Longhurst Group Limited (202312373)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312373

Longhurst Group Limited

31 October 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 reports that:
1. his garden was overgrown with weeds.
2. the bedroom radiators were not producing enough heat.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. complaint handling.
2. record keeping.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord from July 2022 to March 2024. He lived in a new build, 2-bedroom, first floor flat. The property had its own allocated garden for the resident’s sole use.
On 22 September 2022 the resident raised a complaint about overgrown weeds in his garden (complaint A). He said:
1. his garden was “full of weeds.”
2. the weeds had “grown so wildly” because the landlord had not treated them with weed killer before it covered his garden with gravel.
3. the landlord should send someone to treat the weeds.
In response, the landlord told the resident that it would add his concerns to an existing complaint that he had open. The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on the matter in October 2022. The evidence suggests that the landlord did not respond to the resident’s correspondence at the time.
On 21 October 2022 the resident contacted his MP. He said that he had reported his concerns about the overgrown weeds in his garden to the landlord. But had not received a response.
On 26 and 27 October 2022 the landlord confirmed with the resident that it was investigating an enquiry from his MP. It said:
1. the resident’s property was a new build. Therefore, its after care team (AC team) who managed new builds would be investigating the matter. They would establish whether the weed membrane was laid prior to the gravel being laid.
2. weeds could establish themselves within the gravel and on top of the weed membrane layer.
3. garden maintenance was resident responsibility.
4. it would try to respond within 5 working days. However, as it had to liaise with the developers of the new build, it was unable to provide an “exact estimation” on when it would update the resident.
On 2 November 2022 the AC team updated the resident. It explained that it was still investigating the matter and would provide a further update “shortly.”
On 21 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged complaint A. It explained that the previous officer that was dealing with the complaint had left the organisation.
On or around 7 December 2022 the contractor carried out work to the resident’s garden. It:
1. stripped back the gravel and confirmed that the weed membrane was in place.
2. removed all weeds that had grown through the membrane, reinstalled the membrane and replaced the gravel.
Meanwhile, on 6 December 2022 the resident reported that his radiators were not working.
On 13 December 2022 the resident confirmed that the work in the garden to remove the weeds was complete. He said that he would monitor the matter to see if the work was “done properly” and that the contractors did not just “pull out” the weeds.
On 15 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to complaint A. It said:
1. it failed to register the resident’s complaint at the time he made the complaint.
2. the contractors had stripped back the gravel and made sure the membrane was in place. Weeds had grown through the membrane which the contractors had removed. It reinstalled the membrane and replaced the gravel.
It offered the resident:
1. £50.00 compensation for the delay in dealing with the matter.
2. £50.00 for the “mis-recording of [his] concerns as a formal complaint.”
On 22 December 2022 the landlord’s contractor (contractor A) investigated the resident’s report about his radiators. It noted that all radiators were working. It also noted a request from the resident to swap a double radiator in the front room, with a single radiator in his child’s bedroom. He had expressed concern that the heater in his child’s bedroom did not emit sufficient heat.
On 5 January 2023 the contractor attended to carry out work to the radiators but was unable to gain access. The details of what work needed to be carried out is unknown, as we do not have a record of the order. On the day the contractor cancelled the visit because it had emergency appointments that it had to attend. The appointment was subsequently rescheduled to 10 February 2023.
On 10 February 2023 the resident raised a complaint (complaint B). He expressed his belief that wrong radiators had been installed and that it was “very cold” at night in the bedrooms. He was unhappy that the appointment which had been reschedule was a month away and asked for this to be brought forward.
An new appointment was scheduled for 16 February 2023. While the contractors attended, they were 2 hours later than scheduled and the resident was not home.
In March 2023 the landlord rescheduled the appointment. However, around this time, it identified that it had raised the order to investigate the resident’s radiators to the incorrect contractor (contractor A). As the resident’s property was still under the new build defect period, the matter should have been processed by its AC team. Upon identifying the issue, it cancelled the appointment and redirected the matter to the correct team. It told the AC team that the resident considered that the wrong radiators had been installed as the bedrooms were cold.
The date of the visit is unclear. However, the evidence suggests around this time the correct contractor (contractor B) investigated the resident’s concerns about the radiators. Contractor B confirmed that the radiators which had been installed were the correct size.
On 20 April 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to complaint B. It said:
1. Contractor A had missed 4 appointments between December 2022 and March 2023.
2. it had failed on “several occasions” to recognise that the resident’s property was within its 12-month defect period. This meant that the repair should have been reported to its AC team when the resident first reported the issue in December 2022.
3. the resident told it that contractor B had recently attended and told him that the radiators fitted were the correct size. It said that it was awaiting confirmation on the matter and should that be the case then no further alterations would be made.
4. it had a “backlog” of complaints which meant that the complaints team also contributed to the delay in “getting things sorted” for the resident.
It offered the resident:
1. £40 compensation for the 4 missed appointments.
2. £100.00 compensation for “the delay in progressing his repairs, the lack of communication and the stress and inconvenience caused.”
On 3 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that his neighbour’s double radiators were in the bedrooms and the single radiators were in the living room. He reiterated that his radiators were in the wrong rooms. Over the following weeks, the landlord investigated the resident’s report. It contacted the developer and asked it to look into the matter.
On 22 May 2023 the resident told the landlord that his garden was “full of weeds” again. He said that the contractors did not treat the area properly because the weeds that had grown back were “wild.”
The resident chased the landlord for a response about his garden approximately twice in the following weeks. It is unclear whether the landlord responded.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that the garden was his responsibility to maintain. Therefore, it would not carry out any work to the weeds.
On the same day, the resident made another complaint (complaint C). He said:
1. his garden was overgrown with weeds.
2. he was unhappy with the actions the landlord had previously taken.
3. he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s recent response that it would not carry out any works to the garden.
4. the weeds would not have come back as quickly if the landlord had carried out a “proper job in the first place” when the membrane and gravel was put down.
5. the issues with the radiators were taking a long time to resolve.
On 8 June 2023 contractor B inspected the resident’s radiators. The resident told the landlord that contractor B advised him that to keep the bedrooms warmer, he should keep the living room radiator on “setting 1”. The resident explained to the landlord that he was not happy with contractor B’s response. He also questioned why contractor A’s instructions to swap the radiators were not followed through. The landlord replied. It said that it was awaiting the report from the visit, and it would review it alongside the resident’s comments.
On 29 June 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to complaint C. It said:
1. the weed membrane had been checked and was installed correctly. The membrane did not stop seeds from falling onto the gravel. This meant weeds could still grow in the garden. The resident was responsible for maintaining the garden.
2. as a good will gesture it would review the issue at its “end of defect period” inspection.
3. The manufacturer determined the capacity of the radiators based on the size of the rooms. The correct sized radiators had been installed in the rooms.
4. the operative that attended on 8 June told the resident how to balance the radiators.
5. it had reviewed its records and could not find that contractor A had stated that the radiators should be swapped or that they were incorrectly sized. It had reported that the radiators were working fine. It noted that the resident had asked the radiators to be swapped. It apologised for any miscommunication that may have occurred about the matter.
6. the resident queried why his complaint about the radiators were not at stage 2 of the complaint process as he had already had a complaint about the matter at stage 1. It had looked into the matter and confirmed that a complaint had been raised about the radiators at stage 1 on 10 February 2023 which it responded to on 20 April 2023.
7. it had asked the AC team if it would move the radiators as the resident had requested. It would provide the resident with a response.
8. it had not found any service failures with regards to its handling of the radiators and the weeds in the resident’s garden.
It offered the resident £50.00 compensation for any distress and inconvenience caused.
On the same day the resident escalated complaint C. He said he had previously made complaints about his radiators and the weeds in his garden. Therefore, he considered that the landlord should have responded at stage 2 of its complaint process. He also asked why the landlord did not follow contractor A’s suggestions to swap the radiators.
On 3 July 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to complaint C. It reiterated its stage 1 response and added:
1. it had sent a “resolution” letter in response to the resident’s complaint about the overgrown weeds in December 2022. When the resident had raised the issue again in June 2023, it responded to him at stage 1 of its complaint process.
2. when the resident made a complaint about the missed appointments on 10 February 2023 it issued its” resolution” letter on 20 April 2023. When the resident raised further concerns in June 2023, it issued it stage 1 complaint response.
3. as the radiators were deemed “sufficient,” the living room and the bedroom radiators did not need to be swapped.
4. it was satisfied that it fully answered complaint C during its stage 1 investigation. Therefore, it would not complete a further review or investigate at stage 2.
The resident escalated his complaint to this Service. He said that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s complaint response because:
1. the radiators in the bedrooms were too small. The rooms did not warm up enough during the winter months. He wanted the single radiators to be swapped with double ones and for the thermostat to be placed in a different room. The landlord was going to do so, but “changed their minds.”
2. the garden area was never treated for common weeds before they placed gravel over and after fitting the membrane. He asked that the soil be treated with weed killer underneath the membrane.

Policies and procedures

At the time of the resident’s complaint, the landlord’s repair policy stated:
1. While a property or component was under defects or within warranty, repairs must be reported to the relevant contractor during this period and follow the defect process.
Its compensation policy stated that residents should be contacted to cancel or to rearrange an appointment at least half an hour before the end of the appointed timeslot where possible. If it failed to give notice in these timeframes it would offer the resident £10 compensation.
The resident’s tenancy agreement stated that it was tenants’ responsibility to ensure gardens were “tidy and free from rubbish” and to ensure that it did not become “overgrown.”

Assessment and findings

Overgrown weeds

The resident stated that he reported that his garden was overgrown with weeds around 16 September 2022 via the landlord’s website and to an officer around that time. We do not doubt the resident’s comments. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of the report. Therefore, without evidence, we cannot say fairly that the landlord failed to respond.
On 22 September 2022 the resident told the landlord that he wanted to report that his garden was overgrown with weeds in comparison to his neighbours’ gardens. He considered this was because the garden had not been treated with weed killer. The evidence suggests that the landlord told the resident that it would add his concerns to an existing complaint that he had already had open. However, the landlord failed to do so.
In early October 2022 the resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on the matter. The evidence provided suggests that the landlord did not respond. Subsequently, the resident sought support from his MP in mid-October 2022 to help progress his concerns with the landlord. It is unclear why the landlord failed to respond to the resident or deal with his enquiries appropriately. However, that it did not caused the resident time and trouble which may have been avoidable if the landlord had responded and had taken reasonable steps to resolve his concerns at the time.
It was only upon receipt of the MP enquiry on 27 October 2022 that the landlord progressed the resident’s concerns and raised an order for the matter to be investigated. This was approximately a month after the resident had initially raised the issue. At this time the landlord confirmed with the resident that it would look into whether a weed membrane had been placed under the gravel in his garden.
Its explanation that it was resident responsibility to maintain the garden was appropriate. It was also a good opportunity for the landlord to manage the resident’s expectations that he would be responsible for the ongoing maintenance once the membrane had been investigated and nay issues resolved.
Over the following months the evidence shows that the landlord was chasing the contractor for updates on the matter. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord kept in reasonable contact with the resident during this period, with the exception of one week where it failed to provide an update.
On or around 7 December 2022 the contractor confirmed that the membrane was in place and that it had removed the weeds that had come through. Around the same time, the resident confirmed that the work had been done. He told the landlord that he would monitor the matter to see whether the issue had been resolved or whether the contractor had “just pulled out the weeds.” He also asked the landlord to confirm what works the contractor had carried out.
In internal discussions about the work that had been carried out, the landlord said that the contractor would have “only checked” whether the membrane was in place. The evidence demonstrates that the resident had expected that the weeds should have been treated with weed killer in his original complaint. He later added concern that the contractors may have “just pulled out the weeds” when it had carried out the work. Therefore, given the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have addressed this specific concern with the resident. There is no evidence that it did. Not doing so meant that it missed an opportunity to ensure that the resident’s expectations were managed on whether it would treat or not treat the weeds.
As part of its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord offered the resident £50 for the delay in dealing with the matter. This was reasonable and proportionate for the failure. It also outlined what work the contractor carried out which went some way to answer his query. However, its response would have benefited from explaining its position around whether it would or would not treat the weeds. This would have fully answered the resident’s original complaint and later concerns about what works the landlord had undertaken. It is noted by the evidence available, the resident did not raise any further concerns that the work the landlord outlined did not include “treatment” to the weeds at this time.
The available evidence suggests that there was no further contact between the resident and the landlord about this matter until the resident raised his concerns on 22 May 2023. At this time, the resident told the landlord that the weeds had grown back. He was concerned that it had not treated the area for weeds properly when it had carried out the work.
The resident chased the landlord several times over the weeks that followed. While it is unclear, there is no evidence that demonstrates that the landlord responded to his requests for an update. The landlord’s lack of communication was unreasonable and caused the resident time, trouble, and inconvenience.
On 7 June 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it would not arrange a further appointment to attend to the weeds. It said that he was responsible for the maintenance of his garden. This was reasonable as the landlord had previously made the resident aware that the garden was tenant responsibility. However, it missed another opportunity to address the resident’s concerns that the weeds had not been treated.
In his complaint, the resident reiterated his concerns that the contractors had not carried out the work to the weeds properly. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord reiterated its previous comments. Again, failing to specifically address the resident’s concerns that it had not treated the weeds.
Overall, the landlord did not take timely steps to investigate the resident’s concerns about the weeds in his garden in the initial stages of his complaint. The landlord recognised this failure and offered the resident reasonable and proportionate compensation. It also explained that it was tenant responsibility to maintain the garden.
Once the work had been completed, the landlord explained to the resident what work it had carried out. This was reasonable. However, it missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s specific concerns that the weeds had not been treated. If it had done so, it may have managed the resident’s expectations and prevented him further time and trouble in pursuing the matter further.
It also failed to address his specific concerns when he raised them again in May 2023 and in his June 2023 complaint. The resident’s concerns were left unaddressed as a result. Therefore, we have found service failure in the landlord’s response to resident’s concerns about overgrown weeds in his garden.

Radiators

In December 2022 contractor A inspected the resident’s radiators following his report that they were not heating the property sufficiently. It noted that the radiators were working. It also noted that the resident had raised concerns that his child’s bedroom single radiator did not produce enough heat. He had asked that the landlord swap the radiator with the double one in the living room.
The resident reported that the landlord had agreed to swap the radiators at this time. It is clear that the landlord had raised another order following contractor A’s visit in December 2022. However, we do not have a contemporaneous record of the order. Therefore, it is unclear what it entailed. However, given that no issues were identified with the radiators during this inspection, it is unclear why a further job was raised.
Over the months that followed, there were several missed and rearranged appointments made by the landlord and resident. The resident made a complaint on 10 February 2023 about contractor A missing appointments.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord provided a timeline of events which included the dates of the missed appointments. It concluded that it had missed 4 appointments and offered the resident £40 compensation. This Service has not been provided with contemporaneous evidence that corroborates that the landlord’s comment that it had missed 4 appointments. However, it is noted that there is no evidence to suggest that the resident had disputed the landlord’s account. That it offered the resident compensation for the missed appointments was appropriate. It was also in accordance with its compensation policy that said that it would offer £10 for any appointments that it missed.
When the landlord responded to the complaint, it also explained and apologised for the delays. It offered the resident £100 compensation for the delay in “progressing [his] repairs, the lack of communication, and the stress and inconvenience caused. However, while it is unclear, the compensation award appears to have covered another complaint that the resident had made at the time, which does not form part of this investigation. Therefore, in the absence of a breakdown of the compensation and the circumstances, a further award has been ordered in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays at this time. This is to replace the landlord’s offer.
In March 2023 the landlord identified that the resident’s flat was within its 12-month defect period. Therefore, the resident’s reports about the radiators should not have been passed to contractor A, but to its AC team that managed the new builds defects. It subsequently asked the contractor B to investigate the resident’s reports that the bedroom radiators were not producing enough heat and considered that the wrong radiators may have been fitted.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that it missed several opportunities to correctly raise the matter with the AC team. However, it failed to acknowledge that the resident had been engaging with an incorrect contractor for approximately 3 months, and some of the inconvenience that was associated with this, could reasonably have been avoided. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have acknowledged this and the inconvenience caused by the associated delay in progressing the matter. Therefore, compensation in recognition of this has been ordered.
While the specific date is unknown, the evidence suggests that contractor B attended around mid-April 2023 and told the resident that the radiators in his bedrooms were the correct size. We do not have a contemporaneous record of the outcome of the visit. Therefore, it is unclear whether contractor B carried out any other checks to ascertain whether the radiators themselves were producing enough heat and there were no defects with the radiators themselves.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord explained that it was waiting for contractor B’s notes on the outcome of the visit. It said that if the radiators were the correct size, then no “further alterations” would be made. It is unclear whether the landlord was provided with or sought an update about the matter from contractor B. Given the circumstances and the already existing delays to resolve the matter, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have sought the information. This would have allowed it to review the matter and update the resident accordingly. There is no evidence to suggest that it did.
In early May 2023, the resident reiterated that the radiators were in the “wrong” rooms. He said that his neighbour had the double radiators in the bedrooms and the single radiators in the living room.
In response, the landlord contacted contractor B and asked it to review the radiators and carry out another visit. Given that the resident raised potential differences with the radiators in his and his neighbour’s flat, that the landlord requested a further investigation into the matter was appropriate.
Contractor B inspected the radiators on 8 June 2023. At this time, the evidence provided demonstrates that both the landlord and developer reviewed the specifications and radiator sizes that were determined by the manufacturer. They concluded that the resident’s radiators were the correct size and installed to the manufacturer’s specification that took into consideration room sizes. They also referred to the energy performance certificate (EPC) and the standard assessment procedure (SAP) reports that showed that in July 2022 the radiators were working. This went some way to demonstrate that the landlord was taking appropriate steps to ensure the radiators were the correct size and in the correct locations.
While the landlord appropriately sought confirmation that the correct radiators had been installed, it would have been reasonable for it to seek confirmation that they were working efficiently. It is acknowledged that contractor A had checked whether the radiators were working in December 2022. However, for completeness, it would have been reasonable for the radiators to have been tested in June 2023. That they were not was a missed opportunity
The outcome of the landlord’s and developer’s review of the radiator specifications was relayed in the stage 1 and 2 complaint responses to complaint C. This was reasonable.
The evidence suggests that the resident was expecting his concerns to be resolved with the swap of the radiators. He raised concerns that the landlord had not followed through with contractor A’s suggestion that the radiators should be swapped. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that it could not find notes that contractor A had recommended to swap the radiators or that the radiators were the incorrect size. However, it offered £50 compensation which included any inconvenience the resident may have caused by the matter. This was reasonable.
Given that the landlord concluded that the correct size radiators were fitted, that it did not swap the radiators were reasonable. It provided this explanation in its stage 2 response. However, it did not demonstrate to the resident, itself and ultimately this Service that the bedroom radiators themselves were not defected and produced the required heat to reasonably heat the bedrooms in accordance with its size and output. This meant that the resident’s concerns that the radiators did not produce enough heat, and that the bedrooms were cold during the nights went unresolved.
After it had issued its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord discussed internally that it could look to install monitoring equipment to ascertain why the rooms were cold. This was a reasonable and appropriate approach to try and resolve the resident’s concerns. It is unclear why the landlord did not consider this approach as part of its complaint investigations. If it had done so it may have provided the resident with a reasonable solution to help identify the cause of his concerns. It is unclear whether the landlord followed through with this suggestion.
Overall, the landlord:
1. failed to refer the resident’s reported concerns about his radiators to the correct team when he first reported the matter. It also missed several opportunities to do so for approximately 3 months in the initial stages of the case.
2. missed pre-arranged appointments regarding the radiators after its initial attendance in December 2022.
3. failed to demonstrate that although the radiators themselves were the correct size, they were not defected and were producing the required heat.
These failures caused the resident time, trouble, distress, and inconvenience. While the landlord offered compensation, given the failures highlighted in this investigation, it did not go far enough to put matters right. Therefore, we have found there was service failure by the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns that his bedroom radiators were not producing enough heat and his bedrooms were cold.

Complaint handling

On 22 September 2022 while discussing an existing complaint that he had with the landlord, the resident reported that his garden was “full of weeds”. The evidence suggests that the landlord told the resident that it would add his concerns to his existing complaint. The evidence shows that it did not. The landlord’s failure to follow through with its commitment on the matter meant that the resident’s concerns were not investigated and answered in a timely manner. The evidence suggests that it also failed to respond to the resident when he chased the matter. This led him to contact his MP for support in October 2022. This caused him time, trouble, and inconvenience. This could have been avoidable if the landlord followed through with its commitment to address the resident’s complaint as it said that it would.
The evidence suggests while the MP’s contact with the landlord around 21 October 2022 prompted it to take some action on the substantive issue. It is unclear whether the landlord took reasonable steps to clearly establish and progress the resident’s complaint under its complaints policy.
It was not until 21 November 2022 that an officer contacted the resident and acknowledged complaint A. While the officer stated that it had taken on the case from a previous officer, there is no evidence to show that the complaint had progressed until this point. Furthermore, the landlord’s correspondence about the complaint with the resident at this time demonstrates that it was unclear when the resident raised the issue and the history of the matter. This suggests a record keeping issue. The landlord’s misunderstanding of the matter would have caused the resident to worry that his report was not being dealt with appropriately.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had to extend its response deadline to 19 December 2022. It explained that it was still working with the developers to resolve the issue. While it was positive that the landlord informed the resident of its extension, that it did so on the day that it was due to issue its response was unreasonable.
In its stage 1 response to complaint A, the landlord provided the resident with a detailed timeline of what happened with his complaint. It included the dates of his correspondence and what actions it had and had not taken. Its responses corroborate with the available evidence. This was positive and showed that it had investigated the matter. Its response was transparent and demonstrated that it had taken ownership of its complaint handling errors.
The landlord offered the resident £50 compensation for “mis-recording” his concerns as a formal complaint. While it is unclear, the evidence suggests that this was in relation to the landlord’s failing to progress the matter via the resident’s existing complaint as it stated it would. The compensation award in respect of this was reasonable and proportionate.
The resident made complaint B on 10 February 2023. The evidence available suggests that the landlord actioned his complaint under its early resolution stage of its complaint policy. The landlord’s policy stated that the resolution stage was an informal complaint stage that encouraged early and local resolutions. However, our March 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code) stated that the Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time. Therefore, the landlord’s policy was not in accordance with the Code.
Also, the landlord’s policy stated that before it would raise a complaint under its early resolution stage it would seek the resident’s agreement first. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord did so in this case.
It is unclear what prompted the landlord to escalate the resident’s complaint. However, the evidence suggests that it acknowledged complaint B at stage 1 on 8 March 2023. The resident’s complaint was only recognised as a stage 1 complaint by the landlord approximately a month after he raised the complaint. This highlights the Ombudsman’s concerns that informal complaint stages keep complaints outside of the complaint process. In addition, this meant that there was a delay in meaningfully dealing with the resident’s complaint.
The landlord’s complaints policy stated that it would issue it stage 1 complaint responses within 10 working days. This meant that its response deadline was due on or around 22 March 2023 for complaint B. However, it issued its response on 20 April 2023. This was approximately 10 working days outside of its response timescale. Therefore, a deviation from its own policy. It is unclear whether the landlord had extended its deadline and updated the resident beforehand. It should reasonably have done so.
On 7 June 2023 the resident raised complaint C. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on 19 June 2023 which was within 8 working days. While this was a slight departure from its 5 working days timescales, the delay was not unreasonable. It is noted on the same day the landlord also spoke to the resident and advised him that if he had any concerns about the acknowledgement letter that he could contact it. This was reasonable and appropriate. This demonstrated that it was committed to ensuring that it was investigating the resident’s complaint accordingly.
In its acknowledgement letter it said that it would respond to the resident’s complaint within 20 working days – by 17 July 2023. The landlord’s complaint policy stated that it would respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord stated that it would reply within 20 working days. The evidence suggests that this was an error, as the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint on 29 June 2023 within 8 working days of its acknowledgement. This was in line with its policy timescales. The landlord is encouraged to take more care when drafting its correspondence to ensure that any deadlines communicated to residents are in accordance with its policies, and for complaints, with the Ombudsman’s Code too.
The evidence suggests on the day the landlord was due to issue its stage 1 response, it spoke to the resident and advised him of its decision. This was reasonable and appropriate. The evidence suggests that during this conversation the resident stated that he believed that his complaint in relation to the radiators should have been at stage 2. This is because he had already made a previous complaint about the matter.
The landlord attempted to address this in its stage 1 complaint response. It said that its records showed that the resident had raised complaint B – about the radiators on 10 February 2023 and it issued its response on 20 April 2023. However, this did not address the resident’s concern that the landlord should have responded to complaint C in regard to his radiators at stage 2. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have also explained why it raised a new complaint rather than escalating complaint B. This would have appropriately addressed the resident’s concern.
Subsequently the resident escalated his complaint and reiterated that the landlord should have responded to complaint C in regard to his radiators at stage 2. He also added that it should have responded to his concerns about the weeds in his garden in complaint C at stage 2. This was because he had previously made a complaint about the matter.
In its final response the landlord reiterated its stage 1 response. It added that the response to complaint B was a resolution letter. It said that when the resident raised his concerns again in June 2023, it raised his complaint at stage 1. However, the 20 April 2023 complaint response clearly stated that it was a stage 1 complaint response. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord said that the response at that time was provided within its informal stage. This meant that it failed to provide the resident with an accurate response to his concern.
It also said that it issued a resolution letter to complaint A. Again, the landlord’s response to this complaint was at stage 1. Therefore, it is unclear why the landlord stated the complaint at that time was at the resolution stage. This was a further failing on the landlord’s part to provide accurate information about its complaints.
The landlord stated that it was satisfied that it had carried out a thorough investigation into the resident’s complaints. Therefore, it would not undertake a further review or investigation at stage 2 of its complaint process.
The Code states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure, unless an exclusion ground applies. The landlord’s reasons for not investigating the resident’s complaint at stage 2 did not include an exclusion ground. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for it to have investigated the resident’s complaint at stage 2 of its process.
It is imperative that residents should have the opportunity to have their complaint reviewed by a person not previously involved at stage 2. It is also in the landlord’s interests to ensure that complaints are reviewed. The stage 2 process allows the landlord the opportunity to review its handling of the matter and its initial complaint response and consider whether the correct outcome had been reached and if any action is required to put things right. As such, that the landlord did not utilise its full complaints procedure was not only a failing that was the cause of detriment to the resident, but it was a missed opportunity to identify the failings that have been highlighted by our investigation.
Overall, the landlord failed to:
1. progress complaint A in a timely manner.
2. failed to issue its complaint responses in accordance with its complaint policy timescales.
3. provide accurate information about its own complaint responses.

Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

On 8 February 2024 the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlord must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024. The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the failings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code examined under the duty to monitor remit.

Record keeping

There have been several gaps in the evidence provided to this Service. As a result, we have not had full sight of contemporaneous evidence relating to the complaint. It is unclear whether the landlord does not have this information, if no record was kept, or if the landlord simply failed to provide it for the purposes of this investigation. Regardless, this is a record keeping failing.
The landlord should ensure that it maintains a clear and accurate audit trail of all actions taken in any case. Not only do such records assist the landlord in reviewing its own service provision, but they are also imperative in the event of an independent investigation conducted by organisations such as the Ombudsman.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on knowledge and information management. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns about the weeds in his garden.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported concerns that the radiators in his bedrooms were not producing enough heat.
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 service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should do the following:
1. apologise to the resident for the failings highlighted by this investigation.
2. pay the resident £300 compensation. Comprised of:
  1. £50 for the trouble, time and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of weeds in his garden.
  2. £150 for the time, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reported concerns that the radiators in his bedrooms were not producing enough heat.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. pay the resident the compensation it offered in its complaint responses if it has not already done so.
4. remind staff to:
  1. adhere to its complaint policy timescales.
  2. ensure acknowledgement letters and complaint responses are based on accurate information.