Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202205840)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205840

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

23 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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The property is a 3-bedroom house and there are no vulnerabilities recorded for the household.
The resident and landlord corresponded on 10 and 11 March 2022 about outstanding repairs in the property. Following news of a rent increase, the resident emailed the landlord about the lack of maintenance and repairs and stated that: the front door needed replacing; the bathroom had inadequate ventilation and mould, and needed replacing; the back door had been fitted by previous tenants and was broken; and there was a missing gutter pipe which caused leaks. She also asked who was responsible for repairs to the boundary fence, which was broken.
The landlord explained that its contract with its repair and maintenance contractor was ending, so they would attend for some repairs (a broken fan and guttering) but a new contractor would need to take over and carry out any further repairs. It was prioritising fire safety works over other home improvements, and would be in touch once planned works were finalised. It asked for pictures of the fence to determine responsibility, which the resident provided.
On 6 April 2022 the new contractor visited the property and the resident chased the landlord on 20 April 2022 about the repairs. The landlord explained that its contractor found the doors to be of a reasonable standard, and apologised for the delay in the fence repair due to more urgent works. The landlord arranged for another visit to determine the state of the door after the resident told it the door could not be resolved by patch repairs. She said she had already applied draft excluders and she had been told in a 2018 survey that it would be replaced. She continued to chase works in May and June 2022 and complained to the landlord about a missed appointment on 7 May 2022.
Following the resident’s chasers, the landlord said it had received quotes on 21 June 2022. At the same time, the resident referred the issue to the Ombudsman, stating that a contractor visited in April 2022 to view the issue but she had not heard anything further by June 2022. She said the landlord kept making appointments and changing them, and did not respond to her complaints.
The landlord confirmed with the Ombudsman on 27 June 2022 that it had missed the opportunity to log a complaint earlier as it was trying to resolve the repair while the new contractor was bedding in. It acknowledged the resident’s complaint the same day, and explained that it would respond (under its 3 stage complaint process in operation at the time) by 11 July 2022.
The landlord provided a response dated 12 July 2022 as follows:
1. It apologised for the lack of clear communication from the contractor about repairs to the fence and doors. It offered £25 as a gesture of goodwill due to the delays and the communication failures.
2. The main fence repair had been completed, but it apologised for the time taken. The rest of the fence would be repaired and, where necessary, replaced, and the contractor would be in touch in 2 working days to book this in.
3. The front door repair would be carried out to help with drafts, and the door would be replaced in the coming years as part of a planned works programme.
The resident submitted that the response had not addressed all of the repairs, so the landlord escalated the complaint on 14 July 2022. In its stage 1 response of 28 July 2022 it noted that repairs had been arranged for 1 August 2022 (to the fence, door frames, windows, kitchen fan, guttering, and missing down pipe) when the resident returned from holiday. It advised that door, window and bathroom replacements would be considered for inclusion with planned works programmes, but it could not provide timescales.
On 5 August 2022 the resident explained that she wished to escalate her complaint because she remained unhappy that the front door would not be replaced soon and would be repaired instead. She said that they already tried to fill in gaps with a draft excluder and this did not work, and there was a delay already following a previous stock survey.
The landlord logged the complaint the same day and arranged a panel hearing for 14 September 2022. The notes state that the resident was provided with details of the planned work programme and dates (no evidence provided to this Service). The landlord provided the panel’s outcome in its final response on 26 September 2022 as follows:
1. The panel reviewed the complaint so far, and noted the outcomes of the expression of dissatisfaction and the stage 1 responses. The panel found that the resident had declined the landlord’s offers of goodwill (£25 offered at each stage).
2. There had been miscommunication and mismanagement of expectations about the doors as these were not being replaced following the 2018 stock survey. While residents were told of planned works the landlord was now prioritising fire safety works and there were delays to other works as a result.
3. The doors were now to be included for consideration under future planned works, and a new survey would be carried out with an update on progress provided in November 2022.
4. The resident declined weatherproofing on the doors as these had been tried before, and the surveyor was to visit again to see if any further repairs could be done as this had not been investigated properly.
5. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience and set out its lessons learned from the complaint in the need to provide clearer communication about planned work programmes and expected timeframes, and between contractors and customers in respect of progressing repair issues

Events after the end of the complaint process

On 17 November 2022 the resident told the Ombudsman that a surveyor inspected the doors once more but she did not hear back from the landlord, and she repeated her original concerns about the door. The resident explained that she was told this would be addressed under planned works but was not given a timeline. She also said the landlord was still not communicating with her about appointments and she wished to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman as she remained dissatisfied.
In January 2024 the landlord merged with another landlord and updated its complaint policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
In June 2024 the landlord reviewed its case handling and stated that:
1. It had failed to improve communication despite stating this as a lesson learned from the case in 2022.
2. It had failed to update the resident on the door replacement in July 2023 when she chased this.
3. It offered the resident a total of £400 compensation, comprised of offers it had previously made and an additional £250 for distress and inconvenience due to the original miscommunication about the door and a further £150 for time and trouble and distress caused when the resident chased an update about the door without a response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repair reports

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including doors and door frames, windows, plasterwork, drains, gutters and external pipes, as well as installations for sanitation including bathroom appliances, and to take reasonable care of common parts. The landlord has not disputed its repairing responsibilities in this case.
The Repair Policy states that the landlord will aim to provide a reliable and responsive service, deliver repairs at a time suitable to residents, and undertake timely repairs. Timescales include 28 days for routine repairs and 24 hours for urgent repairs, and planned work programmes which do not carry a timescale. However, residents will be informed about the progress of repairs, and planned work programmes will be published on the landlord’s website.
The resident originally raised her repair reports in March 2022 and these were ultimately arranged for August 2022, approximately 4 months beyond the 28 day target timescale for routine repairs. The landlord explained that there was a period of bedding in for the new contractor, and apologised to the resident. However, it did not take the opportunity of the complaints process to acknowledge the impact of its delayed repairs services on the resident by making a reasonable offer of redress. This was unreasonable and represents a failure in service.
There remained outstanding repairs to the doors, due to a dispute over the required scope of work needed to address the problems the resident had been reporting. It is not within the Ombudsman’s remit to take a view on the condition of the doors; this would be for a suitably qualified expert. This Service can only assess the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports and determine if this has been reasonable.
In the circumstances of this case it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further survey to investigate the condition of the doors. This is because of the disparity between: the contractor’s assessment that the doors were in a reasonable condition; the resident’s repeat reports about the condition of the door and measures which had already been taken to address this; and the landlord’s review panel complaint findings.
However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with a timely update, according to her reports, on the timescale of planned works following the surveyor’s visit of November 2022. It acknowledged this over a year later, when it reviewed the case file and identified service failure in the lack of redress and continued failures in communication.
The landlord’s failures align with those identified by the Ombudsman, but it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have used the complaint process to review its service and put things right, in line with our Dispute Resolution Principles. It should also ensure that appropriate measures are in place to confirm that it provides agreed complaint outcomes.
The landlord failed to appropriately put things right in terms of redress for the time and trouble and distress and inconvenience the resident experienced, until much later. This was unreasonable and amounts to a service failure. It remains unclear if the landlord communicated with the resident its renewed findings of failure and redress and whether the resident’s concerns about the lack of clarity over the timescale for planned works were ultimately resolved.
Overall, the landlord failed to complete the repairs in a timely manner, and it failed to reasonably communicate about and manage the repairs to the doors. It failed to keep the resident informed of the progress of the repairs, or its planned works programme, in line with its expected standards under the Repair Policy.
The landlord’s revised and increased offer of compensation after the complaint process was resolution focused. However, as set out above, the landlord should have used the complaint process to put right any identified failures by way of redress at an earlier opportunity. The delays in the landlord’s redress were not reasonable, and the resident experienced further time and trouble in escalating her concerns.
Therefore, taking into account all the circumstances of the case, there was maladministration by the landlord, and it is ordered to pay £100 in addition to its revised offer of redress to the resident (£400). This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for maladministration where the landlord acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but failed to address the additional detriment to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the formal complaint

The landlord’s Complaint Policy in operation at the time of the complaint set out its 3 stage procedure comprised of: an expression of dissatisfaction, stage 1, and stage 2 complaint review panel. The expression of dissatisfaction should be responded to within 2 working days, the stage 1 complaint should be responded to within 10 working days, and stage 2 complaint panel hearings should take place within 20 working days and then the outcome should be provided within 10 working days.
The resident complained on 7 May 2022, and the landlord missed the 2 day response target as it only logged the complaint under the initial stage in June 2022 after the Ombudsman intervened. It also responded in July 2022, 1 working day beyond its agreed timescale which it communicated to the resident and 2 months after the resident raised her expression of dissatisfaction.
The landlord’s stage 1 response exceeded the 10 working day timescale by 4 days. Following the resident’s escalation on 5 August 2022 the landlord set up the panel hearing on 14 September 2022 which exceeded its policy timescale by 8 working days; it then provided its final response within the policy timescale of 10 working days.
There have, therefore, been delays in the landlord’s handling of the complaint at various stages, which was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged delays in the initial stages of the complaint process, but did not offer the resident reasonable redress taking into account the entirety of delays that were beyond the reasonable timescale (under the landlord’s policy at the time).
The delays in the complaint handling resulted in a lack of trust and faith that the landlord was processing the resident’s concerns, and she had to refer to the Ombudsman to intervene, which was unreasonable. The resident experienced time and trouble for which the landlord is ordered to pay £50. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for when the landlord acknowledged a failure but it did not fully put things right.
The landlord subsequently updated its complaint policy to be in line with the Code, which is appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs.
2. Service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550 comprised of:
  1. £100 for the time and trouble associated with the repairs.
  2. £400 which it proposed after identifying further service failures and related time and trouble, and distress and inconvenience associated with the repairs (if this has not already been paid)
  3. £50 for the time and trouble associated with the complaint handling
2. Provide the resident with an update on any repairs or planned works for the doors, if this remains outstanding.

Recommendation

The landlord is recommended to ensure that it reviews its service under the complaint process in accordance with the prescribed complaint timescales at the time of a complaint, rather than wait for a referral to the Ombudsman to assess and award redress that it considers appropriate for acknowledged service failures.