Longhurst Group Limited (202300890)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300890

Longhurst Group Limited

1 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s:

a.     Handling of, and communication about, the repairs to the roof.

b.     Handling of the associated complaint. 

Background

2.     The resident and her son live in a two-bedroom property. The resident has an assured tenancy. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded on the system for the resident or her son.

3.     The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 to report a leak from the roof into her son’s bedroom which she said usually happened when it rained, and was causing damp. A job was raised to attend and assess where the leak was coming from.

4.     The resident contacted the landlord for an update on the repair on 29 September 2022 and on 1 November 2022. The landlord’s contractor subcontracted the job which was attended on 23 November 2023. A hole in the roof was identified and the contractor was informed.

5.     The resident chased the repair on 20 January 2023 and on 21 February 2023. She was advised by the landlord that it was waiting on an update from its surveyor, but confirmed the repair was booked for 8 March 2023.

6.     The resident complained on 1 March 2023 and stated that the wall in her son’s bedroom had become worse since reporting the leak and was “physically wet” with mould developing. It was 14 weeks since it was investigated, and it was “disgraceful” that there was no urgency to resolve the matter.

7.     A stage one response was issued on 31 May 2023.The landlord acknowledged a failure with the time it had taken to repair the roof and offered an apology. It confirmed that a member of the complaints team would contact the resident after 1 June 2023 to check the scaffolding had gone up and confirm appointments had been completed as planned. It awarded £250 compensation for distress and inconvenience caused as well as £50 under the right to repair scheme. It had expanded its complaints team to ensure it provided a better standard of service in the future. For the delays in its complaint response, it awarded a further £50.

8.     The resident escalated her complaint on 5 June 2023 after the landlord had failed to make contact as confirmed in its stage one response. She said it was unacceptable to provide a date and then not communicate that the appointment could not go ahead. It was eight months exactly since the repair was assessed and was causing emotional and financial distress due to having to leave her work placement on multiple occasions to take calls, respond to emails and wait for surveyors to attend. Her partner had taken the day off work, and lost income to wait for the scaffolding to go up, which did not happen.

9.     The resident contacted the Service after failing to receive an acknowledgement from the landlord in response to her escalation request. The Service wrote to the landlord on 27 July 2023 and requested that it issued a stage 2 response by 3 August 2023.

10. A stage two response was issued on 3 August 2023. The landlord offered an apology for the delay in response. It concluded that there had been several service failures and acknowledged that the resident had contacted multiple times for updates on the scaffolding and repair. It sincerely apologised for the significant delay to the works being completed, as well as the insufficient communication during that time. It offered £100 for the lack of communication which had caused inconvenience to the resident who had to chase for updates. This was in addition to £50 offered for the delays in acknowledging the stage two complaint.

11. The repair to the roof was completed on 16 August 2023.

12. The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and requested the Service investigated the complaint in September 2023. She confirmed that she did not receive £150 compensation which the landlord offered at stage two.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

13. In correspondence with the Service the resident advised that she first reported a leak in 2018. The landlord does not dispute that the resident has been reporting issues with a leak for some time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints in a timely manner, usually within six months of the problem occurring, so the landlord can consider the issues while the evidence is available, to reach an informed decision on the events that have occurred.

14. Therefore, while the resident has stated that the leak has been intermittently ongoing since 2018, the assessment focuses on events following the resident’s reports in July 2022 through to the completion of the landlord’s complaints process in August 2023.

Assessment

15. The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that repairs are split into three categories – emergency repairs which are attended within four hours, appointed urgent repairs are completed within seven calendar days, and appointed routine repairs are completed within 28 calendar days.

16. ‘Appendix A’ of the repairs policy confirms that “rain penetration through roof” is an urgent repair. It is unknown what priority the landlord gave the resident’s repair, but given the example detailed in ‘Appendix A’, and the resident’s report of a leak through the roof, into her son’s bedroom, it could reasonably have been expected that the landlord should attend and complete the repair within seven calendar days.

17. The records show that the resident reported the leak on 21 July 2022. An inspection of the roof was completed on 23 November 2022, 88 calendar days later. This was an unreasonable and unexplained delay, and a significant departure from the timeframe of seven calendar days set out in the policy to complete the repair. The landlord has not evidenced that it established why the delay occurred or that it offered the resident an explanation for its departure from its prescribed timeframes. It also missed the opportunity to review its processes with its contractors to ensure repairs were inspected in a timely manner, in accordance with its repair timeframes.

18. The evidence shows that the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the landlord for updates to complete the repair. She asked for updates on 12 December 2022, 20 January, and 21 February 2023, which was indicative of the poor communication on the landlord’s part throughout the 13-month period.

19. Furthermore, it was inappropriate that the resident had to engage the help of her local MP and the Service to obtain a response from the landlord, despite previous promises of contact. The resident was let down on several occasions which impacted the trust she had in the landlord. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) details the importance of a landlord following through on its promises to update the resident, as by not doing so, it can undermine the landlord-resident relationship and is especially important where the landlord has already acknowledged communication failures.

20. The Service is not satisfied with the landlord’s approach to the repair, or its communication with its contractors. While the Service accepts some of the delays that occurred were unavoidable (obtaining permits for scaffolding, and contractors delaying works), most of the delays were avoidable and were the consequence of the landlord’s disjointed approach which not only confused the resident, but its staff who questioned “who was completing the repair.” Because of its handling and poor oversight, the repair remained outstanding for 271 working days.

21. The landlord apologised at stage one for the delay in resolving the leak. It assured the resident that she would be contacted after 1 June 2023 to check that the scaffolding was up and that the repair was progressing. The landlord failed to deliver on its promises, compounding its previous communication failures and missing self-imposed deadlines. The resident was forced to pursue the landlord again in June 2023 which could have been avoided if the landlord had done what it said it was going to do.

22. Additionally, while it appropriately acknowledged that it had failed to complete the repair within a reasonable timeframe, it did not offer the resident any explanation for the delays, or detail what actions it would take to ensure similar mistakes were not repeated in the future.

23. Similarly, the landlord acknowledged the same failings at stage two as it did at stage one (the delay in repair and lack of contact with the resident) which shows it had not learned from previous mistakes in this case. As the repair remained outstanding at this point, the landlord was expected to provide the resident with a date, even a provisional date, for when the repair would be completed. It should have confirmed that it would monitor the repair until its completion and that it would review the case following the repair completion to consider if any additional compensation should be offered if further delays occurred. It did not do this, which would have been an appropriate response, given the length of time the repair had been outstanding.

24. Further, the resident reported that the leak had led to damp and mould in her son’s bedroom, but there is no indication that the landlord took any steps to assess the conditions in the property, or offer any interim solutions (for example, dehumidifiers) while the repair remained outstanding. This is not in line with the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 spotlight report on damp and mould, which says that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.

25. The lack of an effective resolution over approximately 13 months, is evidence of a failure in the service provided by the landlord, which meant the resident spent an unreasonable amount of time pursuing the repairs. As well as having to chase the landlord excessively for a response or update, the resident also had to be available for several appointments, inspections and works. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord attempted to recognise the resident’s inconvenience. It offered £300 compensation in relation to the repairs which the resident accepted at stage one, and this has been paid. However, despite offering a further £100 in relation to lack of communication around the repair at stage two (along with £50 for complaint handling), the resident has confirmed that the landlord has not made this payment.

26. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer compensation totalling £400 for the repairs, which demonstrates a willingness to try to put things right.

27. While its offer went some way to offering redress, the landlord failed to repair the leak within its timescales, communicate effectively with the resident or manage the repair appropriately. It is a further concern that despite identifying failures at stage one, the landlord made the same mistakes in this case which does not show sufficient learning from this case. Considering the evidence available and the cumulative impact on the resident, this constitutes a finding of maladministration.

28. The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay additional compensation, which is at the higher end of the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance scale due to its failures exacerbating the situation for the resident over a prolonged period. The landlord did not take responsibility for sub-contracted services, it failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy over a significant period, and the lacks evidence to demonstrate learning from this complaint. All of which compound the time, delay, distress, and inconvenience experienced by the resident over 13 months.

 

Complaint handling

29. The landlord’s complaints policy confirms that where possible it will encourage early and local resolution to agree and secure resolutions immediately or within two working days. If further enquiries are needed to resolve the issue, or if the customer requests it, a stage one complaint will be logged and responded to within 10 working days. A stage two complaint will be completed within 20 working days.

30. The landlord tried to resolve the matter at early resolution. However, once it was aware that the issue was not going to be resolved there and then, or within two working days, it should have progressed through to stage one.

31. Even though the evidence suggested that the resident was happy to leave the matter at local resolution, the landlord delayed the resident’s right to access the complaint process which was a significant departure from the two-day timescale imposed for early resolution. Despite the landlord confirming that it had “notes stretching back to November 2022” and “needed to provide a significant update or repair update or it would likely go to a formal complaint” to the fact that it did not follow its complaints policy and adopt a positive complaint handling culture impacted its ability to resolve the complaint effectively, and at the earliest opportunity.

32. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 8 March 2023 and confirmed that it would provide a response by 5 April 2023. The landlord did not provide the resident with a response by the date it gave, which meant the resident requested help from her MP and the Service. It is reasonable to expect that if a landlord is unable to meet a deadline, that it contacts the resident to request an extension which should be agreed by both parties. The evidence does not indicate that this was done. Additionally, the Code states that an extension should not exceed 20 working days, unless in exceptional circumstances. While it confirmed that it had received a high number of queries, the Service does not consider these exceptional circumstances to justify issuing its stage one response 52 working days outside of its 10-working day timeframe.

33. The landlord appropriately recognised that the resident had waited longer than it would have liked to receive a response. The landlord confirmed it had expanded the complaints team, to offer an improved service. Despite this, the resident continued to receive a poor level of service, which does not indicate that it took sufficient learning from the complaint to improve the service it offered to the resident.

34. The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 5 June 2023. However, she was required to contact the Service in July 2023 after failing to receive a response from the landlord. The landlord did provide a stage two response within the timescale that was set by the Service; however, the resident requested an escalation on 5 June 2023 and the landlord has not disputed that it received it. Therefore, its stage two response was sent outside of the 20-working day timeframe and 44 working days after the request was made by the resident which further extended the resident’s complaint timeframe.

35. Its stage two response acknowledged the delays in providing a complaint response and offered £150 compensation. £100 of this was for the lack of communication regarding the repair, and £50 for the delays in acknowledging the stage 2 complaint. In considering whether this offer was proportionate, the Service has considered the landlord’s compensation policy where awards of £100-£600 are made where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration.

36. The landlord offered a total of £100 for its complaint handling failures, including £50 at stage one. The resident has confirmed receiving £50 only. Therefore, a further award of compensation has been made, which is proportionate to the failings identified of:

a.     A complainant repeatedly having to chase response, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant.

b.     Failure over a considerable period to act in accordance with policy.

c.      Failures in meaningfully engaging with the substance of the complaint leading to considerable delay in resolving the complaint.

d.     Significant failures to follow complaint procedure and escalate the matter.

37. The resident continued to experience delays in the repair post completion of the landlord’s complaint process. Despite its complaints policy confirming that it will proactively use learning from its complaints, there is little evidence to demonstrate this with the landlord repeating its earlier failures.

38. Overall, the landlord failed to effectively communicate with the resident; there were delays in providing complaint responses; and it failed to follow its complaints process which contributed to the resident’s distress over a considerable period. The landlord failed to put matters right, and its compensation offer was not fair or proportionate to the failings identified and so a finding of maladministration has been made. 

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:

a.     The landlord’s handling of, and communication about, the repairs to the roof.

b.     The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

40. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Apologise in writing for the failings identified within this report.

b.     Pay the resident further compensation of £950, consisting of:

1. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in resolving the leak.
2. £250 for the adverse effect caused by its failures in communication with regards to the leak.
3. £200 for the adverse effect caused by the failures identified within its complaint handling.
4. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £150 at stage two which the resident has confirmed she has not received.

41. Within twelve weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Carry out a review of this case, considering the failings set out in this report which relate to the oversight and management of repairs, and review what improved processes and/or training of staff will be implemented in relation to:

1. Ensuring that residents are kept updated with progress on repairs.
2. Situations where delays occur with its contractors, and how it will reduce the risk of a reoccurrence in the future.
3. How it responds to reports of damp and mould

b.     The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the details and outcome of this review and any planned actions. 

c.      Provide guidance to relevant staff about investigating and responding to complaints. It is recommended, particularly in relation to cases involving repairs, that the response sets out the outstanding issues and provides timeframes, even if they are provisional for completion of repairs. The landlord should confirm with the Ombudsman the date that this action was completed.

d.     The landlord should instruct staff to suitably update residents, where necessary, throughout the complaints process. The landlord should incorporate the Code where appropriate. The landlord should confirm with the Ombudsman the date that this action was completed.