Longhurst Group Limited (202303652)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303652

Longhurst Group Limited

09 July 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of an outstanding repair to a shower chair and associated works.
2. Complaint.
This report will also assess the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The residents are joint tenants of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow, which they moved into in June 2015. One of the tenants has a physical disability about which the landlord was aware. During the complaints process, the residents were also represented by a specialist charity. For the sake of clarity, the tenants will be referred to jointly in this report as “the resident” and the charity will be referred to as “the representative”.
On 29 March 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that, after completing works to his bathroom on 3 March 2022, the operatives had not reattached his folding shower chair. He stated that, although they told him they would return the following day to reinstall it, they had not done so. When he chased this up with the contractor, it advised him that it was not its job to reattach the chair. He added that, as a result, he had been unable to shower since 3 March 2022.
Following this, the evidence shows the landlord had reattached the shower chair; however, it is unclear from the records when this was done. On 7 September 2022, the resident reported that 2 tiles behind the shower chair were cracked and letting water drip down the wall. In addition, the shower chair was coming loose. The landlord raised an urgent repair, citing in its records that it was the resident’s “only form of bathing”.
On 12 October 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He stated that:
1. He had rung the landlord “a month or two ago” to report that his shower seat did not feel secure.
2. It was supposed to have attended to the repair within 7 days but the appointment had been “pushed back” several times.
3. While he was having a shower, the seat came off the wall, throwing him onto the floor. As a result he had hurt his hip and knee.
4. The workmanship was poor quality and the operatives had only used 2 screws on each side, and “none at the top”. As the legs were bent, he needed a new shower chair.
5. Water had gone into his child’s adjoining bedroom and made the plasterboard crumble.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 October 2022 for an update on his outstanding repair that was scheduled for that day. The landlord informed him that it had to reschedule it to 31 October 2022. It then contacted him on the same day to inform him that it had to cancel the appointment because the operative was “on crutches” and could not re-book it. The resident told the landlord that, when he used the shower, water leaked into his child’s bedroom and made the carpet wet.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 22 November 2022. The resident contacted it on the same day to ask whether it could bring forward the repair appointment that was scheduled for 29 December 2022. The landlord advised him that it would ask its contractor if it could arrange an earlier date and that it would also arrange for a surveyor to inspect the wall.
On 23 November 2022, the representative wrote to the landlord and stated that:
1. The resident had raised a formal complaint about outstanding repairs and injuries caused on 12 October 2022. He had still not received an acknowledgement or response and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint.
2. The resident had contacted it multiple times about the outstanding repair and the landlord advised him that the earliest date a contractor could attend was 29 December 2022.
3. As he was unable to use the shower, he was having to travel 20-30 minutes to access bathing facilities.
4. His bathroom wall was damp and this was impacting the children’s bedroom.
5. The resident was concerned that contractors kept being sent to reattach the shower chair but not addressing the cause of the problem, which was the damp.
On 1, 6, 20, 21 December and 5 January 2023 both the resident and representative chased the landlord for an update on the complaint. On 10 January 2023, the landlord called the resident to confirm it had arranged an appointment on 26 January 2023 for its contractor to reinforce the wall in his shower and fit a new shower seat. The resident told it that, due to the time taken for the landlord to repair the cracked shower tiles, the adjoining wall had become damp and was crumbling. He added that the skirting in the adjoining room was also mouldy and required replacing.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response. It stated that:
1. It understood the resident had initially advised that his shower seat did not feel secure, after which it collapsed, causing him to fall.
2. The damage to the shower wall had caused water to leak into the bedroom wall, damaging both the wall and skirting.
3. It had scheduled an appointments with its contractor for 8 February 2023 to fix the tiles in the shower, reinforce the wall and fit a new fold down shower chair.
4. It had also scheduled appointments for 16 and 23 February 2023 to fix the damaged bedroom wall and the damaged skirting board.
5. Since the shower seat broke, the resident informed it he had been using a garden chair to shower, and it had provided him with a portable shower chair.
6. It apologised for the impact its delays and poor service had had on him and, in recognition, it offered £375 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
The resident responded to the landlord on 7 February 2023 to escalate his complaint. He stated that:
1. He was in “shock” that he had only received a response to his stage 1 complaint that week.
2. He had to “continually chase” it for a response and believed that, had he not done so, the complaint and repairs would remain outstanding.
3. As the issue remained unresolved, he could not accept its offer of compensation. He was aware the repairs were booked in for 8,16 and 23 February 2023. However, since the first appointment on 21 September 2022, no work had been completed.
4. He should not have had to depend on his family to help him off the floor after the landlord had not repaired the equipment he had reported as faulty. He had been deprived of his independent living and this left him feeling “disempowered and helpless”.
5. He had to rearrange “work life, schedules and appointments waiting in for repair work” when they had either been cancelled at the last minute or operatives had failed to attend.
6. He should have the “same equality of opportunity to shower as an able bodied tenant” but this had not been his experience over the previous 5 months.
7. Due to the damage caused by the damp, he would need to replace the carpet in his child’s bedroom, repaint the walls and skirting boards and replace damaged furniture.
8. While using the garden chair to shower, it had become “rusty” and would also need replacing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 21 February 2023. The representative then wrote to it on 1 March 2023 to confirm that its contractor had advised that joists and flooring needed to be replaced. She stated that this was due to the ongoing repair issue and that the works scheduled for 16 and 23 February 2023 had been cancelled. The representative added that the resident had not had any contact from the landlord or contractor to update him on the progress of works or to reschedule the appointments.
The landlord sent the resident an extension letter on 13 March 2023. It stated that, as it was still waiting for dates from its contractors to carry out repairs, it would take it longer than it thought to respond. It added that it would aim to issue a “full response” by 27 March 2023.
The landlord called the resident on 27 March 2023 to check that the repairs were complete. It noted in its records that the resident told it he was “happy with the quality” of the works. It advised him that it would work to provide a resolution to his complaint.
From 3 to 18 April 2023, the representative chased the landlord for an update on the stage 2 response. The landlord called the resident on 18 April 2023 to talk through the outcome of its investigation. It apologised for his experience and told him it had upheld his complaint. It added that it had increased its offer of compensation to £625. It issued its stage 2 response on the same day and this stated that:
1. There were delays in completing the repairs and the original dates were not met. This was “in part” due to its contractor’s “high workload”, which meant some repairs had to be rebooked due to the availability of the operatives needed to complete the work.
2. When the repairs to his shower wall and bedroom walls were assessed, the operatives found that the work was more complex and needed more materials than originally planned.
3. It had completed a temporary fix and a future appointment was arranged to complete the job. As soon as the required materials became available, the work was completed on 23 March 2023.
4. Due to the large number of complaints it received in 2022, it had failed to deal with his complaint within its timescales. To help it tackle the issue, it had temporarily increased the number of complaint handling staff.
5. It apologised for the delays and poor service, and acknowledged the impact this had had on the resident’s enjoyment of his property.
6. In recognition of its findings, it offered £625 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £375 it had offered in its stage 1 response;
  2. £150 for delays in acknowledging and responding to his complaint;
  3. £100 for further delays completing repairs.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance on 8 June 2023. He stated that, in September 2022, he had reported to the landlord that his shower chair was unsafe and coming away from the wall. As it took no action, the chair came off in October 2022 causing injury to his hip and knee. He stated that he had to travel 13 miles each way to use an accessible shower and then used a garden chair while waiting for the repair to be completed. He added that the damage to the bathroom wall resulted in water ingress, damp and mould, a rotted skirting board and damaged carpet in the adjoining bedroom.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord will carry out repairs that it is responsible for within a reasonable time of finding out that a repair is needed. The length of time will depend on how urgent the repair is and our service standards in force at the time. This is in line with Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985.
The Ombudsman’s guidance on Equality and Human Rights states that, under the Equality Act 2010 landlords are required to take positive steps to ensure disabled residents are able to access their services as easily as non-disabled residents. They should make adjustments when disabled residents are placed at a substantial disadvantage because of their disability compared to non-disabled people. The reasonable adjustment duty is ‘anticipatory’, meaning landlords cannot wait until a disabled resident needs to use their service. They must consider in advance what disabled residents may reasonably need to access their services.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy has 2 categories of responsive repair. Emergency repairs are attended to within between 2 and 24 hours to make safe. Appointed repairs are completed within 21 days. The policy states that some repairs may be prioritised for early completion for example where a resident is disabled or vulnerable.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and issue a response within 10 working days. The landlord refers to the second stage as a “stage 2 review”. On receipt of a request to escalate, the landlord will contact the resident within 2 working days to seek clarification of their concerns and will complete the review within 20 working days. The policy states that any delays should not exceed a further 10 working days. If an extension beyond this time is required, this should be agreed by both parties. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it pays discretionary compensation that ranges from £50 to £600 in recognition of the extent of failure and the impact on the resident. It will pay compensation of over £600 in recognition of failure that has had “a severe long-term impact” on the resident. In addition it may offer an increased payment of a percentage of the rent for the resident’s loss of use of part of their home.

Scope of investigation

The resident stated that he had suffered personal injury as a result of repair by the landlord. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the injury he had suffered. However we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process, and are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. We have, however, considered whether any failings by the landlord have been the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident.

Outstanding repair to a shower chair and associated works

The Ombudsman wishes to acknowledge that the resident experienced significant distress and inconvenience over a lengthy period of time, while waiting for outstanding repairs to be completed. We recognise how upsetting and uncomfortable it must have been to live without appropriately functioning bathing facilities. We also acknowledge the concern that would have been caused as a result of the property experiencing water damage for a lengthy period.
The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect what constitutes a reasonable timescale, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional parts to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about damp and mould, published in October 2021 advises that “landlord staff and contractors should respond proactively rather than take a “not my department” approach to issues that fall outside of their area of expertise. At its most simple, this could consist of raising repairs on the resident’s behalf or ensuring the relevant team is informed of the problem. Following works to the resident’s bathroom in March 2022, the records show that the operatives omitted to reattach the shower seat to the wall. Although the contractor told him it would return the following day, it had failed to do so. It is evident the landlord had to chase this up with the contractor, who informed it that this work was not within its remit.
The landlord should reasonably have established with its contractor the scope of the works it would complete and made clear from the outset whether this included reinstalling any disability aids. It could then have arranged for a different contractor to attend once the work was completed in order to ensure the resident was able to use his shower. The failure of the landlord to communicate effectively with its contractor, and to actively monitor the repair, meant the resident was left without bathing facilities for longer than necessary.
Furthermore, it is evident that, when the landlord reinstalled the shower chair, it was not fixed correctly and this led to subsequent repair and safety issues. That the landlord could not demonstrate that it had checked the relevant expertise of its contractor prior to sending it to the resident’s property meant further visits were necessary in order to complete a secure repair. These failures significantly contributed to the excessive delays in the resident being able use his shower and the subsequent damage caused to the adjoining bedroom wall.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on attitudes, respect and rights, published in January 2024 states that landlords must recognise that the failure to deliver a routine service can act as the catalyst for a prolonged period of service failure. Because of the presence of vulnerabilities, this can become more complex to resolve and result in more detriment to the resident. The evidence shows that it took the landlord around 7 months to complete a repair that the resident had originally reported on 7 September 2022. Given the resident’s vulnerabilities and risk posed to him by using a shower chair that was insecurely fixed to the wall, the landlord’s excessive delay failed to properly take account of the resident’s safety. The landlord’s lack of urgency in ensuring the repair was completed as soon as possible resulted in the resident suffering a fall when the seat eventually detached from the wall. This demonstrates a failure in the landlord’s duty of care towards a vulnerable resident.
Furthermore, after being put on notice in October 2022 that the shower seat had fallen off the wall, the landlord took around 6 further months before it properly reinstalled the shower seat. It is unclear why the matter was not attended sooner. The protracted delay in addressing the damaged wall resulted in the adjoining bedroom wall becoming water damaged, necessitating complete replacement. The resident was left without suitable bathing facilities in his home for an excessive amount of time, which meant he had to travel a long distance in order to use alternative facilities. In addition, the records show that, as a result of inaction by the landlord, the adjoining bedroom had been impacted by worsening damp. There is no indication the landlord had taken reasonable steps to investigate or rectify the problem in a timely manner. In addition, although it stated it would instruct a surveyor, there is no evidence the landlord had carried out an inspection to check the extent of damage to other parts of the property. Had the landlord carried out an inspection to assess the damage, this could have helped to expedite the repair. This in turn would have avoided further works to replace the wall and the ensuing disruption to the family. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord was unable to take action sooner. As such, the delay was avoidable.
The spotlight report also states that reasonable adjustment means a change to service provision which seeks to, as far as possible, remove any disadvantage faced by those with a protected characteristic or a vulnerability. These should be anticipated, as well as reactive. Landlords should move to a ‘human-centric’ model of service provision where they respond to a vulnerable person’s individual needs and circumstances.
The resident had made the landlord aware he was unable to use the bathing facilities in his home. Therefore, it would have been appropriate in the circumstances, and in line with its Repairs and Maintenance policy, for it to have prioritised the repair to the shower seat. It is evident the landlord failed to properly consider the individual needs of the resident or how he was being significantly disadvantaged by the delay in completing what was originally a straightforward repair. The landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had provided the resident with a portable shower chair, although the records do not indicate when. The delay in providing this meant the resident was having to travel long distances to use alternative bathing facilities, or using his garden chair. It is evident the landlord was slow to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, or any adjustments it could make. It should have taken reasonable steps to ensure he was not unfairly disadvantaged while waiting for the repairs to be completed. It is also evident the resident’s independence was also impacted by the landlord’s failure to repair the shower seat within a reasonable time. That the landlord did not take reasonable account of the resident’s vulnerabilities was a significant failure.
The landlord must ensure there is effective internal communication between its teams and departments, and that one individual or team has overall responsibility for ensuring complaints or reports are resolved, including follow up or aftercare. There is no evidence of any effective contract monitoring by the landlord to ensure its contractors were providing a service that was in line with the repairs policy of completing repairs within 21 days, or that the contractor was communicating regularly and effectively with the resident.
It is evident the landlord’s communication was consistently poor. There is no indication it made reasonable efforts to provide the resident with regular updates, provide accurate completion dates or to keep him reasonably informed. The evidence shows the resident and his representative were consistently left to contact the landlord themselves for up-to-date information. This suggests the resident took significant time and trouble to try and progress the outstanding repairs, which should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations. There is also evidence of contractors repeatedly cancelling, postponing and not attending appointments, often with little or no explanation. One example of this is when the landlord postponed an appointment at short notice. and then cancelled it on the same day because it stated the operative was ‘on crutches’.
Given the landlord had raised the repair as “urgent”, it is unclear why the landlord could not have arranged for a different operative or contractor to attend. It is accepted that operatives might not be able to attend appointments due for example to capacity issues or sickness. However, landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs in line with their policies, particularly when repairs are marked as urgent. The repeated postponement of the works would have caused the resident additional inconvenience and frustration, particularly when records show he had to “rearrange work life schedules” to allow access. That the landlord failed to demonstrate sufficient and effective contract monitoring and repair management was a failure.
Although the landlord stated in its stage 2 response that it had completed a temporary repair while waiting for materials to become available, there are no records to show when this was done or an explanation of the work it had carried out. The records are unclear as to when visits by operatives took place and the landlord has provided no contemporaneous records of any communication with its contractors to demonstrate it was taking reasonable steps to chase it up or rearrange appointments. The landlord may have carried out an interim repair. However, the fact remains that the work to rebuild the wall between the shower and bedroom wall may not have been necessary had the landlord attended the initial repair in a timely manner. Furthermore, once it had reattached the shower chair around March 2022, it should have inspected the work to ensure it had been fixed securely on the wall. That the landlord failed to do this, and as a consequence caused further damage to the property, was a failure.
The landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the issue and acknowledged the distress this caused and the impact this had on the resident’s use of the property. Furthermore, it offered a total of £375 compensation in its stage 1 response, which it increased to £625 at stage 2. However, although it had stated that it had learnt lessons from the complaint, it did not provide any details of actions it would take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings it had identified. Furthermore, although it gave the resident commitments in its stage 1 complaint that it would complete works by February 2023, these appointments were cancelled, causing the resident to have to continue chasing the landlord for new appointment dates.
Although its attempts to put things right are noted, the landlord’s offer of redress falls short of fully recognising the impact on the resident and his family of countless avoidable delays, and avoidable repairs. This left a disabled resident without proper use of his bathroom, and a bedroom that suffered from damp, and water damage. The landlord did not adequately consider the extent and frequency of the delays or the fact its communication was consistently poor. It also failed to take sufficient account of the time and trouble the resident took to chase the outstanding repairs, and pursue his complaint. Due to the impact these cumulative failings would have had on the resident, the Ombudsman has made a finding of severe maladministration and will order further redress.
The resident has paid approximately £466.75 per month (taking account of some annual incremental increases) in rental payments during the period of the landlord’s maladministration. The Ombudsman considers this to have reasonably started from September 2022. This was when the resident first reported cracked tiles in his shower and that his shower seat was coming away from the wall. The Ombudsman considers that, in the circumstances, it is appropriate for the landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the amount of time the outstanding works took to complete (7 months). This takes into account the impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of his bathroom and adjoining bedroom. Factoring in the rent paid by the resident over the period, the Ombudsman considers it appropriate for the landlord to pay £980 compensation. This figure has been calculated as approximately 30% of the total rent during the period in question. While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account. This report will order additional compensation in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused, and for the landlord’s failures with regard to the repair the resident reported in March 2022.

Complaint

The records show that the resident raised his stage 1 complaint on 12 October 2022. However, the landlord did not acknowledge this until 22 November 2022, which was 31 days later. Furthermore, the landlord took 76 working days to issue its stage 1 response. There are no records to indicate it had made any attempt to agree a new timescale with the resident in line with its policy. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord properly updated the resident about the progress of his complaint, made any effort to explain why there was a delay, or advise him when he could expect a full response. It is also noted that the stage 1 response failed to acknowledge the delay or poor complaint handling.
The complaints policy states the landlord will contact the resident within 2 working days of an escalation request, to clarify the resident’s concerns. Despite this, the records show the first contact the landlord made was 8 working days after he had raised his stage 2 complaint. Furthermore, it took the landlord 48 working days to issue its stage 2 response. Although it sent the resident an extension letter on 13 March 2023, providing a revised response date of 27 March, it was not until 18 April 2023 that it actually responded.
The landlord has commented that it was dealing with a particularly high demand for its complaints service at the time and that it was experiencing capacity issues. The Service acknowledges there can sometimes be challenges in responding within timescales, particularly during busy periods. However, landlords should always maintain reasonable contact with residents when delays are expected, in order to update them and agree revised timescales. That the landlord’s communication was substantially lacking would have caused the resident additional and avoidable frustration.
There is no evidence of any further contact from the landlord between 28 March and 18 April 2023, to provide any further updates, or agree any revised timescales. Furthermore, in its extension letter, the landlord stated that it was waiting for appointment dates from its contractor before it could complete its review. It is accepted that substantive issues continue to progress alongside the complaints process and the landlord might want to provide as much information in its complaint response as possible. However, the landlord should not wait for those substantive issues to be resolved before issuing a response. It is important that it correctly follows its complaints policy and provides timely responses, as this will avoid any further distress and inconvenience to the resident. If the landlord needs to provide any further information following its stage 2 response it could have provided a follow up response to confirm the scheduled appointment times.
It is noted that the landlord acknowledged its complaint handling failures in relation to stage 2 and offered, as part of its total compensation, £150 for late acknowledgement and response of its stage 2 response. However, there is no evidence it had recognised the delays in acknowledging and responding at stage 1. That the landlord had significantly departed from its complaint policy amounts to maladministration and the Ombudsman has ordered further redress to put things right.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that “it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre– and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion date”’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”.
The evidence that the landlord provided in response to our initial request for information, is lacking in detail. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, as this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure the landlord has a good understanding of the progress of ongoing repairs at any given time to be able to provide updates to residents. Records also enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and provide an audit trail of actions, including any delays that were outside of its control. Maintaining good records means landlords are also able to carry out thorough and effective investigations when things go wrong.
The landlord has provided very limited information regarding its repairs. Its repairs logs are confusing and do not make clear when the repairs relating to this complaint had been completed, and on which days. As a result, they do not appear accurate or reliable. Contemporaneous records of internal correspondence or contact between the landlord and its contractors is also very limited. The evidence of poor record keeping would have contributed to the landlord’s poor repairs management and its failure in putting together a coherent plan to identify and complete repairs within a reasonable time. It would have also contributed to the excessively protracted delays in carrying out the repairs. We have taken this into account when reaching our findings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of an outstanding repair to a shower chair and associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The excessive delays in completing repairs, along with the landlord’s consistent lack of communication meant the resident was left to chase the landlord repeatedly with little or no response. Poor contract monitoring, and lack of urgency or consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities meant the resident was unable to enjoy the use of his shower for over 7 months. Furthermore, protracted delays resulted in damage to a bedroom, which necessitated remedial works to replace a wall.
The landlord departed significantly from its complaints policy. Its complaint handling, both in terms of acknowledging and responding, was excessively protracted and it failed to maintain reasonable contact with the resident throughout the process.
The landlord’s poor record keeping and lack of effective tracking of outstanding repairs was a significant contributing factor in the poor communication and the distress and uncertainty the resident experienced over an excessively long period of time.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified by this investigation. The apology should be made by the Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,180, calculated as follows:
  1. £980 in recognition of loss of use given the landlord’s failure to respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs;
  2. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £200 in recognition of the landlord’s failure to securely reinstall the resident’s shower chair in March 2022, following delays in completing the repair;
  4. £500 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
3. This replaces the offer of £625 compensation the landlord made in its stage 2 response.
4. If it has not done so already, the landlord to advise the resident on how he can claim on its insurance for loss and damage to personal possessions due to its inaction in addressing the outstanding repairs. If this is not covered by its insurance, the landlord to consider paying an additional sum in recognition of any such losses, subject to the resident providing the appropriate evidence. Provide proof to the Ombudsman that this has been done within the abovementioned timescale.
Within 8 weeks of receiving this determination the landlord to review its complaint training to staff, with emphasis on ensuring all complaints are followed up correctly and properly tracked. The training should stress the importance of following the landlord’s complaints process, providing timely responses and communicating appropriately with residents whenever there are likely to be delays. If it has not done so already, the landlord should also review its system for tracking complaints. The landlord to ensure complaints are properly monitored to avoid the risk of failure in providing responses.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the failings identified in its response to a repair, paying particular attention to the resident’s vulnerabilities. The review should include as a minimum (but is not limited to):
1. An exploration of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and;
  1. How the landlord failed to consider the resident’s particular needs or to appropriately alert its contractors of those needs;
  2. How the landlord could more effectively prioritise vulnerable residents when they report repairs, paying particular attention to any safety concerns if repairs are delayed;
  3. Whether the formulation of a policy/procedure is required that covers responding to residents’ vulnerabilities.
2. A review of its staff’s training needs to ensure all relevant staff:
  1. Respond to requests for repairs appropriately;
  2. Progress works involving more than 1 contractor in an efficient and timely manner, and in accordance with its relevant policies and procedures;
  3. Respond to formal complaints appropriately.
3. A review of its record-keeping practices to ensure the appropriate recording, handling, and responding to repairs taking longer than 21 calendar days. It should consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy, in line with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management
4. The review should be conducted by a team independent of the service area responsible for the failings identified by this investigation.
5. The review team should prepare a report setting out its findings and learning and the actions recommended to prevent recurrence of similar failings. It should provide a copy of the final report to its governing body for scrutiny.
6. A copy of the report is to be provided to the Ombudsman within 12 weeks of the date of this determination.