Muir Group Housing Association Limited (202214276)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214276

Muir Group Housing Association Limited

31January 2025

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:
1. Repairs and the resident’s subsequent request for compensation.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord with the tenancy beginning in March 1992. She requested to terminate the tenancy in July 2024. The property is a 3–bedroom house with a detached garage. The resident has some mobility/balance issues known to the landlord.
The landlord carried out a stock condition survey on 13 September 2021. It recommended replacing the following items in the years detailed below:
1. The main bathroom and separate WC – 2031
2. The front door – 2032
3. Rewiring – 2031
4. The garage doors – 2029
5. The kitchen – 2030
6. The windows – 2032
On 18 August 2022, the resident visited the landlord’s offices as she was unhappy regarding its handling of outstanding repair issues. She outlined the following repairs, and the landlord said it would arrange an inspection:
1. Damaged roof and a missing roof tile.
2. Cracks to the walls of the property.
3. The windows were “old” (35 years old).
4. The front door lock was broken and allowed water ingress.
5. A broken flush to the ground floor toilet.
The resident contacted this Service on 4 October 2022 in relation to various outstanding repairs. Following this, the landlord raised a stage 1 complaint for the resident on 17 November 2022. It sent its stage 1 response on 2 December 2022, apologising that it did not carry out repairs within its routine time of 20 days. The landlord said that:
1. On 15 September 2022, its contractor carried out a repair to the front door.
2. An engineer visited the resident on 15 and 21 September and 21 November 2022 to carry out repairs to the ground floor toilet. A replacement toilet was recommended, which had been ordered.
3. On 11 November 2022, the following additional works were recommended:
  1. Provide a new door and frame to rear of garage and overhaul the up–and–over garage door. These works had been scheduled for 13 December 2022.
  2. Replace the verge tiles, loose mortar, and fibreboards to the roof. The roof works had been completed.
  3. Repair the cracks to bedroom. This had been scheduled for 6 December 2022.
4. An independent stock condition survey was carried out on 13 November 2021. The report confirmed the windows and doors were 20 years old and would be assessed for replacement in 2032.
5. It offered the resident £300 for the length of time taken to complete the repairs.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2023. She said that the outstanding issues remained, and detailed further disrepair she wanted added to the original complaint. This included:
1. A leak in the upstairs bathroom, and a bathroom replacement was “overdue”.
2. The front door needed to be replaced.
3. The radiators did not work, and the pipes were “not to standard”.
4. The resident said she had replaced the kitchen electrics in 2013 at a cost of £10,000.
5. The guttering needed a “full replacement”.
6. The windows had not been replaced since 1990.
7. She had an increase in her utility cost of £400 due to the landlord’s delay in repairing the leak to the toilet.
The landlord responded at stage 2 on 31 May 2023. It said that:
1. It had completed the following repairs:
  1. Roof repairs over rear bedroom.
  2. Front door lock adjusted.
  3. Downstairs toilet flush completed with new cistern.
  4. Survey of the radiators to ensure they were fully functional.
2. A specialist damp and mould contractor had visited the resident and raised a works order to install ventilation. Due to contractors’ availability, this would likely be completed before 14 July 2023.
3. It aimed to complete the following repairs by 16 June 2023:
  1. Renew door frame to rear garage.
  2. Renew external door to rear of garage.
  3. Overhaul up–and–over garage door.
  4. Cut out and fill cracks to ceiling in bedrooms and bathroom.
4. It aimed to complete the following repairs by 16 July 2023:
  1. Front door frame to be adjusted.
  2. Plaster repairs required where old cistern was located.
  3. Assess the toilet to see if a new flush mechanism could be installed.
5. The windows and doors had been added to its planned maintenance programme and it aimed to complete the works by March 2024.
6. The electrics were checked in 2020, and the next check was due in December 2025.
7. It had previously offered the resident £200 compensation, and was increasing this to £300.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to the landlord’s stage 3 appeal panel on 27 October 2023. She said that:
1. She did not receive a response to her email of 21 October 2023.
2. The Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) system had been circulating contaminated air into the property from the loft space.
3. An extractor fan in the kitchen had been fitted too close to the boiler flue and did not meet gas safe regulations.
4. She wanted to stay with her daughter for a period and wanted to be compensated for travel costs.
5. She wanted to be compensated for works she had paid for herself.
An appeal panel meeting was held on 22 November 2023 and the landlord sent its stage 3 response on 24 November 2023. It outlined the action it had taken and agreed that some repairs were completed outside of its timescale for routine repairs. It offered the resident a total of £1,000 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience she experienced. This was made up of:
1. £300 offered at stage 1.
2. £100 additional offered at stage 2.
3. £300 in recognition of the delays for the repairs, including the leak in the bathroom and the problems the resident experienced when the new ventilation units were installed.
4. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
During recent contact with the resident in January 2025 she said that she had moved out of the property in 2024. She said that the works had remained outstanding for a long time, and she sought increased compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident said that there had been no upgrades to the property in 25 years. While we do not dispute this, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise unresolved complaints to this Service in a timely manner so that any service failure by the landlord can be addressed promptly. As issues become historical, evidence become difficult to obtain and authenticate. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the events surrounding the resident’s formal complaint regarding the outstanding repairs.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s subsequent request for compensation

The landlord’s repair policy says that:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended to within 4-24 hours.
2. Urgent repairs will be attended and completed within 3 working days.
3. Routine repairs will be attended and completed within 20 working days.
4. Planned repairs and batched programmed works will not be considered a responsive repair (for example, works such as new kitchens or bathrooms). These works are typically of a non-urgent nature and can involve the replacement of items such as external brickwork, fencing or plastering. Such repairs will be programmed to be delivered within 12 months.
5. If there are no immediate plans for works to be undertaken, it will keep a record of the desired works and incorporate it into future programmes. It will keep the customer informed accordingly.
The evidence shows that the resident contacted the landlord by visiting its offices on 18 August 2022 and outlining a number of repair issues. The landlord said that it would arrange an inspection. This was an appropriate course of action in the circumstances. The landlord’s response to the various repair issues is assessed in more detail below.

Cracks to the walls of the property

A repair order relating to cracked walls was raised on 24 June 2022 and attended to on 22 July 2022. The repair log notes are unclear as to whether any work was carried out. On 3 August 2022, the landlord spoke with the resident and asked her to move items in order for the work to be completed. The landlord then reattended on 15 September 2022, however the repair log says that the resident declined to have the work done until the roof was repaired. The resident again did not provide access on 6 December 2022 and 30 March 2023. Further appointments were scheduled for 22 May and 6 June 2023, but these were cancelled by the landlord due to staff sickness. The works were later completed on 27 June 2023.
It is clear that the landlord faced difficulties in gaining access to the property. Nevertheless, this did not negate its repair obligations. The landlord had ultimate responsibility to ensure any necessary repairs were carried out. It was unreasonable that due to staff absence, the works were repeatedly delayed. In order to ensure continuity of effective service delivery, a landlord should have robust measures in place so that residents are not disadvantaged by resourcing issues. In this case, the landlord could also have done more to explore the reasons for the access issues and possible solutions.

Roof

On 18 August 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the roof was damaged and there was a missing tile. The case notes for 2 November 2022 show that the landlord emailed the resident following an “earlier conversation” saying that it would raise an urgent repair for the roof, and it would be attended to within 3 working days. The repair log shows this was attended to on 7 November 2022 and within the 3 working days. Nevertheless, the resident had brought the roof repair to the landlord’s attention on 18 August 2022, and it took it 56 working days to attend. The repair was therefore not completed within its policy timescale which was not appropriate.
On 15 November 2022, another repair was raised to repoint the verge tiles on the roof. A contractor visited on 6 December 2022 with the notes saying, “no answer at door”. It is unclear from the evidence why an additional repair was required and the need to repoint the tiles was not identified during the visit of 7 November 2022. There was no evidence to suggest that the landlord made any further attempt to gain access until 29 September 2023, when another routine repair order for roofing and pointing works was raised. This was despite the landlord advising in its stage 2 response of 31 May 2023 that the roof repairs were complete. An appointment was made for the repairs to be carried out on 10 October 2023, but this was cancelled by the resident. A further appointment was made for 26 October 2023 with the repair log showing that the roof repairs were completed.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive regarding this repair. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures
The need for a repeat visit for the same issue was evidently frustrating for the resident and delayed a resolution for her, which was unfair. The roof repair was not fully completed until 9 months later. This was unsatisfactory.

Front door

On 18 August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord reporting that the front door lock was broken. The repair log shows that on 26 August 2022 the resident reported that the door “lets water in”. This was evidenced as complete on 15 September 2022, which was 20 working days after the original report. This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s policy timescale for a routine repair.
The resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 November 2022. The landlord responded on 2 December 2022. It said that an independent stock condition survey had been carried out on 13 November 2021, and confirmed the windows should be assessed for replacement in 2032. It went on to say it carried out planned improvements in line with the recommendations it received. The landlord relied on the recommendations and expertise of its contractor, therefore it was reasonable for it not to consider replacing the front door until 2032. It also said that it would provide the resident with more information if requested. While this was a reasonable response, the landlord could have gone further and provided the resident with the necessary information in relation to the programmed works. This would have been in line with its repair policy, which says if there are no immediate plans for works to be undertaken, it will incorporate them into future programmes and keep the customer informed accordingly.
On 28 February 2023, the resident reported that the front door was difficult to open and close. The landlord attended on 14 March 2023. This was 10 working days later and in line with its responsive repair policy timescale.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2023, saying that the front door needed replacing. On 16 May 2023, a works order was raised noting that the door frame was twisted. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023 saying it had adjusted the front door lock and was aiming to adjust the front door frame by 16 July 2023. This was attended to on 6 June 2023, which was 14 working days later (from 16 May 2023) and within the repair policy timescale. The landlord also said that the doors were to be replaced by March 2024. This was appropriate as it had failed to provide this information at stage 1.
The repair log shows that planned works to replace the front door were scheduled for 22 April 2024, but no access was provided. A further appointment was made for 29 May 2024; however, the resident was unable to provide access due to being in hospital. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 June 2024 to rearrange, but the resident advised that she had given notice of terminating her tenancy and did not want the works done.
Overall, the landlord responded within its policy timescale in relation to the works needed to the front door, which was appropriate.

Garage doors

On 14 January 2022, the resident reported that the garage door was difficult to close and lock. The landlord attended on 20 January 2022, with the repair log notes saying its contractor adjusted the side door and overhauled the lock to the up–and–over door. The contractor also recommended that an inspection be carried out to the rear garage door and frame. The landlord was prompt at attending to the door, attending within 4 working days and within its policy timescale. Nevertheless, the was no evidence provided to suggest that an inspection was carried out as per the recommendation, which was not appropriate.
On 27 October 2022, the resident reported that the garage door was stiff and difficult to open. A contractor attended to the repair on 8 November 2022. The repair log says that the door was adjusted, and the mortice lock replaced. It also recommended replacement of the door. A further works order was raised on 15 November 2022 and the landlord said that the door and frame were scheduled to be replaced on 13 December 2022. However, the repair log for 13 December said that follow–on works were needed and that a new frame and PVC door were required. It was not appropriate that despite identifying the need to replace the door on 8 November 2022 and advising the resident that it would do so by 13 December 2022, the landlord was not in a position to complete the repair.
On 28 February 2023, a repair order was raised to renew the rear garage door. The notes said that more information was needed as to why the door needed replacing. A further inspection was then carried out on 14 March 2023. The contractor’s notes said that the door and frame were rotten and “about to fall apart”. It was not appropriate that the landlord carried out another inspection, despite already having been advised by its contractor on 8 November 2022 that the door needed replacing. In addition, had it followed the recommendation of 20 January 2022 to carry out an inspection, rather than attending as a responsive repair, it would have been in a position to provide the necessary information. It was unfair to the resident that she had already waited 87 working days for the replacement of the door and yet the landlord was still not in a position to progress the work.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 31 May 2023 that the garage door would be replaced by 16 June 2023. However, it failed to adhere to this timescale, with the door and frame being replaced on 20 July 2023. This was over 8 months after it identified the need to replace the door, and unfair to the resident. The landlord was aware of the resident’s mobility issues and how difficult it would have been for her to open and close the door. The delayed replacement therefore caused her distress and inconvenience.

Windows

The resident was unhappy with the age of the windows. She said that they were “old” (35 years). The landlord advised in its stage 1 response that an independent stock survey had been carried out in September 2021, confirming that the windows were 20 years old and that they would be assessed for replacement in 2032. The landlord attended the property on 15 December 2022 with a view to “adjusting the windows and realign[ing] as necessary”. The repair log shows that no access was provided. In her stage 2 escalation the resident said that the windows had not been replaced since 1990. The landlord responded saying that they had been added to its planned maintenance programme and it aimed to complete the works by March 2024. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the recommendations of the stock survey, and resolution focused to bring forward the replacement of the windows in light of new information. This was also in line with its repair policy in relation to planned repairs.
The repair log shows that planned works to replace the windows were scheduled for 22 April 2024, but no access was provided. A further appointment was made for 29 May 2024; however, the resident was unable to provide access due to being in hospital. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 June 2024 to rearrange. At this point the resident advised that she had given notice of terminating her tenancy and did not want the works done.

Guttering

The resident raised concerns in her stage 2 complaint of 17 March 2023 that the guttering needed replacing. She had previously reported on 28 February 2023 that the guttering at the rear of the property had come away and water “gushed” whenever it rained. The repair log shows that by 3 March 2023 the works to repair the guttering had been completed. There were no recommendations noted for the need to replace the guttering. Nevertheless, the landlord failed to address the resident’s concerns in its stage 2 response. While it was reasonable for it to rely on the outcome of the visit that had been carried out 10 working days prior to the complaint, it was not reasonable that it omitted to address the resident’s concerns. At least, it should have explained that repairs had recently been carried out and no other recommendations had been made.

Toilet

On 18 August 2022, the resident reported that the flush was broken on the ground floor toilet. The repair log shows that this was attended to as a routine repair, with 2 visits being made on 15 and 22 September 2022. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise the repair as routine, given that the resident had access to another toilet in the main bathroom. Nevertheless, the landlord completed the repair 4 working days outside of its policy timescale and it required a second visit as a “new flush was required”. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not in a position to replace the flush by not having the necessary part to carry out the repair, especially as it had been notified on 18 August 2022 that the flush was broken.
On 2 November 2022, the resident reported that there was water “constantly running” in the toilet when flushed. An urgent repair order was raised, and this was attended to on 11 November 2022. However, this was 7 working days later and 4 days outside of the landlord’s policy timescale, which was not appropriate. The repair log noted that the resident was on a water meter, and she had “mention[ed] in September” that the toilet was leaking. Having reviewed the repair log, there were no notes in September 2022 referring to the toilet leaking. Furthermore, the repair log says the utility company contacted the landlord to make it aware that the water was continuously leaking. Its delay in taking effective action was therefore unsatisfactory.
On 14 November 2022, a repair order was raised to replace the toilet. The landlord noted that the old cistern was “high up”, and due to the resident’s mobility issues she “struggled” to flush it. The repair log notes said that the landlord tried to bring the appointment forward, but the resident was only available on 21 November 2022. As a result of the visit of 21 November 2022, the contractor recommended replacing the ground floor toilet as this was where they thought the continuous water was coming from. Further visits were carried out in November and December 2022. The landlord replaced the toilet on 27 January 2023, which was 2.5 months later. It said that there was a delay due to supply issues. While it was appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason for any delays, the repair log notes that the landlord was aware of the continuous water flowing in September 2022,thus, making the overall delay 4.5 months. This was excessive and caused avoidable inconvenience to the resident.

Other issues

Throughout the complaint process the resident raised further issues in regard to repair work carried out by the landlord. These included issues with:
1. The radiators – The landlord said in its stage 2 response of 31 May 2023 that a survey was carried out of the radiators, and they were fully functional. The repair log shows that a survey was carried out on 18 May 2023. A copy of the gas safety certificate was also provided to this Service, which was valid at the time of the complaint.
2. The electrics – The landlord provided this Service with a copy of the electrical installation certificate for the property which was dated 3 December 2020. The overall assessment was satisfactory, and it estimated the age of the electrical installation to be 25 years. The landlord explained in its stage 2 response that the electrics had been checked and were due for the next check in December 2025.
3. Mechanical ventilation in the property – The resident advised the landlord on 27 October 2023 that the mechanical fan was too close to the boiler. The case notes show that between 17 November 2023 and 13 March 2024 the landlord tried to arrange appointments to resolve the issue. Due to the resident’s ill health, it was not successful in doing so, and the job was put on hold for the resident to “call when ready”.
The landlord has demonstrated that it appropriately responded to the resident’s concerns and has evidenced the action it took.

Compensation

The resident said in her stage 3 escalation that she wanted to be compensated for the work she had carried out, and for travel expenses she incurred as a result of staying with her daughter. In total the landlord offered the resident £1,000 compensation. It said that this was made up of:
1. £300 offered at stage 1.
2. £100 additional offered at stage 2.
3. £300 in recognition of the delays to repairs, including the leak in the bathroom and the problems the resident experienced when the new ventilation units were installed in her home.
4. £300 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s repair policy says that customers must not make any structural or building alterations, adaptations, or improvements to their home without its prior written permission. The resident had not provided any evidence to suggest that she obtained prior approval for any works carried out. Therefore, it would not be reasonable to expect the landlord to pay for works that she had carried out, especially as prior approval was needed from the landlord. In addition, it was the resident’s choice to stay with her daughter and therefore the landlord cannot reasonably be expected to contribute to any costs incurred.

Summary

The landlord evidenced that it attempted to rectify the outstanding repair issues and faced difficulties at times in gaining access. Nevertheless, there were some unnecessary delays that were due to no fault of the resident. There was a 9–month delay in fully repairing the roof and delays due to staff sickness in remedying the cracks to the walls. It took the landlord 8 months to replace the garage doors, despite it being aware of the resident’s mobility issues and the difficulty she experienced when operating the doors, subsequently causing her distress and inconvenience. The landlord also failed to follow its contractor’s recommendation to inspect the doors and required repeat visits to obtain the necessary evidence to justify replacing them. Its own contractor had warned it that the door was “about to fall apart”.
The landlord carried out repeat visits to repair the issue with the toilet and was notified by the utility company of the continuous water leak in the toilet, yet it took 4.5 months to complete the necessary repairs. While it is noted that the landlord said it experienced supply issues with parts that were needed, its contractors should have had the necessary skills to identify the problem first time and mitigate against any further delays such as supply issues. The landlord took steps to put things right by offering the resident £1,000 compensation, but this was not sufficient to put things right. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s subsequent request for compensation.
The landlord’s customer complaints and feedback policy says that when calculating offers of compensation, it measures the impact to the resident against its level of responsibility. Therefore, a total of £1,400 has been awarded to the resident. This is made up of an increased award of £500 for the delays in carrying out the repairs and an increased award of £500 for distress and inconvenience. This is calculated based on a major impact on the resident and high level of responsibility for service failure from the landlord, which is the maximum amount under this category.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy provided to this Service was implemented in March 2024. It says it operates a 2–stage process, which allows 10 working days for a stage 1 complaint response and 20 working days for a stage 2 response. It is noted that the resident’s complaint predates this version and her complaint was progressed through a 3–stage process. The Ombudsman’s complaint handling code that was in operation at the time of the complaint allowed for a third stage if the landlord could justify the reasons for it (as an extra stage delays a resolution for the resident). Therefore, consideration will be given as to whether the landlord followed its policy timescales and if it was reasonable to implement an extra stage of the complaint process.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 August 2022 saying she was unhappy regarding its handling of the outstanding repairs. The complaint handling code defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction”. Therefore, it was at this point that the landlord should have raised a stage 1 complaint. Nevertheless, it failed to do so until intervention from this Service and so raised a stage 1 complaint on 17 November 2022. This was 64 working days later after the resident’s initial expression of dissatisfaction, and not appropriate.
The resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 17 March 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 31 May 2023, which was 49 working days later and 29 working days outside of its policy timescale. This was unfair to the resident and delayed a resolution for her.
On 27 October 2023, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 3 of the landlord’s complaints process. An appeal panel meeting was held on 22 November 2023 and response provided on 24 November 2023. While it is noted that throughout the complaint process the resident reported further issues, it was unreasonable that the process took a year to complete. Though the landlord offered the resident compensation, this was not in relation to its complaint handling delay.
In summary, both stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were late and sent significantly outside of the policy timescale. The landlord failed to identify the need to raise a formal complaint in August 2022 and only did so after intervention from this Service. Overall, the complaint process took 1 year to complete and delayed a resolution for the resident. The landlord did not make an offer of compensation to put things right. Therefore, there was maladministration in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
As above, the landlord’s customer complaints and feedback policy says that it calculates the offer of compensation by measuring the impact to the resident against its level of responsibility. Therefore £250 compensation has been awarded to the resident. This is calculated based on medium impact on the resident and a high level of responsibility for service failure from the landlord.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s subsequent request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance.
2. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £1,650, made up of:
  1. £1,000 previously offered to her in its final response.
  2. £400 for the increased impact of delays, distress and inconvenience identified by this investigation.
  3. £250 for its delays in relation to complaint handling.
  4. This should be reduced by any amount already paid.
3. Contact the resident to ascertain if she can provide proof of increased utility costs due to the leak. If so, offer reimbursement in line with its financial remedies outline in its customer complaints and feedback policy.
The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.