. As the new complaint was made in September 2021, it should have, at a minimum, considered its handling of the issues from March 2021. In addition, it is clear that the issues were longstanding and continuing. As such, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have utilised its discretion to look back further than 6 months in order to fully account for its failings, consider appropriate redress to put things right, and establish points of learning to avoid similar situations in the future. Its failure to do so inevitably led to the resident’s experience not being fully considered and was likely to cause frustration to her given she had continuously pursued complaints regarding the substantive issue.
It is not disputed that there was a delay in acknowledging and responding to the new complaint between 29 September 2021 and 18 February 2022. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response on 17 May 2022 was also issued outside its published timescales. While it was reasonable for the landlord to explain that it was experiencing delays due to an increase in customer contact, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation at this stage was not proportionate given the impact on the resident and lack of communication. It is noted that the landlord was aware of the resident’s concerns in relation to the communal lighting being linked to her electricity meter, and her concerns about subsidence and outstanding works as these issues were raised to the landlord and MP in November 2021. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord missed the opportunity to address these concerns at the time in order to more fully resolve the complaint.
The resident raised a further complaint 15 March 2023 and experienced more delays at stage 1 and stage 2 of the complaints process before the landlord’s final complaint response on 21 July 2023. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging the delays and the resident’s patience throughout the complaints process and offering £150 compensation. However, the landlord’s response at this stage failed to address the resident’s reports of damage to her furniture or provide details of its liability insurer should she wish to pursue a claim which would have been appropriate given her concerns and request.
In addition, while the landlord acknowledged delays in completing works following the resident’s reports of cracks and a blown window in its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to comment on these works further in its stage 2 complaint response or follow-on response which would have been appropriate to resolve the complaint more fully. Its failure to do so meant that the resident’s concerns remained unresolved. It also did not consider her specific concerns in relation to the behaviours of the staff member responsible for diagnosing the cause of the issues, and the delays they had caused, or confirm what it would do to investigate these.
Overall, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for its complaint handling failures within its final complaint responses on 17 May 2022 and 21 July 2023 is not considered proportionate in view of the failings identified and the level of inconvenience caused to the resident. While the landlord subsequently increased its offer to £425 for this aspect of the complaint within its follow-on response on 26 July 2023, it remains unclear as to why this offer was not made as part of its internal complaints process. The increased offer can be said to have put things right for the resident somewhat. However, it is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord had the opportunity to offer suitable redress within its complaints process and its failure to do so amounts to a service failure. Overall, the increased level of compensation for complaint handling did not sufficiently take into consideration the landlord’s failure to escalate the resident’s previous complaint or the time and trouble spent by her in pursuing her complaints.
When considering a landlord’s handling of complaints, the Ombudsman also considers whether the landlord has demonstrated it has taken points of learning from complaints to prevent similar failings in future. While the landlord said that the complaints in March 2021 and February 2022 would be reviewed to establish points of learning, this apparently did not happen as the resident continued to have a poor experience. Within its final complaint response on 21 July 2023, the landlord identified that it needed to communicate more effectively, however, it did not set out its learning from the resident’s complaint until its follow-on response on 26 July 2023.
The landlord was evidently aware that the case had been accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman on 23 June 2023 following a request for information. The Ombudsman has seen evidence of an internal email on 24 July 2023 in which the landlord noted that it was “under pressure” and “at risk” with a number of its complaints pending determination from the Ombudsman, including this one, and it needed to “very quickly demonstrate” that it was committed to putting things right. It then issued a follow-on response to the resident on 26 July 2023 where it substantially increased the compensation offered for both aspects of the complaint.
The landlord’s follow-on response indicates that it was reacting to the pending investigation by the Ombudsman and it is unclear whether the further offer of compensation, or points of learning, would have been offered or established had the resident not referred her complaint to this Service. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance (September 2022) makes clear that a finding of reasonable redress would not be applicable in cases where a landlord makes an (often substantial/disproportionate) offer of redress following its internal complaints process with the effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further.
In addition, the compensation acceptance form sent alongside the follow-on response referenced the Ombudsman’s case reference number and specified that compensation was accepted to “settle” the complaint under the Ombudsman’s reference. It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord should avoid using such wording within its responses. A resident will ultimately have the opportunity to refer their complaint to the Ombudsman should they remain dissatisfied with the compensation offered within the landlord’s complaints process, regardless of whether they had accepted the compensation offer or not.
The Ombudsman has recently determined a number of other cases in which the landlord has issued a follow-on response, or review of the complaint, following the end of its internal complaint process and while the complaint was pending investigation by the Ombudsman. These post-complaints procedure reviews often increase the level of compensation (and other forms of redress) even where the evidence available to it was the same as that it held when the stage 2 response was issued. It is therefore unclear why residents are required to wait for time periods between a week (in this case) and more than a year to obtain the resolution that should have been provided through the complaints procedure.
The landlord’s practice of conducting case reviews once the matter has been brought to the Housing Ombudsman, and offering further redress, indicates that its processes do not always allow for a thorough investigation through its 2-stage complaints procedure. The outcome is that some residents are in effect required to exhaust an unofficial 3-stage process in order to obtain an appropriate resolution. It is of concern that there may be other complaints which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and involve failed complaint commitments, outstanding works and insufficient redress, but that would not be reviewed further unless referred to the Ombudsman.
It is important for landlords to be able to recognise where new failings may have occurred after a stage 2 response and offer redress accordingly. However, they should prioritise achieving resolution through the complaints procedure wherever possible and have a fair, timely and consistent approach to putting things right and learning lessons from complaints. A post-complaint review should be an exception and should not be prompted by action by the Ombudsman. The focus should be on putting things right for the resident through the complaints process rather than avoiding a maladministration finding by the Ombudsman.
In view of the above, the Ombudsman has decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This allows for the Ombudsman to make wider orders where our investigation establishes that more than one resident may be affected by a matter, if the related practice may give rise to further complaints. The order is for the landlord to review its complaint handling culture in relation to redress. The scope of the review is set out below to support the landlord in improving its services for residents in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of external and internal repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

There were significant failings by the landlord in diagnosing and progressing external repairs to the resident’s property and completing follow-on remedial works to the internal parts of the property over an extensive timeframe. While the landlord acknowledged several failings and offered a significant award of compensation to the resident, it failed to fully consider her experience or offer suitable redress through its internal complaints process.
The landlord acted unreasonably by refusing to escalate the resident’s initial complaint in August 2021. This led to additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing further complaints in order to find a resolution. While the landlord acknowledged and apologised for delays in its handling of the resident’s subsequent complaints, it unfairly applied exclusions to the timeframes it considered despite the resident consistently pursuing complaints in relation to the long-standing issues. The landlord failed to offer suitable redress or demonstrate that it had taken sufficient points of learning through its internal complaints process. While it issued a follow-on response where it substantially increased the compensation offered, it remains unclear as to whether this would have been offered had the complaint not been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report. The apology should be written and sent by the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident an additional £750, comprised of:
1. £600 in recognition of the time and trouble she had spent pursuing a resolution between February 2020 and September 2021 and the inconvenience caused due to the landlord’s failure to effectively diagnose and progress the works to the property.
2. £150 in recognition of the inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident in view of the additional complaint handling failings identified.
This compensation is in addition to the previous offer of £3,151.96 which the resident accepted in August 2023, and the landlord’s offer of £250 made in March 2021, which should be paid if it has not already been. The additional compensation should be paid directly to the resident rather than offset to her rent account unless she states otherwise.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practices in relation to its approach to complaints and redress. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and should include (but is not limited to):
1. Identification of complaints that it has responded to at stage 2 between January 2023 and July 2023 (as a sample period) where the substantive issue remains outstanding for the resident due to a failure to monitor complaint commitments, or where it would make a further offer of redress if the complaint was brought to this Service under its current practice.
2. The landlord should confirm the number of complaints it finds that fall within the above circumstances and confirm what it intends to do to put things right for the residents affected.
3. Consideration of its approach to reviewing complaints and offering a follow-on response where the case has been referred to the Ombudsman for investigation. It should establish whether it has sufficient systems in place to ensure that it is not only the cases that have been referred to the Ombudsman that receive a follow-on response and additional redress where applicable.
4. Consideration of its staff training needs, particularly in relation to offering suitable redress within its internal complaints processes, and identifying and implementing points of learning from complaints.
5. A review of the wording of its compensation acceptance forms, removing reference to the compensation offer being made to “settle” the complaint.
6. Consideration of how points of learning from complaints are established, and how these are shared and implemented by other teams, such as its repairs team, when established by its complaints service. It should confirm how learning is to be shared.
7. A review of the recently published statutory Complaint Handling Code (effective from 1 April 2024) alongside its current approach to complaints to ensure that any changes are implemented within its complaints policy and procedure.
8. Consideration of the resources available to its complaints department, specifically whether the department is sufficiently resourced to meet the demands of its service and prevent unreasonable delays being caused to its customers.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues in relation to its complaint handling based on identification of complaints within the period specified above, and the steps it proposes to take to put right for these residents.
The landlord should present a copy of the final report to its Group Housing Services Board and Member Responsible for Complaints and confirm how it will imbed any recommendations into its future service delivery. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any existing or outstanding complaints specifically related to her bathroom, asbestos, and subsidence. It should confirm what stage complaints are at and take steps to escalate these through its internal complaints process where requested.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in relation to the above recommendation within 4 weeks.