Incommunities Limited (202219765)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219765

Incommunities Limited

27 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. Repairs required to her home as part of a legal claim, including to resolve damp and mould and woodworm.
2. The conduct and workmanship from its staff, contractors, and subcontractors during a replacement of her kitchen and bathroom.
3. Injury to health, damage to personal belongings, and other financial loss experienced as a result of the works.
4. Outstanding repairs prior to the tenancy beginning.
5. A leak from the first floor of her home.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3 bedroom house owned by the landlord. The resident’s tenancy commenced on 13 December 2021. The resident and other household members have some mental and physical health diagnoses, which the landlord was made aware of during the course of the complaint.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord’s contractor instructed a subcontractor to start works to replace the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. The works were completed over the course of the following 4 weeks.
On 31 January 2022, the landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The response addressed a complaint she had made about repairs that had not been completed before she moved into the property. The response apologised to the resident and undertook to carry out the works as required to her garden, doors, and toilet.
On 27 June 2022, the resident made a further formal complaint to the landlord, in which she raised a number of issues concerning the works that had taken place:
1. She had been told the works would only take 2 weeks. She had gone without access to a toilet, sinks, or taps for days at a time.
2. Her freezer had been left unplugged by a subcontractor and she had consequently lost all the food stored in it.
3. A subcontractor had thrown an unopened bag of bread into the resident’s garden. A sandwich and apple from subcontractors’ lunches had been swept under her bath.
4. Her bathroom blinds had been soaked by the removal of her toilet, when the subcontractor had told her it was not necessary for them to be removed.
5. The resident’s new dryer and cooker had been scraped and scratched. Her fridge freezer had been dropped on its side and been damaged. The subcontractors were joking about having a shovel underneath it and kicking the lino. Her dryer had been squeezed into a small gap and now could not be moved.
6. Her carpets were dirty because the subcontractor had refused to meet her request to wear foot coverings or enter her home through the back door.
7. The old toilet had leaked on the resident’s carpet at the top of the stairs, resulting in her having to cut the affected part away.
8. A open bottle of turpentine and a knife had been left lying around, which had been discovered by her young children.
9. The resident’s child had cut his foot on broken tiles left by subcontractors. Building materials were left scattered throughout the resident’s home for long periods of time.
10. The resident had been told she could do her washing, which caused the kitchen to flood because the pipes had not yet been connected.
11. She had gone into debt to pay for takeaways in order to meet her family’s dietary requirements while she lacked kitchen access.
12. Subcontractors had used the resident’s tea towels, towels, and children’s clothing to mop up leaked water and rub their feet on.
13. They had used the resident’s kitchen for their own lunchbreaks, rolled tobacco in her kitchen, and smoked outside her back door with cigarette ends left in her garden.
14. The subcontractors had been overheard making derogatory comments about the resident accusing her of “moaning” and being “on one”.
15. A subcontractor had knocked over her 1 year old child and failed to react or apologise.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 30 June 2022. It apologised for the length of time the works had taken and acknowledged some of the conduct from its subcontractor had been unacceptable. It confirmed it had instructed its contractor not to use that subcontractor again when carrying out work on its behalf. It added that it had asked its contractor to rectify the issue with the damaged goods and offered to act as a mediator. The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation in addition to any claim she made. It asked to attend the resident’s home to inspect the works carried out, and apologise to her in person.
On 18 August 2022, the resident raised additional concerns with the conduct of the landlord’s staff and its contractors towards her, her family, and her home. She referred to her health conditions, and those affecting her children, and how they had been impacted by poor conduct and working practices. She raised concerns with the condition in which the landlord had let the property to her. 4 days later, she asked the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints procedure. A leak had reoccurred on the 12 August 2022 and resulted in her kitchen light not working. The resident also felt that elements of the kitchen replacement had been completed to a poor standard.
On 7 October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord upheld the complaint as it concluded that “with better internal communication and hindsight, the refurbishments could have taken place before [the resident] took up [her] tenancy”. It apologised for the “poor start” and offered a goodwill payment of £150 to recognise her stress and inconvenience. It also offered £100 in recognition of the damage caused to her dryer. The total offer was increased on 2 November 2022 by an additional £96, to reimburse the resident’s 2 damaged blinds.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman to investigate. She says she would like to be able to trust the landlord to complete future repairs that may be required without it being necessary for her to complain. She would also like the Ombudsman to review the landlord’s compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider investigate is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident complained to the landlord on 9 December 2022. The complaint included concerns about works it was carrying out as part of a disrepair claim she was in the process of making under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The works included resolving damp and mould, woodworm, a hole in the landing floor. The resident also referenced issues with the contractor dropping a bucket of plaster on her carpet, smoking in her home, and using her paintbrushes. She stated she had been told to pack up rooms ready for works to be carried out, only for them to be cancelled after she had taken beds down. The resident had also said that she had been left without heating since work started.
The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 13 December 2022. There is no evidence that the resident escalated the complaint following the landlord’s response, or that it had been necessary for the landlord to issue a stage 2 response. As such, the evidence does not suggest that this complaint exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. Conversely, the evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord should reasonably have considered the matter at stage 2 of its complaints procedure, but that it failed to do so.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
Having considered all the available evidence, the resident’s complaint about the repairs required to her home, including to resolve damp and mould and woodworm falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The resident could consider making a fresh complaint to the landlord if any of these issues remain unresolved. While the landlord’s complaints procedure may not allow for complaints to be raised after a certain time period, it should consider using its discretion to respond to this matter if appropriate to do so.

Scope of investigation

The resident’s complaint refers to issues with the landlord’s contractor and subcontractor. The Service will be unable to make any findings or orders that relate directly to the contractor’s or subcontractor’s handling of these reports, as these are separate companies and not members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It is within the Ombudsman’s remit to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports, as the contractors were employed to deliver the landlord’s repair obligations on its behalf.
The resident has explained to the landlord and the Service how the various events as described have negatively affected her physical and mental health, and of her family. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s statements. However, it is outside our remit to establish if there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and the resident’s health, or the health of her family. Matters of personal injury are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer as a personal injury claim. The Ombudsman has considered any distress and inconvenience the resident may have experienced as a result of the landlord’s handling of the issues that arose from the works carried out to her home. We have also considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about health and safety.

Policies and Procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s obligations to the resident. As the resident is an assured tenant, the landlord has a legal and contractual responsibility to resolve most repair issues that arise at her property.
The landlord has a Lettable Standard, which is a document that sets out the minimum acceptable standard that its properties must meet when they are let to a new resident. The document provides that a property’s interiors, exteriors, fixtures and fittings must be in “reasonable” or “good” states of repair and in “good working order”. It also sets out that it may be reasonable for kitchen and bathroom replacements to be completed during the void period if appropriate considering their age and condition.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 puts a duty on the landlord to complete reported repairs within a “reasonable” timescale. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it will attend and resolve ‘emergency’ repairs within 24 hours of them being reported, and it will attend all other repairs “on average within 9 days”.
Its repairs policy further sets out that the landlord will “carry out a first time fix to a high standard”, that its employees will “be polite, courteous and professional”, and “take care of our customers belongings”. It says it will ask customers if they prefer for shoe covers to be worn and ensure that materials/tools do not cause danger. It undertakes to ask residents if their electricity supply can be used where appropriate. It says it will ensure all health and safety procedures are adhered to, that utility supply will be restored at the end of each working day, and that its operatives will not smoke in residents’ homes and gardens.
The landlord’s code of conduct defines the expected “conduct of all individuals directly involved in delivering the business activities of [the landlord]”. It states that these individuals “must maintain high standards of professionalism, fairness and courtesy in all your dealings with residents”. They must “ensure courteous, efficient and impartial service delivery”.

The conduct and workmanship from the landlord’s staff, contractors, and subcontractors during a replacement of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom

The resident’s complaint raised significant concerns about the conduct and professionalism of the subcontractor that the landlord’s contractor had instructed to replace her kitchen and bathroom. In her original complaint dated 27 June 2022, she reported multiple examples of inappropriate, unprofessional, and inconsiderate behaviour from the subcontractor’s operatives around her home and towards her family. This behaviour included rudeness towards her, failing to wear foot covers when requested, smoking in and around her home, and throwing rubbish around. The resident reported that the subcontractor’s operatives failed to follow standard health and safety procedures and other good working practices, which had a significant impact on her and her family. She stated she had gone without access to water or sinks for days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response 3 days later. The Service notes that it did not dispute the resident’s reports. It apologised to the resident for the distress caused and asked to visit her at home to apologise in person. It said that it had met with its contractor and stated that it was not to use that particular subcontractor to work on the landlord’s behalf again. It acknowledged that some of the conduct by the subcontractors had been unacceptable. It offered to liaise as a third party mediator between the resident and the contractor in rectifying the issue with the damaged goods. It offered the resident £50 compensation “separately to the claim for damaged goods”.
The landlord’s complaint response, although brief, demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s complaint seriously. It had accepted that the subcontractor had not acted in accordance with its repairs policy or code of conduct to such an extent that it should not be allowed to work on its behalf again. Steps such as instructing the contractor not to use the subcontractor and visiting the resident’s home to apologise were therefore appropriate in the circumstances.
However, it is unclear if the landlord fully accepted that it was responsible for the resident’s experience with contracted companies. The landlord offered the resident an additional £50 compensation at stage 1. It would not necessarily have been expected to handle liability claims from its compensation budget. However, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience caused to her by those acting on its behalf, and offer a suitable remedy for this. It had accepted that the conduct of those acting on its behalf fell below the appropriate standard. The impact on the resident and her family had gone significantly beyond the damage to items and loss of food. However, the compensation offer fell short of what would have provided reasonable redress in the circumstances and it is unclear how the landlord reached the figure of £50. Given the resident’s comments were not disputed, this does not appear to be a proportionate offer in the circumstances. The Service will order the landlord to pay an additional award of compensation to recognise her poor experience.
An internal record made by the landlord on 1 August 2022 captures a call with the resident. During the conversation, the resident indicated that she was distressed as she had not been provided with information about how to claim the compensation she had been offered. An internal email was sent to ensure that details for claiming compensation offers was included on future complaint response, which was appropriate.
When the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 22 August 2022, it was clear that issues continued to remain unresolved. She also raised matters concerning the quality of the works carried out by the subcontractor. She stated that a cupboard had been damaged by poorly installed screws. Her dryer had been pushed into such a tight space that the resident could not pull it out to allow it the appropriate ventilation. Kitchen tiles had been misapplied and were uneven. In an internal email sent the following day, the landlord queried whether the works at the resident’s home had been checked and signed off. If this was not normal practice, it queried how the landlord monitored the contractor’s performance. These were appropriate questions to ask but it is not clear what the response was, if there was one.
The resident reported that the landlord’s complaint handler at stage 1, who she had been attempting to contact, had “finally” called her to arrange a visit to her home for 18 August 2022. However, on the day, the complaint handler had twice pushed back his arrival time and then sent a colleague to the resident’s home in his place. The resident said the member of staff had taken a single photo from behind the cooker. In response to her questions, he advised he was not the complaint handler and that he therefore did not have an appropriate level of authority to answer. The resident explained that she suffered from multiple mental health conditions and that it was important for her to know who would be coming to her home. The landlord’s repair log described the resident calling “very distressed” following the visit.
The visit took place 7 weeks after the landlord had issued the stage 1 complaint response, which was an unreasonable length of time. The resident also reported she had made considerable attempts to contact the complaint handler following the stage 1 response, which should have been unnecessary. It is noted that the complaint handler may not have been able to attend on that day and that rearranging the visit may have delayed progression of the complaint. However, in the circumstances, it would have been reasonable to notify the resident of the change as soon as it became apparent that the complaint handler could not attend. It would have also been reasonable to inform the resident that the member of staff would not be able to answer all queries, but that a response would be provided at a later date. This could have reasonably helped to manage the resident’s expectations. The visit was unsuccessful in assisting to rebuild the resident’s trust in the landlord, which it should have done. On the contrary, it further damaged her trust. An internal email sent on 15 August 2022, while not unreasonable in itself, failed to demonstrate that the complaint handler was approaching the visit with an appropriate level of empathy.
In her email of 18 August 2022, the resident stated that she was in “a really bad place” with her mental health. She raised numerous concerns and referred to another member of the landlord’s staff that had recently attended her home so she could show them the outstanding repairs. She described them as “rude” and “arrogant” and stated that they had left her “in so much stress”. The resident stated she had asked for the individual not to return to her home, but this request had been ignored and they had returned the following day. While the Service is unable to determine what occurred on these visits, it is clear from the resident’s report of her experience that these 3 visits did not have the desired effect. It was important that the landlord took a conciliatory approach and sought to restore the resident’s trust in it and those working on its behalf. The landlord missed multiple opportunities to put things right for the resident and restore her trust and it instead exacerbated the problem. This had a significant impact on the resident, who had informed the landlord she had mental health vulnerabilities, which it should have considered. The landlord could have reasonably considered arranging a single point of contact for the resident to help restore her trust, it is unclear why it did not in the circumstances.
In its stage 2 complaint response dated 7 October 2022, the landlord again did not dispute the resident’s reports of poor conduct from professionals visiting her home on its behalf. It acknowledged the poor service the resident had received and that “there are some issues [it] could have managed better”, although it did not give detail on these issues or steps it had taken to learn from them. It upheld the resident’s complaint and offered “a goodwill payment” of £150. The landlord’s compensation policy states that goodwill payments would not generally exceed £100, which demonstrates that the landlord was taking the complaint seriously. However, the Ombudsman is not bound by the landlord’s policy and has decided what amount would be appropriate in full consideration of the circumstances.
The stage 2 response also offered an explanation for the delay to the works being completed and stated this was due to an unavoidable delay owing to defective floorboards being discovered. It also confirmed the snagging issues identified as a result of poor workmanship had been resolved on 4 October 2022. This was appropriate handling of this part of the resident’s complaint, however it remains unclear if or how the landlord had implemented any learning. It is unclear if the landlord had carried out a post inspection of the works after they had originally been completed but it would have been reasonable for it to have identified any issues at an earlier stage.
The Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies (published online) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to putting things right for the resident where they have gone wrong. The guidance suggests that compensation awards of £500 would adequately remedy considerable maladministration where there was a significant impact on the resident. It will be appropriate for the landlord to apologise to the resident for the poor experience she had, and acknowledge the impact on her and her family. If it successfully paid the £150 goodwill payment, then this can be deducted from the £500 award.
It will be necessary for the Ombudsman to make a wider order for the landlord to review relevant practices, in accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is due to the failures identified leading to a concern that there are wider issues present, that may result in the resident experiencing similar problems in the future, or that are affecting other tenants.

Injury to health, damage to personal belongings, and other financial loss

Over the course of her complaint, the resident informed the landlord that a number of her personal belongings had been damaged by its contractors as it carried out works to her home. These are listed as follows.
1. Fridge freezer;
2. Dryer;
3. Oven;
4. Bathroom and kitchen blinds;
5. Landing carpet;
6. Soiled carpets;
7. Children’s clothing/towels used to mop up leaks.
Other financial loss experienced by the resident as a result of the works carried at her home are listed as follows:
1. Loss of food contained within her fridge freezer due to its power being disconnected.
2. Additional takeaways in order to meet her child’s medical and dietary requirements as a result of a lack of kitchen access.
3. Increased electricity costs due to contractors charging up tools for use elsewhere and plugging in electric heaters against her wishes.
The resident also provided the landlord with information about personal injuries sustained by her children as a result of the poor conduct and practices of the operatives working in her home.
1. One of her children had cut their foot on broken tiles left on the bathroom floor.
2. One of her children had sustained a bump to their head as a result of falling over stored bathroom equipment.
3. Her children had been prescribed antibiotics and the resident believed this was as a direct result of operatives smoking in and around her home.
The landlord’s stage 1 response refers to a “claim for damaged goods”, but it offered no explanation of the route the resident could take through making a liability claim with insurers. It has not provided evidence that it followed through with its undertaking to mediate between the resident and the contractor and assist her with making an insurance claim. There is no evidence that the landlord clearly signposted her or provided details on how she could make a claim. It is unclear that the resident was aware at any stage that she could make this type of claim for damaged goods or personal injury. Considering the nature of the resident’s complaint, this was inappropriate. The landlord should have ensured the resident understood her options and provided reasonable support.
The stage 2 complaint response provided an offer of an improved remedy. It had arranged for its contractor to replace the resident’s carpet on her stairs and her fridge freezer. It offered £100 to recognise the damage caused to her dryer. The evidence shows that negotiations continued. On 2 November 2022, the landlord agreed to pay an additional £96 to replace the resident’s kitchen blinds. There are emails between the contractor and landlord that show the contractor had agreed to pay £20 to the resident towards takeaways and £5 to cover the cost of electricity used for charging their tools. However, there is no evidence these offers were made to the resident, and it is unclear why they were not communicated. However, that they were not shared with the resident was inappropriate.
Further distress and inconvenience was caused to the resident as she followed up on the replacement of her fridge freezer, 2 months after the landlord’s stage 2 response. Following discussion with the contractor, the resident was of the understanding that it would remove and sell her damage fridge freezer before providing her with a new one. This would have left her without access to a fridge freezer for a period of time. The resident made telephone contact with the Ombudsman in a state of distress as a result. While there is no other evidence to document what was discussed, it is clear the resident was left confused and further distressed. In the circumstances, the landlord should have discussed matters with the resident and ensured that she was not left without a fridge freezer.
The landlord failed to directly address the resident’s reports of the injuries and harm sustained by her children as a result of poor working practices of those working on its behalf. There is no evidence that the landlord signposted the resident at stage 2 towards an insurer to consider making a personal injury claim. There is no evidence that the landlord demonstrated concern about the health and safety of the resident or her children. It has provided evidence that a meeting was arranged for 12 October 2022 to discuss ‘contractor concerns’. However, it has provided no evidence that this meeting went ahead, what was discussed, and what the outcomes were.
The landlord has failed to provide any assurance to the resident or the Service that it took reports of injury caused to the resident’s children seriously or that steps had been taken to reduce the likelihood of similar incidents in the future. It was insufficient that the landlord just instructed the contractor not to use that particular subcontractor again. Given the serious nature of the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to further investigate what had happened and whether the resident and her family had been exposed to an unacceptable level of risk. The landlord will be ordered to carry out a review of this case to reflect on the failures identified in this report and establish steps it needs to take to reduce the likelihood of residents experiencing similar levels of service in the future.
It will also be appropriate for the landlord to pay an additional sum of compensation to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience caused by its poor response to these reports. The Guidance on Remedies suggests an award of £600 adequately remedies maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord’s failings are compounded by the fact that, due to the health conditions experienced by the resident’s household, they were more likely to be disproportionately impacted than those without them.

Outstanding repairs prior to the tenancy beginning

The resident had complained in January 2022 about outstanding repairs that should have been resolved during the void period. The landlord had apologised in a stage 1 response and undertaken to resolve the issues. There is no evidence that the complaint was progressed to stage 2. However, it is clear that some matters continued to remain outstanding for a significant period of time, particularly with the doors in the property.
The resident did not make direct reference to these matters when she made her complaint of 27 June 2022. However, in her complaint escalation request dated 18 August 2022, she referred further to the poor state of repair in her home. She stated that all the doors in the house were broken, with the back door “fully split open”. There were problems with the skirting boards, windows, fireplace, and mantel. The completion of the kitchen and bathroom replacement works were delayed because of the discovery of rotting floorboards. Many of these repairs were handled by the resident’s solicitor from September 2022 and became part of a complaint made in December 2022. Therefore, the landlord’s handling of these repairs falls outside of the jurisdiction of this investigation, as set out earlier in this report.
However, it is clear that in December 2021, the landlord let a property to the resident that did not meet its lettable standard. The resident was aware that this had been the case and was understandably unhappy. The evidence demonstrates that a significant volume of work was required to the property in the first year of her tenancy, with the effect of causing her and her family significant distress and inconvenience. This amounts to maladministration. The landlord has evidenced that works were carried out to the property during the vacant period. However, it should not have been necessary for such a high level of intervention from the landlord’s repairs service in the year immediately following.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint and said it “concluded that with better internal communication and hindsight, the refurbishments could have taken place before you took up your tenancy”. The impact that this oversight had on the resident and her family was significant. As a result of failing to ensure the property met the lettable standard, the resident and her family were inconvenienced by outstanding repairs. It was necessary for them to facilitate access so the works could be completed after they had moved in. It will be appropriate for the landlord to make an additional payment of £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to reasonably complete works during the void period.

A leak from the first floor of the resident’s home

On 12 April 2022, the resident reported that there was a leak coming through her kitchen ceiling when the shower/bath were being used. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an urgent job with a plumber. However, as the next available appointment was not until nearly 2 weeks later, it agreed with the resident that she would call back to ask for an emergency response if it worsened. This was a reasonable response.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord’s contractors attended on or before 25 April 2022 as arranged. There is evidence that following chasing from the resident, the contractors did attend her home on 26 May 2022. However, the operatives who attended had refused to put foot covers on at the resident’s request as they did not consider that their shoes were wet. This was inappropriate. It was a matter of professional courtesy that the landlord’s contractors met reasonable requests when looking to enter the resident’s home. Their refusal was in direct contravention of the landlord’s repairs policy. It is unclear from the records whether any works were carried out to resolve the leak, but there is no evidence that the resident had reason to mention this when making her original complaint on 27 June 2022.
On 12 August 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s home on the same day that she reported an issue affecting her electrics. It traced the electrical fault to the kitchen light fitting, which was being affected by the leak reoccurring. The situation was made safe on the same day, which was the appropriate response from the landlord. The resident contacted the landlord on the next working day, 15 August 2022, and asked it to call her back. The evidence suggests the landlord did return the resident’s call that day and arranged to visit 3 days later to get a list of outstanding works. This was reasonable.
The resident’s email of 18 August 2022 stated that she was without lighting in her kitchen and that the landlord had “constantly” told her it could not rectify the leak, but its contractor would. She referred to other instances of the landlord’s employees not taking responsibility for repairs and suggesting that other departments, such as the voids team, were responsible for failures. This was inappropriate. The landlord has responsibilities to the resident in accordance with the tenancy agreement and the details of how the landlord fulfils those responsibilities should not be made the resident’s concern. It was unreasonable for the landlord to excuse its failures to the resident by suggesting the responsibility lay with another department or with contractors. The resident was entitled to see the landlord as a single entity taking ownership in getting the issues resolved without unnecessarily involving her. This would however be important for the landlord to know to ensure that it learned from the complaint and that similar failings were avoided in the future.
The leak was resolved by the contractor on 2 September 2022, which was within 28 days of the report and therefore a reasonable timescale. However, the resident had cause to call the landlord the previous day “very upset” as another member of the landlord’s staff had called her explaining they would be attending her property. She said she had been told by another member of staff that she would not have to deal directly with this individual. The landlord apologised and assured her the member of staff would not attend. This was appropriate. However, the landlord should ensure it keeps relevant records of such requests where appropriate so that additional distress is not unnecessarily caused.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 14 September 2022 to inform it that the leak had reoccurred. The landlord’s records show that arrangements were made for the contractor to attend the resident’s home again the following week, which was appropriate.
On 21 September 2022, the evidence shows that the resident had refused to let the contractor access her home without her housing officer, who she trusted, present. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord was aware that the resident would be more comfortable with having her housing officer present while her trust in its contractor was restored. It had not explained to her that it considered her request to be unreasonable, or that it was otherwise unrealistic for it to meet this request. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to either ensure the resident’s request was met, at least in the short term, or to explain why it could not do so.
The resident’s housing officer stated in an internal email dated 27 September 2022 that the resident had not refused access to the contractor on any occasion where it had made a prior appointment with her. The resident had complained about contractors attending her home without advance notice and had explained how this affected her social anxiety. The housing officer further stated that the resident had tried on occasion to accommodate operatives turning up at her home without advance notice and had called her in tears about it. There is insufficient evidence that the landlord took reasonable steps to improve the resident’s experience with its own, or contracted, operatives following her complaint. This is compounded by the fact that the landlord had a duty to make reasonable adjustments in light of the resident’s mental health conditions. The landlord will be ordered to review how it records information about its residents’ vulnerabilities and requests for reasonable adjustments to be made.
The resident was unavailable to give access in the immediate period following, due to a bereavement. In the stage 2 complaint response on 7 October 2022, the landlord explained that it had visited the resident’s home that day and found the leak was originating from the landing central heating pipe, not the bath, as originally believed. This had been discovered as a result of the resident having the heating on, which had worsened the leak. It promised to ensure that it was rectified as soon as possible, which was the appropriate response.
The Service acknowledges that leaks can be complex in terms of diagnosing and resolving the fault, and there can be an element of trial and error involved. The evidence suggests that the leak was intermittent in nature and varied in how severely it impacted the resident and her household over the course of 2022. The leak was exacerbated by the central heating being in use, which meant its cause would have been more difficult to identify over the summer months.
In an email dated 6 October 2022, the resident stated that the leak required fixing for the fourth time. This email suggested the landlord had carried out more work to resolve the issue than its own records do. The Ombudsman would not necessarily find against the landlord because the cause of a leak had been difficult to identify. However, a finding of service failure will be made with respect to record keeping. The landlord must ensure that it keeps clear records that evidence the actions it has taken. It should not be necessary for the resident’s communications to the landlord to give a clearer picture of what it had done. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks also showed that it was not keeping appropriate or accessible records of relevant information about the resident and her household. Such information had been necessary to demonstrate its learning from the resident’s complaint and compliance with its duties to her under equality legislation.
The fault was resolved and an appointment was made for 4 November 2022 to repaint the kitchen ceiling once it had dried. The resident was unable to provide access to her home as arranged. While it is understandable that the resident had to prioritise other tasks that day, the further delay cannot be considered to be within the landlord’s control. It is unclear when the job was completed, but upon the resident providing the Ombudsman with a list of outstanding repairs on 28 November 2022, there was no mention of the leak or outstanding remedial works.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the repairs required to her home, including to resolve damp and mould and woodworm is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about:
1. The conduct from its staff, contractors, and subcontractors during a replacement of the resident’s kitchen and bathroom.
2. Injury to health, damage to personal belongings, and other financial loss experienced by the resident and her family as a result of the works.
3. Outstanding repairs prior to the tenancy beginning.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about a leak from the first floor of her home.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay directly to the resident of a total of £1,600 in financial compensation, comprised of:
  1. £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her reports of poor conduct. The stage 2 goodwill offer of £150 can be deducted from this amount if it was previously paid to the resident.
  2. £600 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of her reports of injury, damage, and financial loss.
  3. £500 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to let the resident’s property in an acceptable standard.
2. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology should come from a senior figure at the organisation.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a comprehensive review. It must review its practices in relation to its repairs and maintenance service (including void works), and its oversight and management of its repairs contractors’ performance. The review must be conducted by a senior figure within a team independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review must be carried out within 16 weeks and also include the following (as a minimum):
1. An exploration of the failings identified by this investigation, relating to:

i. Why the resident was let a property with significant repair issues, necessitating an inappropriate level of involvement from her to follow up on them.

ii. Performance concerns with repairs contractors, with a focus on professional conduct, customer service, safe working practices, and the quality of repair workmanship.

iii. Ongoing oversight and monitoring of contractor performance and the appropriate management of resident concerns about the service provided by its contractors.

iv. A lack of appropriate signposting when residents raise matters concerning personal injury and damage to possessions.

v. Record keeping procedures, including procedures for recording relevant information about household vulnerabilities and requests for reasonable adjustments.

Reference to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on attitudes, respect rights – ‘relationship of equals’, published online in January 2024, and consideration of its recommendations.
Identification of all other residents who may have been affected by similar issues from December 2021 to the present day. This should include those who have not necessarily engaged with its complaints procedure.

d. A review of all determinations we have issued to the landlord over the last 18 months that address issues with high volumes of repairs required within the first approximately 12 months of a tenancy, or poor conduct and workmanship from its repairs contractors. Where there have been findings of maladministration or severe maladministration, those failings should be incorporated into this review for further exploration, along with the relevant case reference numbers.

Following the review, the landlord must, within an additional 4 weeks, produce a report that sets out:
1. Its 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 it has identified as experiencing similar issues;
4. The steps it proposes to take to provide redress, at the earliest opportunity, to those residents who have been similarly affected by the identified failings. This should include resolution of the issues and consideration of compensation awards that are proportionate to the level of detriment each resident has experienced, if caused by a failing by the landlord.
The landlord must embed the recommendations made in the report into its practices and have them inform practice in other areas of service delivery, where relevant, with appropriate oversight.
The landlord must provide a copy of the final report to its governing body and member responsible for complaints, if appointed, for scrutiny. The governing body should agree how it will provide oversight of the implementation of any recommendations made following the review. The landlord must also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord must commit to revisiting the issues 6 months after it has finalised the report, to ensure changes in practice have been embedded.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with the above orders within the timescales given for each.