London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202304366)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304366

London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q)

25 June 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:
1. Reports of delays in repairing the toilet flush, completing outstanding repairs to the bath, and bathroom flooring.
2. Reports of delays in installing a new kitchen.
3. Reports of delays in completing boiler repairs.
4. Request for new windows.
5. Request for Insulation.
6. Request for external works including the driveway, paths, drains, wall and gate.
7. Reports of damp and mould.
8. Reports about staff behaviour and communication.
9. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is the assured tenant of a house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her daughter. The resident has epilepsy and an autoimmunity condition.
The Housing Ombudsman investigated a complaint for the resident, under case reference 202215520, dated 5 September 2023. This related to reports of damp and mould, condition of the windows, repairs to the heating and hot water system, and repairs to the bathroom and kitchen. During the investigation it was noted that she had sought to raise a further complaint to the landlord, about her dissatisfaction with its handling of repairs, since its final response on 6 December 2022. It was ordered to raise a new formal complaint to address these matters.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 September 2023 to confirm what aspects of the repairs she was still unhappy with, to enable it to investigate. The resident responded the same day stating that she wanted to complain about all of the issues she had experienced since its previous stage 2 response. She stated that:
1. Repairs had been promised but not been completed, with the exception of the boiler work. Her toilet flush had not been resolved, there were outstanding repairs to the bath and bathroom flooring, the windows required replacement, the kitchen installation and boiler repairs had been delayed, and the insulation and damp and mould surveys had not taken place.
2. Her right to complain had been refused.
3. There was work required to the driveway, paths, boundary wall, drains and gate (which had not formed part of her previous complaint).
4. She had spent time and effort trying to resolve the issues, staff behaviour and communication had led to delays, and the delays had impacted her and her daughter’s health.
In its stage 1 response on 17 October 2023, the landlord provided an explanation for each of the resident’s repairs concerns, referring to the previous determination, and providing an overview of each repair raised. It stated that it was unable to respond to the resident’s claims, that her and her daughter’s health had been impacted, and that this would need to be addressed through an insurance claim.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 20 October 2023, stating that she found the landlord’s response to be “rude”. She believed staff had acted “maliciously and intentionally” to cause issues which led to delays. She responded to the points made by the landlord for each repair. She asked it to read the previous emails she had sent to enable it to understand the issues she was raising.
In its stage 2 response on 17 January 2024, the landlord apologised that whilst waiting for the Housing Ombudsman’s decision, some repairs remained outstanding. It set out the orders made and outlined the actions it had taken. It provided further explanations for each of the resident’s repairs concerns, offered £60 compensation for poor complaint handling, and a missed CCTV drainage appointment.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She stated that there had been persistent delays in completing the repairs which had impacted her and her daughter’s health.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

As outlined in the background of this report, this Service investigated complaint 202215520 dated 5 September 2023, up to the landlord’s final response on 6 December 2022. While the report referred to events following the landlord’s final response, these were for context purposes and to inform orders and recommendations. Therefore, the investigation of this case has focussed on events after 6 December 2022, up to its final response on 17 January 2024. Elements of the previous determination have been referenced in this report for context purposes and clarification of previous orders and compensation. Issues determined in the previous case will not be assessed as part of this investigation.
In the resident’s correspondence she advised that her and her daughter’s health had been impacted by the delays in completing repairs. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Reports of delays in repairing the toilet flush, completing outstanding repairs to the bath, and bathroom flooring

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for the structure and exterior of the home including walls, roofs, windows, external doors, drains, gutters, external pipes, boundary fences and gates. It is also responsible for fixtures and fittings for water, gas, electricity, heating and sanitation. Emergency repairs are completed within 24 hours. For emergency works out of hours it will attend within 4 hours. For routine day to day repairs, it aims to complete the repair in an average of 25 calendar days.
In the determination of the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord was ordered to inspect the resident’s toilet and complete any necessary repairs. Compensation of £150 was awarded up to 6 February 2023 due to the toilet flush not being repaired.
On 6 February 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident advising that its contractor would be in touch to repair or replace the toilet cistern.
The evidence, provided to this Service, showed that the resident had contacted the landlord on at least 14 occasions between 1 March 2023 and 10 October 2023. She stated that:
1. No one had been in touch to replace the toilet. It had not flushed properly since it was installed in August 2022, and waste was returning to the toilet bowl. There were maggots in the toilet bowl and she was having to use buckets of water to flush it, resulting in increased water bills.
2. The bath was too small, and the flooring around the toilet had not been replaced since repairs were undertaken.
3. A plumber attended in October 2023 who stated that the toilet needed replacing. It had been ordered and would be replaced on 3 November 2023.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had raised an order for the toilet. An appointment was made for 2 November 2023 for an operative to attend to ensure the toilet was fully functional, and for any necessary repairs to be completed. With regard to increased water bills, in order for it to investigate, the resident would need to provide a water bill showing the increased usage and a comparative bill for the same period.
The landlord’s response demonstrated that it had complied with the previous order made in raising a repairs order. It was also reasonable for it to ask for copies of water bills in order for it to consider this further. However, it failed to acknowledge the further delays from 6 February 2023, or the resident’s concerns about waste returning to the toilet bowl and presence of maggots.
The resident wrote further on 5 November 2023 advising that a plumber attended but had no knowledge of replacing the toilet. The landlord responded the following day and repeated its stage 1 response. It said that the plumber found the toilet to be fully operational with no evidence of maggots, and therefore it did not require replacing. It asked for video or photographs to demonstrate the faulty mechanism and maggots so it could refer this to its surveyor.
Given that the resident had been reporting the issues frequently between February 2023 and November 2023, the landlord should have acknowledged her concerns and investigated her reports sooner. It missed opportunities from February 2023 to request evidence from her beforehand and resolve the matter at an earlier stage.
The resident responded to the landlord’s email of 5 November 2023 on 7 November 2023 disputing its explanation about the replacement toilet. She said that the internal mechanism kept breaking causing the toilet to continuously overflow. She had shown the inspector videos of the waste returning to the toilet bowl which she found “embarrassing and humiliating.”
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2023 and said it would arrange for a supervisor to visit and carry out a full investigation of the issues she was reporting. Following its visit, she was advised that all issues, reported about the bathroom, had been addressed and there was nothing new to inspect. It had arranged to “make good,” by installing a new bath panel and frame edging which would be fitted on 4 December 2023. A new toilet would be fitted on 29 November 2023, and it had agreed for her to purchase new flooring for the bathroom for which it would reimburse the costs.
In its stage 2 response the landlord said that the bathroom renewal was completed on 18 August 2022 and a new toilet was installed. It understood that since the toilet had been installed it had not been functioning correctly. It also stated that:
1. This Service had requested for an inspection of the toilet, within 4 weeks of the previous determination on 5 September 2023. A works order had been raised on 29 September 2023 and an appointment made for 2 October 2023. Follow on works were arranged for 2 November 2023.
2. The plumber found that the toilet was fully operational and could not find any maggots in the toilet bowl at the time. The works order was therefore closed. However, it understood that there was confusion over what works were expected. It could not find any records that replacement had been arranged and was sorry that she had been misinformed.
3. On 10 November 2023, the surveyor attended to inspect the toilet as it was still not working correctly. The works order was reopened, and the toilet was replaced as a “gesture of goodwill” on 29 November 2023, with a toilet that had a greater water capacity.
4. It understood that she had requested compensation for every day her toilet was not working from 6 December 2022. However, compensation of £150 had already been awarded in the previous determination and therefore it would not provide further compensation for the same issue.
While the landlord arranged for a plumber to inspect the toilet, it failed to acknowledge the resident’s concerns about waste returning into the toilet bowl or presence of maggots, which she had been reporting for a significant period of time. It failed to consider any detriment to the resident or her time and effort in trying to resolve the matter. In replacing the toilet for one with a greater water capacity, it suggested that the flushing difficulties, experienced by the resident, were as a result of the insufficient capacity of the previous toilet cistern.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using the HHSRS risk assessment approach. HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Personal hygiene, sanitation and drainage form part of the HHSRS. This includes threats of infection and threats to mental health associated with personal hygiene, including personal and clothing washing facilities, sanitation and drainage.
The Ombudsman was supplied with photographs and video of the toilet. It should be noted that we are limited in the extent to which we can rely on photographic evidence. This is because it is often not possible to determine the location/circumstances of the photographs, or the validity of the images themselves. However, in this instance, it was evident that waste did return to the toilet bowl after flushing, and also demonstrated the presence of maggots. The landlord should have considered the resident’s concerns and responded more promptly to her reports about the toilet since February 2023. While compensation was awarded in the previous determination, up to 6 February 2023, it would have been appropriate for it to have considered further compensation from this date until the toilet was replaced.
In its stage 2 response the landlord addressed concerns about the bath being too small. This was determined in the previous case and will therefore not be considered further. It raised an appointment for 13 December 2023 to fit a new UPVC bath panel and frame edging. Its response was reasonable in making good any outstanding issues.
In its stage 2 response the landlord also addressed that part of the flooring in the bathroom had been removed in order to refix the toilet. It acknowledged that there was still a piece of plywood where the flooring used to be around the toilet. It acknowledged that it had agreed to pay for the cost of replacement flooring, which the resident would purchase, and it would reimburse the costs of £320. The resident confirmed, on 6 February 2024, that she had received the payment. The landlord’s response in relation to the floor was appropriate, however, it should have considered awarding compensation for the delays in reaching an agreement given that the flooring was taken up when the new bathroom was installed in August 2022.
In summary, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the delays in completing repairs to the toilet. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s reports over a prolonged period of time or award any compensation for the further 9 months she experienced difficulties. This was not in line with its repairs policy and it failed to consider its obligations under HHSRS with regard to sanitation. It also failed to demonstrate any learning from the complaint or detriment to the resident.

Reports of delays in installing a new kitchen

The previous determination found that the resident’s kitchen required replacement due to health and safety concerns. The landlord was ordered to complete the installation of the resident’s new kitchen. If it did not install the kitchen within the period of time specified, it should confirm the reasons why and its proposal for further action. It transpired that works to replace the kitchen were not straightforward as boiler and pipework replacement was required beforehand.
In the resident’s complaint she stated that the landlord failed to arrange for a kitchen fitter, immediately following the boiler works, leaving her and her family “living in dangerous and unhygienic conditions, and without cooking facilities.” She had been promised a daily allowance of £22 for each day she was without cooking facilities and had to chase the landlord for payments. She also disputed the specifications of the new kitchen that the landlord intended to install.
The resident wrote to the landlord on a number of occasions in March 2023 stating that the kitchen had been completely “ripped out” and she was without cooking facilities. She had been advised an inspector was visiting on 4 April 2023 to inspect the kitchen but the kitchen had been removed. She was having to keep food on the floor and had been left “living in a building site”. The cooker was disconnected on 27 February 2023 and she was told it would not be reconnected until after the inspection of the kitchen on 4 April 2023.
In further correspondence between the landlord and resident in May 2023, she stated that the kitchen works had now been arranged and she had been advised it would not be completed until the 6 June 2023. It acknowledged the points she was raising and stated that it had reviewed its previous stage 2 response where it had awarded compensation of £1,500 for distress, time and effort. It proposed to award the same amount on completion of the kitchen works with an additional £100 for poor complaint handling.
The resident wrote to the landlord in June 2023 stating that the kitchen works had started on 22 May 2023. Operatives attended to remove the final pieces of the kitchen, tiles and strip wallpaper. Electricians had arrived but had no plans or drawings and would need to return, and she had been left with bare wires and no sockets. Plasterers were due to attend but this was rearranged due to staff absence. She also stated:
1. The new kitchen was meant to be fitted on 30 May 2023, the contractor arrived to deliver the kitchen but it was not delivered as there was no one there to accept it. She also believed it was the wrong kitchen as the invoice suggested the units would be off centre to the cooker placing it too close to the boiler, which would not match up with the new electrics.
2. The kitchen was a standard high gloss kitchen which she had specifically stated she did not want due to her disabilities. She had asked for upstands rather than tiles, which was agreed with the operative, who said that this would be more cost effective for the landlord.
3. The kitchen sent was not the one she had discussed with the operative and she could not accept it. She had tried to explain the situation to another staff member who did not listen and was rude. One operative had called another operative “a complete idiot.” The van was called back with the wrong kitchen and again she stated she could not accept it. She was still waiting for someone to come back to her as she was without a kitchen.
The resident chased the landlord for a response on 12 June 2023, 17 and 19 July 2023. The resident wrote again on 25 August 2023 repeating that she had been without a kitchen since February 2023.
The landlord responded on 29 August 2023 that it was chasing progress weekly and was sorry it was taking so long. It had asked an officer to contact her to discuss colour and design options. It wrote further on 5 September 2023 that its intention was to visit to discuss options and materials.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that its records confirmed that a new kitchen had been offered which was declined by the resident due to her medical conditions. She was invited to provide evidence to support her claim, however, to date this had not been received. This was referred to its planned department and it was pleased that the new kitchen had been completed. It would ensure that the compensation for food allowance was up to date. During the period she had advised that her daughter had been hospitalised on 3 separate occasions due to deficiencies that had developed, however, it could not investigate personal injury claims. It she wished to make a claim she would need to write directly to its insurance department.
The landlord’s response with regard to the resident’s reports of health concerns was appropriate in directing her to its insurance department in order to make a personal injury claim. However, it failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident was without a kitchen or cooking facilities, from February 2023, or acknowledge its offer of compensation of 30 May 2023. It also failed to acknowledge that she had to persistently chase for updates or for the food allowance payments. It attributed the delays in installing a new kitchen to the resident’s refusal to accept a standard kitchen. It would have been appropriate for it to have considered the resident’s comments about designing the kitchen with its operative and investigated this with its member of staff to establish whether any promises had been made at the time.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that it understood that she had lost cooking facilities on 27 February 2023. Kitchen works had started on 22 May 2023, however, on 30 May 2023 she stated that the kitchen was delivered but no one was there to fit it. Some of the delays were not directly caused by it, and she had advised that the wrong kitchen had been ordered twice, which it found was not the case. She felt the fittings were not correct for her kitchen or accommodating for her disabilities. She had been informed that it relied on residents to inform it of any disabilities and the disabilities it had on its system did not indicate that the kitchen was incompatible. It was delighted to see that on 7 September 2023, she had a meeting, where she was able to design her kitchen, suitable to her needs. It was pleased to see that the kitchen works started on 25 September 2023 and were completed on 6th October 2023.
The landlord’s response again failed to acknowledge the length of time the resident had been without cooking facilities or a fully functional kitchen. It failed to honour its offer of compensation made in May 2023, where it had stated it would award £1,500 on completion of the kitchen works. It would also have been appropriate to consider further compensation given that the kitchen work was not completed until October 2023. It missed opportunities to visit the resident and discuss the kitchen design at an earlier stage which could have been done at the time the boiler works were being undertaken. This would have prevented the prolonged delay in installing the new kitchen of 8 months. It failed to consider any detriment to the resident or demonstrate any learning from the complaint. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s delays in installing a new kitchen.

Reports of delays in completing boiler repairs

The resident’s complaint related to the delays in completing the new boiler installation which she attributed to the landlord.
In January 2023 there was communication between both parties relating to the boiler replacement works as follows:
1. On 9 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the new boiler was supposed to be fitted the following day. She had been ignored and not heard anything about the repair or the issues with the contractor, so this would not take place.
2. The landlord stated that it was reviewing the status of all the repair issues raised. It would be in touch as soon as it had reviewed all maintenance records and it required input from the gas team and surveyor.
3. The resident responded asking why it had not reviewed the records sooner. It had known the issues with regards to the boiler and the urgent work needed would now not be able to happen due to its failure to act.
4. The landlord stated that its gas manager and contractor had advised that the resident was not happy to book the boiler installation. Its gas manager would be on site with its contractor whilst the work was taking place to ensure everything ran smoothly. It asked her to let it know if she would like the contractor to contact her and book a new appointment
5. The resident responded again asking what work was taking place. The boiler and gas line were to be relocated, water cylinder removed, and all 15mm pipe replaced with 20/22mm pipe. The contractor’s operatives had stated they were not replacing the pipe and leaving the 15mm pipe in the hope it would work better when the new boiler was installed. She had concerns about the disclaimer the contractor had asked her to sign. She asked if the pipework was to be replaced and whether she needed to remove all her belongings. She asked if it would send a professional to lift the carpets and replace them after the work was completed.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 February 2023 having found a carpet fitter who could assist in taking up the carpets and relaying them. She had contacted the gas contractor and asked about the pipework who advised that no pipework was being replaced. She had tried to explain that there had been ongoing issues and confusion with the work. The landlord had stated it did not wish to follow the contractors recommendation of leaving the 15mm pipe and to go ahead with 22mm pipe. The contractor was now refusing to book the work as this was not the information it had on its system. She asked again to be contacted urgently as she had arranged to have her carpets lifted and would have to rebook this. She chased the landlord for a response on 9 February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023, stating that she had been in contact with the contractor and the boiler replacement had been arranged for 27 February 2023.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that the resident had said that the repairs to the boiler were delayed by months and damage was caused to her property. The delay had been caused “by her” as she continued to ask questions which delayed the works agreed with its contractor. It had arranged for her carpet to be professionally lifted and refitted which was outside its responsibility. If any subsequent damaged was caused to the property during the works, she would need to submit a separate claim to its insurance department, along with photographic evidence of the damage incurred.
The landlord’s response was unsympathetic and attributed the delays to the resident. This was not reasonable given that the resident had chased for responses in relation to her queries about what works were being completed. It is not unreasonable for a resident to request information about works being undertaken to their home. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clearly communicated what works were being undertaken.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the new boiler was fitted on 27 February 2023. It understood that there had been delays, however, from its review of the correspondence it found that the boiler was first delayed as the contractor’s waiver was not signed by the resident. It understood her concerns, that damage may be caused to her home, if she signed the waiver. It was sorry this caused distress. It confirmed that the boiler work was completed on 2 March 2023.
It is not known why the resident was required to sign a waiver with the contractor given that the contract was between the landlord and its contractor. It is not disputed that there was a delay in the installation of the new boiler, and while the resident had asked questions about the required works, there were delays in the landlord’s communication with the resident. This service therefore finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays in completing the boiler repairs.

Request for new windows

Following the previous determination, the landlord was ordered to confirm the outcome of the window inspection, and in particular whether it would be replacing the windows. If not, it should make clear exactly what repairs would be carried out to each window.
In the resident’s complaint she stated there were a lot of issues surrounding the repairs to the windows and that she, “and the Ombudsman, were being provided with false information.”
The landlord’s records of 17 November 2022 referred to a healthy homes report which stated that windows were in need of repair. Further records of 1 December 2022 referred to its contractor’s report which stated that windows were difficult to open, hinges and trickle vents were not working and required replacement. Handles were loose or damaged and required renewal. The resident had advised that she was “adamant” that she wanted replacement windows and not repairs. The contractor asked that it confirm with the resident that repairs were acceptable prior to it proceeding.
Between January and February 2023, the resident stated she had not heard anything with regard to the windows, despite being promised that it was going to authorise replacements months prior. All of the doors and windows were defective. She disagreed with its decision not to replace the windows. The landlord confirmed on 21 February 2023 that it would progress with the recommendations made by its window contractor.
On 6 March 2023 the resident stated that she had already expressed her opinion about the windows. The landlord could make the repairs but she did not believe it would solve the problem. She chased the landlord for a response on 16 March 2023 and 17 May 2023 repeating that the windows needed replacing.
While the resident had confirmed that she would accept repairs to the windows, there was no evidence to suggest that the repairs had been scheduled.
On 14 September 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the windows had further deteriorated in the past year with more handles falling off and water building up inside the double glazed units. She asked for a new inspection to be undertaken. The landlord responded the following day that it had instructed its contractor to assess all the windows and reach a decision on whether repairs or replacement were needed. It had referred her comments to its management team who would make a decision.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that it had engaged with its window specialist to inspect and agreed a schedule of works. Its records showed that the resident wanted new windows which was in contrast with the information it had. No further works would be carried out until such time as it received her agreement.
The landlord’s response was not reasonable given that the resident had already confirmed, in her correspondence of 6 March 2023, that she would allow the repairs to take place. It would have been appropriate to have confirmed a date for the repairs in its response. It also provided no confirmation of any decision with regard to replacement windows from its management team.
The landlord’s records of 8 November 2023 referred to a telephone call with the resident where it agreed to re-attend and carry out a further inspection.
The healthy homes report dated 9 January 2024 stated that trickle vents in the bathroom were broken and in need of repair. Windows in multiple rooms were in need of repair. Windows were in very poor condition, there were gaps, and also window rubber gaskets missing, which was allowing potential water ingress into the property.
In its stage 2 response the landlord outlined this Service’s order, stating that following discussion with the resident, and reviewing the correspondence, as well as the previous determination, she had advised that the windows required replacing. It stated that:
1. Its UPVC specialist previously attended to inspect the windows, provided a condition report, and identified that various repairs were required. On 6 December 2022, it provided a new report that informed they had tried to book an appointment to complete the repairs but were advised that she had informed them that she wanted new windows and did not want any repairs to be carried out. Therefore, the repairs did not take place and the work order was eventually marked as complete with no action and closed.
2. It was aware that the repair of the windows was still outstanding. On 9 November 2023, a new work order was raised by its surveyor to check the current situation with the windows. It understood that she had advised that the windows had deteriorated since the initial specialist report. The required repairs were identified on 1 December 2023 and quote for works received on 3 December 2023.
3. It also understood that the resident was concerned that the specialist had sent a fitter to inspect the windows. It had contacted its specialist and spoke with 2 members of staff, and the repairs manager, who confirmed that it was an engineer who attended. The findings showed that:
  1. The windows were difficult to operate. The hinges and trickle vents were not working and required renewing.
  2. The handles were loose/damaged and required renewing.
  3. The glass units were blown and required renewing.
  4. The gasket had perished resulting in a draught and required renewing.
  5. There were cracks around the frame which required sealing with silicone.
4. On 25 December 2023 the work order was marked as complete. It had since contacted the direct maintenance team and had informed them that a decision must be made regarding the windows. A further contractor attended on 9 January 2024, who also recommended windows and trickle vents should be repaired.
5. The previous determination had asked it to make the decision of whether the windows should be replaced following an inspection. It had been determined that repairs and 1 window replacement were required. It understood that the resident disputed the findings and it still needed to undertake the recommended works and it would be arranging for the work to take place.
Its is reasonable for a landlord to rely on its contractors professional opinions and recommendations when considering what repairs are required. However, the report of 9 January 2024 referred to the windows being in “very poor condition” with gaps which could allow water ingress. It failed, since March 2023, to book the repairs after the resident had agreed to these or provide any confirmation as to when it may consider replacing the windows within any planned programmes of work in the future. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for new windows.

Request for Insulation

Following the determination of the resident’s previous complaint, the landlord was ordered to arrange an inspection of the insulation at the property, and for the outcome to be provided to the resident.
The evidence demonstrated that the resident frequently contacted the landlord between January 2023 and September 2023, asking when the insulation would be replaced. In her complaint she stated that she had been advised that she would receive no help with insulation as its records showed that the property was adequately insulated. Surveyors had told her that there was no wall insulation and inadequate loft insulation. She also raised concerns about the energy performance certificate (EPC) being out of date.
On 2 and 10 October 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord stating she had heard nothing about the insulation.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that she had not advised what remained unresolved and what the issues were regarding the work. It was waiting for an update from the surveyor who was at the time on leave.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate, given that it had already received the determination of the previous complaint which instructed it to carry out an insulation survey of the resident’s home. It should have been aware of the actions required rather than asking the resident to confirm what remained outstanding which led to further frustration for the resident.
In her escalation request the resident stated that she did not feel it was her responsibility to have to keep informing the landlord of what remained unresolved. This Service had ordered it to complete an insulation inspection which had not been completed.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2023 stating that the request had been forwarded to its energy team. It wrote again on 30 November 2023 confirming that its contractor had attended on 29 November 2023 to survey the loft and it was awaiting a response.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the EPC had shown at the time of the assessment on 28 September 2012, that there was 300mm of loft insulation. It had informed her on 22 November 2023 that following a survey it was felt that her home would benefit from upgrades to the insulation as it felt the condition of the insulation could cause damp or mould in her home. On 29 November 2023, its contractor surveyed the loft and provided its findings on 1 December 2023. It had asked its contractor for an update on the confirmed works to be undertaken, and the job was pending management approval.
The resident confirmed to the landlord, on 13 February 2024, that the insulation work had been completed.
The landlord failed to complete a survey within the 4 weeks timescale ordered by this Service (by 3 October 2023), having surveyed the loft on 29 November 2023. This created a further delay in assessing the insulation and led to further frustration for the resident in chasing the landlord. The insulation work was completed on 13 February 2024, 4 months later than when the survey should have taken place. Due to the delays and poor complaint response at stage 1, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for insulation.

Request for external works including the driveway, paths, drains, wall and gate

In January and March 2023, the resident reported that the front wall in her garden had collapsed during bad weather. There were repairs required to the drive, wall, path, gate and broken drains. A contractor had attended to measure up for a new front wall and a further contractor had visited to measure for a new driveway and wall. She had received a letter to say a new contractor would be in touch to measure the wall and she queried why so many contractors needed to visit. She chased the landlord for a response stating that the drive was deteriorating, with large pieces falling away daily.
The resident wrote again on 14 September 2023 stating that a contractor had inspected the outside walls, path, drive, gates and drain. They had advised that the wall needed to be replaced, the drive needed to be dug out and re-laid with steps added. All paths needed to be re-laid and the gate needed replacing, and the drains needed rebuilding. On 27 September 2023 she raised her concerns again in her complaint and wrote further on 2 and 10 October 2023 that she had heard nothing about the works.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that a works order had been raised with its contractor. It would obtain an update from the surveyor and confirm what works were being arranged.
The landlord’s response was appropriate, having raised a works order with its contractor. However, it failed to acknowledge the delays from January 2023 in responding to her concerns.
In her escalation request the resident stated that she had not been advised when the waste pipe and drains would be addressed. She repeated that she had been advised, by every contractor who had attended, that the drive needed to be dug up and replaced completely with steps fitted. Paths needed relaying, the gate replacing and drains rebuilding. She wrote again on 5 and 24 November 2023 requesting a response.
The landlord responded on 28 November 2023 stating that the drains would be dealt with separately. It needed to carry out a drain survey and had instructed a contractor to attend on 13 December 2023 to assess any concerns. It had received a quote for the wall, pathway, drive and gates and it was currently waiting for a review by its panel for a decision.
On 30 December 2023 the resident wrote stating that someone should have attended on 13 December 2023. The wall had completely collapsed, the pathway and drive were dangerous, the broken outside drain was attracting foxes, vermin and flies. She was constantly having people contact her, but it failed to complete repairs. It had, however, sent someone to throw all of the bricks off the road into the garden so it was “all just a big dangerous mess.”
In its response on 3 January 2024, the landlord stated that it would chase the CCTV of the drains and clear the bricks from the garden. The resident responded on 13 January 2024, stating that the healthy homes inspector had advised her that the issues with the outside space and flooding needed addressing. She still had not heard back about the work.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that:
1. It understood she had concerns about a collapsed drain. It had agreed to carry out a CCTV survey of the drains which was arranged for 13 December 2023. It apologised for the delay and understood that the CCTV investigation was yet to be completed. It apologised for any inconvenience and distress caused by the delay. It would address the delay and service failure in its compensation. An appointment had been booked for 25th January 2024 to complete the CCTV investigation of the drains.
2. It understood that there were issues with the driveway and this was affecting her disabilities. On 28th January 2023, she had stated that a contractor had attended to measure for a new driveway and wall. It had no record of the contractor attending. Whilst its was unsure how this happened, it was sorry for any inconvenience caused. On 10 January 2023, the supervisor and groundworker attended. The driveway repairs had been scheduled for 2 to 5 July 2024. It apologised that it could not be done sooner. The supervisor had confirmed that steps would also be installed as part of the driveway.
3. The gate would be assessed on 25 January 2024 to determine whether this could be added to the works scheduled for July 2024.
4. The bricks had been collected following her email on 20 November 2023, the following day. The wall had not been found to be an immediate cause for action. The wall would be rebuilt along with the work scheduled for July 2024.
5. It offered £40 in compensation for the missed CCTV appointment.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 29 January 2024 stating that it had attended on 25 January 2024 to inspect the drain along with its CCTV engineer. The drains were “all ok” and working as they should be. They had not collapsed and no work was required. The resident disputed that the correct drain had been inspected and sent a photograph of the drain she was referring to on 6 February 2024. The landlord responded the same day and confirmed that the photograph was of a gully and not a drain. The brickwork at the front of the gully would be made good when the works to the driveway were carried out.
The landlord’s response was reasonable in instructing its contractor and scheduling the works for July 2024. It also acknowledged the missed CCTV appointment and offered £40 in compensation. However, it failed to acknowledge the delays from January 2023 when the resident first reported the issues. It would have been appropriate to have inspected sooner and confirmed to the resident what works would be undertaken to address her concerns about any dangers. This Service, therefore, finds service failure in the landlord’s handling of the request’s request for external works.

Damp and mould

The landlord introduced its Healthy Homes programme in 2020 in partnership with a damp contractor to ensure that every case of damp and mould is “properly investigated”. The focus is “on tackling the root cause of the problem and carrying out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring.” It will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit and then provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue. The landlord will then raise orders for treatment or repair.
The previous determination ordered the landlord to arrange a damp inspection survey and for the outcome to be provided to the resident.
On 2 and 10 October 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord stating that the damp inspection had not taken place.
The landlord’s stage 1 response did not acknowledge any concerns relating to damp and mould.
The resident’s escalation request raised concerns about the bathroom and concerns that damp and mould could return. The evidence demonstrated that the landlord had spoken with the resident on 8 November 2023 about her concerns and stated that it had advised her that once the repairs to the windows were done it should help alleviate the issues. It would raise a healthy homes survey once the repairs were completed.
On 13 November 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it was arranging for its contractor to inspect. The resident responded on 20 November 2023 stating she had not been contacted about the inspection.
The landlord’s internal correspondence of 22 November 2023 stated that it had a report from its healthy homes contractor who recommended insulation to the loft as it may be contributing to damp and mould. It wrote to the resident the same day stating that it would be completing the insulation and that she should allow the window repairs to take place before a new survey was completed.
The landlord’s records of 28 December 2023 referred to the determination made to complete a damp inspection. It stated that this was “late” and should have been raised within 4 weeks of the determination. The order had been raised on 28 December 2023 and the findings needed to be provided to the resident.
On 30 December 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord advising that she was again starting to suffer with damp around the windows. Water was still getting in and the damp alarms, provided by the healthy homes inspector, were giving warnings. She wrote again on 13 January 2024 stating that the contractor had visited the previous week. He had completely reinspected the property, after which he said that there was absolutely no doubt that the windows needed replacing and this was what he had advised the landlord to do. He was “shocked and disgusted” that they had not been replaced already.
The landlord’s healthy homes report dated 9 January 2024 stated that there was damaged pointing which required repair externally. There were issues to the front and side elevation which needed repair as it could be potentially allowing water ingress. The area outside the main bedroom and outside bathroom areas were affected. To the side there was an exposed area where an old flu was and this should be corrected as it could allow water ingress. There were no indications of moisture in the property. It referred to the windows being in poor condition which could allow water ingress.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that the damp and mould inspection had not been raised within the 4-week period as specified by this Service. It was sorry that this was not done within the correct timeframe and it would compensate for this delay. It stated that:
1. On 28 December 2023, a work order was raised for full damp and mould inspection of the property, and to clean and shield any affected areas. The works order was given to its contractor, who was asked to report back any recommendations. A mould wash was also pre-emptively booked prior to the inspection. A full inspection was completed on 9 January 2024. Its contractor produced a healthy homes follow up report.
2. There were no indications of excessive moisture in the property. No watermarks on the walls or indications of ongoing leaks. There was no indication that the property was suffering from ongoing condensation and no indication of a recent flood. Repairs were not required from the indications of moisture identified. No action was required so the clean and shield mould wash was cancelled. It referred to preventative measures which the resident could take such as heating her home to between 16 and 21C to reduce condensation and opening windows.
3. The window repairs required completion in order to assist with any damp issues.
While the landlord confirmed the findings of its contractors report, it failed to acknowledge the external works suggested by its contractor or share these findings with the resident. While it apologised for the delay in raising the damp survey and stated it would offer compensation for this, it failed to do so in its final compensation calculation. As previously mentioned in this report, the window repairs remained outstanding which were contributing to the damp in the resident’s home, along with the loft insulation. For this reason, this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Reports about staff behaviour and communication

In the resident’s complaint she sated that she had dealt with multiple staff, who often did not respond to her emails, and she felt ignored. They had “maliciously and intentionally” caused delays and had “knowingly” provided “false and misleading” information. She also gave examples of operatives who attended her home who made unnecessary remarks about other operatives to her.
The evidence demonstrated that the resident had frequently emailed the landlord raising her repairs concerns, chasing staff for reimbursement payments and responses.
In its stage 1 response the landlord stated that following a full review, it was satisfied that all staff involved with aspects of her complaint had engaged with her in a positive fashion, and it could find no evidence of staff providing false information.
The landlord’s response was not appropriate and did not demonstrate that it had undertaken a “full review” or listened to the resident’s concerns. It failed to show any empathy for the time and trouble taken in chasing her repairs or its failure to provide timely responses.
In its stage 2 response the landlord stated that throughout the complaints and repairs process the resident had interacted with many staff members. After speaking with her, she mentioned that she was dissatisfied with staff conduct. It apologised that she felt its customer service had fallen short and had taken what she said seriously. It named the individual staff members and provided a review for each member of staff, having investigated with their respective managers. It gave apologies from each department and staff member, outlining its learning from the complaint, and acknowledged its poor communication. It had found that she had not been compensated at stage 1 for late replies, staff conduct issues, and would compensate her for this and its service failure.
This Service’s dispute resolution principles are, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s final response was appropriate and demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and completed a thorough review. Its response was comprehensive and provided detailed apologies from each department, along with showing learning from the complaint. This Service would have found reasonable redress but for the fact that it failed to then provide compensation as stated. This Service therefore finds Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of staff conduct and communication.

Associated formal complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints policy. Stage 1 complaints are acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days. If it needs more time to respond it will explain why and write again after no more than 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
The landlord was ordered, as part of the previous determination, to register and respond to a new formal complaint. In her complaint, she raised concerns about her right to complain. However, as a determination had already been made in relation to this matter on the previous case, and an award of £150 compensation made, this has not been considered further. We have, however, considered how the landlord responded to this complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident and acknowledged her complaint on 27 September 2023. It stated it would provide a response by 9 October 2023. This was in line with its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 October 2023, 1 day later than when it should have responded, requesting a 10-day extension to provide its response. It stated that it would respond by 20 October 2023. While its policy states that it may request an extension, it did not fully explain its reasons why it required this. It should have considered requesting the extension sooner, where it knew it would be unable to provide its response on time, rather than after the date the resident was expecting the response.
The landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 17 October 2023. This was earlier than its predicted response of 20 October 2023, and in line with its 10-day extension request.
The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 20 October 2023. The landlord responded by email on 23 October 2023, stating that it would be in touch to acknowledge her request. It emailed again on 30 November 2023 formally acknowledging her escalation request. It is unclear why the landlord sent a second acknowledgment when it had already acknowledged her request.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 28 December 2023 requesting an extension of 10 working days, stating it would respond by 16 January 2024. This was 28 days after it acknowledged the escalation request on 30 November 2023 and 8 days later than when it should have responded. This was not in line with its complaint policy, and 47 working days later than when the resident had asked to escalate her complaint.
It provided a stage 2 response to the resident on 17 January 2024, 60 working days after the resident had asked to escalate her complaint and 40 working days outside the landlord’s complaint policy timescale. While the landlord had requested an extension it responded a day later than originally advised.
Its stage 2 response offered £20 compensation for poor complaint handling. However, as mentioned previously in paragraph 32 of this report, it had offered an additional £100 for poor complaint handling in May 2023, which it failed to acknowledge in its final compensation offer.
For the reasons set out above, this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Delays in repairing the toilet flush, completing outstanding repairs to the bath, and flooring.
2. Delay in installing a new kitchen.
3. Request for new windows.
4. Associated formal complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Delays in completing boiler repairs.
2. Request for insulation.
3. Request for external works including the driveway, paths, drains, wall and gate.
4. Damp and mould.
5. Staff behaviour and communication.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay, directly to the resident, £3,400 broken down as follows:
1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, for its failure to complete the repairs to the toilet and delay in reaching an agreement about the bathroom flooring.
2. £2,000 for distress and inconvenience in completing the kitchen installation (This includes £1500 offered in its correspondence on 30 May 2023).
3. £100 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, for the delays in completing boiler repairs.
4. £150 for time and trouble, in completing window repairs.
5. £100 for time and trouble, with regard to the delay in completing the insulation survey and work.
6. £100 for time and trouble for the delays in acknowledging and assessing external works.
7. £50 for distress and inconvenience for the delay in raising a damp survey.
8. £250 for time and trouble, distress and inconvenience for staff behaviour and communication.
9. £150 for time and trouble in relation to poor complaint handling (This is in addition to the £20 offered in its stage 2 response and includes the £100 offered in its correspondence of 30 May 2023).
The landlord is ordered to send the resident a written apology, by a senior member of staff, for the failings identified in this report.
The landlord is ordered to contact the resident, if not already done so, to book in the repairs to the windows. This must be within 4 weeks of this determination with an aim to complete the repairs no more than 8 weeks from the date of this report. It is also ordered to provide the resident with an estimated timescale for when her windows will be replaced in line with its planned maintenance programme.
The landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above within 4 weeks of this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident £60 offered in its stage 2 response if not already paid.
The landlord should review its complaints responses to ensure that where it states it will award compensation that its final offer reflects this.
The landlord should contact the resident to ensure that any outstanding reimbursement payments are made in relation to the food loss payments.