North West Leicestershire District Council (202318653)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318653

North West Leicestershire District Council

13 August 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:
1. The resident’s reports of repairs to the bath panel.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to the back door, soffits and facias, damp proof course, shower isolation switch and drains.
3. The resident’s reports of other repairs.
4. Its conduct and communication with the resident.
5. The associated complaint.

Background

It is noted there are some instances where the resident has been represented by others, including family members, when addressing the landlord. For the purposes of this report, all communication on behalf of the resident will be referred to as if coming from the resident.
At the time of the complaint, the resident held a secure tenancy at the property, a 3 bedroom semi-detached house. The tenancy commenced in February 2007 and the resident applied to purchase the property under the Right To Buy scheme in December 2022. The sale was completed in July 2023.
In her complaint the resident made the landlord aware that she suffered with mental health issues. She said the situation had caused her to have suicidal thoughts. She also told the landlord she was due to have knee surgery in the coming months.
The resident reported a number of repair issues to the landlord over the years of her tenancy, including some that were reported on a number of occasions. The resident complained to the landlord on 31 May 2023 because she was unhappy that the repairs had either taken too long to be completed or in some cases had not been completed at all. She was concerned that the landlord would not complete them before her purchase of the property was completed.
The repairs listed in the complaint were as follows:
1. The bath panel had been missing for 7 years from 2015. It was installed on 15 June 2022.
2. The toilet had leaked human waste numerous times and was repaired in March 2022.
3. The external waste pipe had leaked human waste numerous times.
4. The electrics in the property had not worked for 15 years and were only fully repaired in July 2022.
5. There was an evident woodworm infestation in the living room flooring.
6. The chimney was in poor condition and believed to be unsafe.
7. The guttering leaked.
8. The windows were draughty, the double glazing had blown and they suffered with condensation and mould.
9. The back door weather strip had never been installed.
10. There were cracks and damp stains on the living room ceiling.
11. The kitchen sink was leaking despite the landlord attending to repair it previously.
12. The soffits and facias were in poor condition.
13. There was an issue with the damp proof course.
14. The cord for the shower isolation switch had started smoking when in use on 30 May 2023.
15. There was an infestation of mice at the property.
In her complaint the resident said the poor service she had received had affected her mental health and that the condition of the property she had been left to live in was unacceptable. The landlord responded at stage 1 on 21 June 2023 and apologised for the frustration and disappointment caused by its handling of the repairs to date. It provided dates for repair appointments for all the outstanding issues and outlined what action it had taken with the other items. It offered £360 compensation comprising £90 for failures to complete repairs within its target timescales (calculated at £10 per repair item), £10 for a failure to notify the resident about an appointment, £10 for failing to clear up after a previous appointment, £50 for the resident to repair her own kitchen sink and £200 for the time, trouble and distress caused overall.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response and offer of compensation and asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 on 3 July 2023. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 16 August 2023. In its stage 2 response it said that the delays to the schedule of works agreed at stage 1 had mostly been out of its control and it noted the resident had refused some of the work. The landlord said it had gone above and beyond supporting the resident and that it had done everything within its power to resolve the issues. It increased the offer of compensation to £550 in recognition of the overall distress the situation had caused and acknowledged the loss of trust the resident may now feel towards the landlord.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service in September 2023. In referring the matter, the resident said there were still repairs outstanding and she wanted the landlord to be held accountable for its failures.
It is noted that the landlord has informed this Service that all the remaining works listed within the complaint were completed in October 2023. The resident has said that the following issues remain outstanding:
1. The kitchen sink still leaks.
2. The proofing work recommended after the pest control treatment to prevent the return of mice has not been carried out.
3. The downpipe discharges water onto the ground and not into the drain.
4. Although the flooring has been treated for woodworm, the landlord has not provided any of the documentation for the warranty or guarantee from the treatment to the resident.
5. The resident had to pay to clear the chimney herself as the landlord blocked it with bricks and debris when completing the repair works and she wants to be reimbursed for this cost.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

In her communication with this Service the resident raised some other repair issues such as a leak she experienced when the heating system was replaced in the past. Although these issues may have caused distress or inconvenience for the resident, the Ombudsman may only consider complaints that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaint procedure. We may also only consider complaints that were brought to the landlord within a reasonable time, usually 12 months. For this reason, this investigation has assessed only the repairs which were raised as part of the formal complaint made on 31 May 2023 and consideration will be given to whether the issues were raised within a reasonable time when assessing the landlord’s handling of the matter.
The resident has made this Service aware of a current issue with the downpipe discharging rainwater onto the ground rather than into the drain. There is no evidence of this being reported to the landlord therefore this matter has not been assessed as part of this investigation.
The resident says that the landlord’s handling of the repairs impacted on her health and wellbeing. She said the situation caused her to have suicidal thoughts. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s experience, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced because of any service failure by the landlord.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the bath panel.

In her initial complaint the resident said she had been without a bath panel for a period of 7 years from 2015 to 2022. There is no record of the resident reporting this to the landlord until 15 May 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said its contractor had attended on 18 May 2022 to replace the bath and had been unable to fit the bath panel due to a shortage of time. The contractor returned on 13 June 2022 to fit the bath panel. The landlord’s repairs policy does not have specific timeframes for repairs to be completed within. However it has a statutory duty under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs within a reasonable time, usually 28 days. On this occasion it took 29 days. This delay is not excessive and would not have had a significant adverse effect on the resident. The landlord offered £10 compensation for the delay in its stage 1 response which is in line with its policy for a delayed repair, therefore no further failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of this repair. This investigation has found the landlord offered reasonable redress for this element of the complaint.

The resident’s reports of repairs to the back door, soffits and facias, damp proof course, shower isolation switch and drains.

In her initial complaint the resident said the back door did not have a weather strip fitted when it was installed. There is no evidence of the resident reporting this to the landlord before this date. In its stage 1 response the landlord apologised for this and booked an appointment for 4 July 2023 to complete the repair. The landlord acted reasonably in apologising and rectifying the issue within a reasonable timescale. No failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of this repair.
In her initial complaint, the resident said the soffits and facias were in poor condition. There is no record of these being previously reported to the landlord. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed the soffits and facias had not been noted as requiring replacement when the guttering was inspected in 2022. However, it noted the resident’s homebuyers survey had suggested the property would benefit from an upgrade to uPVC to prevent future issues. The landlord agreed to complete this work as a goodwill gesture despite being notified after the application to buy the property. The landlord confirmed an appointment for 2 August 2023 and the work was completed on 24 August 2023. The landlord acted reasonably and demonstrated a resolution focussed approach in offering to do this in response to the complaint and no failures have been identified here.
In the initial complaint the resident said there were issues with the damp proof course. Her homebuyers survey report said that there were positive dampness readings noted behind the washing machine. There is no record of the resident reporting this to the landlord before this. The landlord noted this area was next to the kitchen sink which had been leaking and behind a washing machine which was a common area for condensation build up. The landlord also noted there were a lot of slabs and block paving stacked against the exterior of this wall which may have blocked air flow and sunlight to the area to assist with drying.
In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was happy to organise a further damp test once the slabs and paving had been relocated, the kitchen sink leak fixed and sufficient drying time had passed. It noted the homebuyers survey said there were no other positive dampness readings at the property. As this was the first time the landlord had been made aware of this issue, it did not have automatic responsibility to repair it. The landlord acted reasonably in considering the resident’s request and offered a fair solution.
On 30 May 2023 the resident reported to the landlord that the cord for the shower isolation switch had started smoking when used. This was a new repair request and was attended as an emergency. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed the repair had been resolved within its expected emergency timeframe. The landlord also reviewed the current Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) and confirmed the property’s electrical installation had been listed as “satisfactory”. Therefore no further testing was required. The landlord offered to send a copy of this report to the resident. The landlord acted appropriately in handling this as a new repair request as well as by offering reassurance to the resident on the safety of the property by checking the EICR. There were no failures identified in the landlord’s handling of this matter.
In her escalation request the resident said the landlord had failed to address her concern about the drains at the property. There is no evidence of this being raised within her initial complaint, however it was included in the list of essential works to be completed in the homebuyers survey on 30 May 2023. The drains were surveyed on 3 July 2023 and the report was sent to the landlord on 13 July 2023. The contractor suggested a lining was fitted to the existing pipework. The landlord confirmed to the resident what work would be carried out and instructed the work on 14 July 2023. The resident raised a concern that the inspection chamber had not been included within the report and the landlord confirmed the team would complete this work on the day if it was found to be required.
The drain contractor attended the property on 21 July 2023 but the resident said they had left the property without completing the works as a full pipe replacement was required. The landlord asked the contractor to clarify this on 31 July 2023 and chased for a response on 10 August 2023. The contractor sent an updated quote on 14 August 2023 which required senior management approval. It was approved on 7 September 2023 and the work was completed 27 October 2023. Although it took the landlord longer overall than would usually be considered reasonable to complete the work, the landlord acted promptly with the information it had at the time and kept the resident updated. There was a minor delay in achieving approval for the updated quote but this investigation has found no adverse effect on the resident. Therefore no failures have been identified in the landlord’s handling of the matter.
In conclusion, the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of the above repairs and this investigation has found no maladministration in its handling of these matters.

The resident’s reports of other repairs.

In the initial complaint the resident said the toilet had leaked on multiple occasions since being installed in 2015. She explained how she had been left each time with faeces and urine leaking on to the bathroom floor. The evidence shows that the resident first recorded the toilet was leaking on 17 May 2021. The landlord repaired this on 9 June 2021. On 28 April 2022 the resident reported the toilet was leaking again and the landlord repaired it on 23 May 2022. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged that due to the nature of these repairs they should have been attended as a high priority repair, within 1 to 3 days in line with its repairs policy. The landlord offered £20 compensation for the delayed repairs (£10 per repair).
Although it is positive that the landlord acknowledged it had failed to attend to the repair with the appropriate priority, its offer of £20 is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) notes this type of repair issue as a sanitation and drainage hazard and the landlord has not shown any regard for the potentially unhygienic conditions the resident was living in during these times. Furthermore the landlord failed to apologise or offer an explanation for how this error occurred twice and this is a failure. In accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance, an offer of £100 (£50 per repair) would be proportionate to the failure in this case and an order has been made below in this regard.
The resident reported to the landlord that the external waste pipe was leaking in May 2018. There is no evidence of the landlord attending until May 2021. However it was noted on a later inspection that the work completed in May 2021 was of a poor standard. The resident reported the issue again on 28 April 2022 and the landlord attended on 23 May 2022 to clear a blockage and replace the bottom section of the pipe. The resident reported that, at times, there was faeces leaking out of the pipe. In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £10 for the delay in repairing this.
As above, this is not a proportionate amount of compensation for the severity of the issue, especially given the issue was first reported in 2018 and not attended until 2021. The landlord has also failed to acknowledge or apologise for failing to act on the reports of poor standard of work in its initial attendance and this is unreasonable. An offer of £100 is proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident and an order has been made below in this regard.
In her initial complaint the resident said the electrics in the property had been working on and off for 15 years. The evidence shows the resident had reported issues with the lighting and sockets 4 times between November 2013 and December 2019 before the issue was resolved in July 2022. The landlord did not address this within its complaint responses and this is a failure. As per the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), if the landlord was not willing to address the complaint because of the time that lapsed since the repair was reported it should have explained this to the resident. This was a failure and an order for £50 compensation has been made below.
On 13 February 2015 the resident first reported that the living room floor was infested with woodworm. Infestations of insects such as woodworm are considered a hazard under the HHSRS. The landlord inspected the issue but no works were completed at this time. The resident reported the woodworm again in 2019, 2020, 2021 and 2022, with the landlord inspecting each time, but no works were completed. In her complaint the resident explained that she had cleared the contents of her living room and removed her carpets in November 2022 in preparation for repair works to be completed but the work was never done.
At the time of the complaint she had been living with an empty living room for 5 months. It is also relevant to note she had stored the contents of the living room in the kitchen which then limited her access to the kitchen. The resident made the landlord aware of this in her initial complaint and pointed out that this time period spanned Christmas and she had been unable to cook or eat comfortably.
In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to carry out works in a timely manner. It noted there had been a failed appointment on 26 September 2022 as the resident was not at home and 2 further appointments on 30 November 2022 and 2 December 2022 where the resident had not been informed of the appointments in advance and therefore work could not go ahead.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £10 for the delay in completing the woodworm treatment and £10 for the failure to provide advance notification of the appointments in 2022. Despite its compensation policy suggesting these figures, this offer is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience nor the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures to manage this repair effectively. These are major works which, if left untreated, could have caused significant structural issues within the property and posed a potential hazard to the resident’s health and safety. The landlord acknowledged in its stage 1 response that if it had dealt with the issue in 2015 then the situation may not have escalated.
The landlord did not apologise nor did it address the resident’s comments about the inconvenience of having cleared her living room of all belongings for 6 months at the time of the complaint. These are significant failures given the resident’s potential vulnerability. It is reasonable to conclude that it would have been very inconvenient for the resident to have had no belongings in her living room and limited access to her kitchen for an extended period of time. An order for an apology and an increased offer of £250 compensation has been made below. This is proportionate in this case, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, for failures that the landlord acknowledged but did not fully put right.
To resolve the issue, in its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it would be appointing a specialist contractor to inspect the issue with woodworm and to complete any works required. The landlord said this process might take longer than its usual repairs timescales as it would need to follow its procurement rules obtaining 3 quotes but it would ensure that an effective treatment was carried out by specialists.
The evidence shows the specialist contractor surveyed the property on 21 July 2023 and confirmed the presence of woodworm. The landlord chased the contractor for a copy of the survey on 26 July 2023 and the contractor sent it on the same day. The landlord instructed the repair works on 31 July 2023 and the treatment was completed on 15 August 2023. This means that from the date of the initial complaint (31 May 2023), it took the landlord 54 working days to procure the specialist, survey the property and complete the works. The landlord also helped with moving the resident’s belongings to enable the works to go ahead. The landlord acted reasonably in appointing a specialist and completed the works within a reasonable period of time. Therefore no further failures have been identified in this regard.
The woodworm survey suggested the treatment would come with a warranty or guarantee meaning, should the issue reoccur, the contractor would attend and treat again. The resident has told this Service that she has not been given any documentation or confirmation of this guarantee. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to confirm if the warranty is in place and if so, to provide all relevant documentation to the resident.
In her initial complaint, the resident said the chimney was in need of repair and it appeared to be in an unsafe condition. The evidence shows that the resident reported that the chimney was in poor condition on 16 May 2022. The landlord inspected the chimney on 15 June 2022 and found the top 4 courses of brickwork needed rebuilding and the chimney needed repointing. However no work was completed at this time. In its stage 1 response the landlord said it did not believe the chimney to be a safety hazard but agreed that there was a risk of water ingress.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered £10 for the delayed repair and confirmed an appointment for 31 July 2023 for the repair to be completed. It is unclear from the evidence how the landlord came to the conclusion that the chimney did not pose a current safety risk without first inspecting the property and it is unreasonable that the landlord appeared to rely on an inspection completed more than 12 months ago to confirm the work required. As per the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, as a minimum it would have been reasonable for it to inspect the chimney within 10 working days to reconfirm the scope of work required. It was a failure that the landlord did not act in accordance with its own policy and an order for £50 compensation has been made below.
The landlord told the resident that scaffolding would be erected “a few days” before the chimney work started. The property has electricity cables attached to the exterior which required sheathing by a utility company for safety reasons prior to the scaffolding being erected. The national utility company attended on 19 July 2023 but the resident informed the company that the scaffold would not be erected until 28 July 2023. As a result the utility company said they would come back on 27 July 2023. Unfortunately the landlord’s scaffolding contractor hoped to erect the scaffold on 27 July 2023 and therefore the start of the works was delayed by one day. With the benefit of hindsight, this minor delay would not have caused a significant detrimental impact to the resident. However, the resident was understandably very concerned when the chimney works were delayed. Had the landlord been more specific about when the scaffolding would be erected this distress could have been avoided. The chimney work was completed on 3 August 2023.
On 9 October 2023 the resident informed the landlord that when completing the chimney works, the contractor had blocked the chimney with bricks and debris. The resident was unhappy as she wanted to install a fire. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the resident’s comments and the resident informed this Service that she later paid for it to be cleared herself. The resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her for this cost. Although the landlord should have responded to the resident’s email, it was not responsible for ensuring the chimney was clear for an open fire as there was not one in place at the time the works were completed. For this reason no service failure has been found on this matter.
On 11 January 2022 the resident reported that the gutters were leaking. The landlord did not attend and the resident reported the issue again on 28 April 2022. The landlord inspected on 3 August 2022 and recommended the gutters and downpipes be replaced. This work was not completed. In its stage 1 response the landlord confirmed an appointment for 2 August 2023 and offered £10 compensation for the delay in completing the repair. As with the above repairs, the offer of £10 is not proportionate to a 19 month delay in completing the repair. As this repair was external, it may not have had such a significant adverse effect on the resident as some of the other repairs. Nevertheless, the landlord should have shown discretion in applying its policy and made an increased offer. An offer of £50 is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for a failure where the landlord has acknowledged it has failed but not offered an appropriate remedy.
The landlord’s repair log shows that the guttering work was inspected on 3 August 2023 and completed on 15 August 2023. However, when providing evidence to this Service the landlord said the work was completed on 24 August 2023. It is unclear from the evidence when the work was actually completed as there was an email from the resident to the landlord on 24 August 2023 saying the guttering work was not complete. It is unreasonable that the landlord’s repair records and systems hold conflicting information. This is a failure in the landlord’s record keeping and the landlord is ordered to self-assess against this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) to ensure similar failures do not happen in the future.
On 28 April 2022 the resident reported that the double glazing in some of the windows had blown and was suffering with condensation and mould. The resident reported this on at least 3 further occasions and the landlord attended on 7 September 2022, 3 November 2022 and 27 January 2023 to replace some of the windows but the others remained outstanding. The resident also complained that when the landlord replaced one of the windows, it had ordered the incorrect size and left this incorrect window in the property rather than taking it away. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it was aware of an issue affecting multiple properties where window seals were prematurely failing on some of the windows installed between 2013-2016. It noted that the living room, landing and back bedroom windows were awaiting repair. It offered £10 for the delays and confirmed an appointment to measure the units on 3 July 2023.
Although it is positive that the landlord explained that there was a known issue with the windows, the landlord has missed the opportunity to explain why some of the windows at the property were replaced and not others. The landlord also failed to offer a timescale to complete the window replacement or offer any advice or assistance with managing the condensation in the meantime. As above, the £10 offer is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord also failed to demonstrate that it considered the time and trouble incurred by the resident having multiple repair appointments to replace windows on an ad hoc basis, rather than on a planned programme, given the landlord was aware of the likelihood of the windows failing. An increased offer of £100 compensation is deemed appropriate in this instance where the landlord has identified some failures but failed to put things right and an order has been made below.
The landlord measured the windows on 4 July 2023 and installed 5 new windows on 21 August 2023. The landlord confirmed to this Service that the operative recommended some of the smaller windows be replaced, however the works were not progressed as notice of the issue was received after the resident had submitted her Right to Buy application. There is no evidence of the landlord confirming this to the resident and this is unreasonable. The landlord is ordered to confirm its stance on the matter to the resident.
On 11 January 2022 the resident reported cracks and damp staining on the living room ceiling. The landlord did not attend and the job was marked as a duplicate and cancelled on its system. The resident reported it again on 24 May 2022 and the landlord inspected on 16 June 2022. On inspection the landlord found that repair works were required including renewing 2 square meters of damaged plaster board, filling cracks and applying stain block. However, this work was not completed. In its stage 1 response the landlord incorrectly identified the report on the 24 May 2022 as the first time the resident had reported the issue. The landlord offered £10 for the delayed repair and booked an appointment for 4 August 2023 to complete the work.
It is inappropriate that it took the landlord 19 months to complete this repair. The work should have been treated with some urgency since the resident reported that some of the staining was caused by the human waste leaking from the toilet upstairs. The landlord failed to take this into account when making its offer of compensation. An order for an additional £100 compensation has been made in recognition of the distress and inconvenience this issue caused, in line with our remedies guidance for failures where the landlord has identified a failure but failed to proportionately put things right.
The work was completed on 7 August 2023 and the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with how the patch repair looked. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord agreed to redecorate the entire ceiling and this was completed on 12 September 2023. This was above the standard required within the landlord’s repairs policy however, given the length of time the issue had been ongoing, it was reasonable of the landlord to do so.
The resident reported there was a leak under the kitchen sink on 15 August 2022. The landlord attended the same day to repair it. The resident reported it again on 26 January 2023, with the landlord attending on 27 January 2023. The resident said that the repair was completed with tape and a cable tie and was not to a high standard. The resident reported it for the third time on 13 February 2023 and there is no evidence of the landlord attending after this report. In its stage 1 response, the landlord clarified that the sink had been installed by the resident and therefore it did not hold responsibility for repairing it as per the conditions of her tenancy agreement. It acknowledged that it had not previously explained this to the resident and agreed the standard of the work completed in January 2023 was poor. It offered a £50 contribution for the resident’s son to complete the repair, as he had offered to do so in a telephone call with the landlord on 21 June 2023.
In her escalation request the resident described the £50 offer as amusing and said this would not cover the time or cost of materials to complete the repair. The resident did not suggest an amount that she thought would be more acceptable. The landlord’s policies do not make mention of situations such as this so this investigation has had to consider what is fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. It was a failure that the landlord did not explain that the sink was the resident’s responsibility upon the first report of it leaking. In failing to make this clear, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations in terms of the service she might receive. The landlord’s offer of £50 is not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident given the length of time the issue has been outstanding. For this reason an order for £100 compensation has been made below.
In her initial complaint, the resident reported that the property was suffering from an infestation of mice. There is no evidence of the resident reporting this to the landlord before this date. In its stage 1 response, the landlord confirmed it had referred the issue to the relevant team. The landlord’s pest control contractor visit the property on 3 occasions between June 2023 and August 2023. The reports from all 3 visits recommended proofing works be completed at the property. There is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging this despite the resident raising it with the landlord in her escalation request and further emails on 4 and 24 August 2023 and on 9 October 2023.
The landlord’s repairs handbook notes the landlord is not responsible for pest control treatment, however it will complete any repairs required to stop vermin entering the property once the infestation has been eradicated. However as there is no evidence of the resident reporting this to the landlord prior to making her application to buy the property, this repair would not have been the landlord’s responsibility. The landlord’s internal emails on 3 July 2023 show it queried internally whether it was responsible for this work, however there is no evidence of it confirming this to the resident. It is unclear in this case why the landlord undertook the treatment. In failing to inform the resident that this was her responsibility, the landlord raised the resident’s expectations for the service that she might receive. An order for £50 compensation has been made for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failure to clarify its repair responsibilities.
In conclusion, although the landlord acknowledged many failures in its handling of these repairs and did make an offer of compensation, the offer was not proportionate to the length of time it took to resolve a number of the issues nor the level of impact incurred by the resident. It also failed to put things right for some of the repairs listed. Therefore, this investigation has found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of these repairs. An order for an apology and an increased offer of compensation has been made below.
For the avoidance of doubt, the total amount of compensation awarded for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the reports of these repairs is £950, comprising:
1. £100 for the leaking toilet.
2. £100 for the leaking external waste pipe.
3. £50 for the electrics.
4. £250 for the woodworm infestation in the living room flooring.
5. £50 for the chimney repairs.
6. £50 for the leaking gutters.
7. £100 for the issues with the window replacements.
8. £100 for the damage to the living room ceiling.
9. £100 for the leaking kitchen sink.
10. £50 for the infestation of mice at the property.

The landlord’s conduct and communication with the resident.

Throughout the complaints process the resident was told to contact one member of staff regarding the repair works. However in her communication with the landlord, including in her complaint escalation, the resident said it was hard to get hold of this staff member by telephone. The resident made it clear she was not comfortable using email as a primary method of communication. Considering the number of repairs running concurrently and the resident’s known vulnerabilities, it may have been reasonable for the landlord to offer a printed schedule of works. Furthermore, if it could not commit to a member of staff being frequently available by telephone it could have offered to provide proactive and regular updates to the resident where it could have informed her of any changes to the schedule. The landlord has not provided its reasonable adjustments policy. However its repairs and maintenance policy notes it aims to ensure the needs, requirements and circumstances of each resident are considered and the landlord failed to achieve this.
Throughout her communication with the landlord, the resident repeatedly expressed her dissatisfaction at how the landlord was handling the issues raised in the complaint. An example of this included on 21 July 2023 when the resident questioned that the landlord was attempting to do the bare minimum work at the cheapest cost based on a conversation with the drain contractor. The landlord responded evidencing the work they had instructed was the work that had been recommended within the drain company’s report. The landlord further evidenced to the resident that it had shared the details of the report with the resident and instructed the work on the same day it received the report. The landlord acted reasonably in managing the resident’s dissatisfaction.
The resident was particularly unhappy with the landlord’s allegations, in an email on 31 July 2023, that she had shouted in an aggressive manner at its contractors which resulted in them leaving site. The landlord reminded the resident that it was a condition of her tenancy not to harass or abuse any employees. The landlord further noted that the resident had given information to the national utility company which resulted in them leaving site and delayed the scaffolding. The landlord commented on this in its stage 2 response saying that, although it accepted this was unintentional, the resident’s actions had caused avoidable delays in completing the schedule of works. From the evidence, the landlord acted reasonably in handling the allegations of abuse and it was also reasonable for it to acknowledge that these issues had led to delays in the completion of the work.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said it felt it had gone above and beyond to resolve the complaint. It offered goodwill gestures such as additional decorative works and supported the resident with several visits to the property to explain the schedule of works. The landlord also said it had supported the furniture removal and cleaned after the works were completed. With the exception of the decoration and the replacement of the soffits and facias, all the other things listed as “above and beyond” are standard items within the landlord’s repairs policy. It was misleading of the landlord to suggest that calls, emails or cleaning after completing the work are demonstrative of the landlord going above and beyond its usual service level.
Additionally, had the landlord wanted to offer the living room ceiling decoration or replacement of the soffits and facias in lieu of an alternative resolution to the complaint, it should have discussed this with the resident first. Its compensation policy notes in these situations it should agree what would be most beneficial to the resident. There is no evidence of the landlord discussing what the resident might like to resolve this complaint.
In its complaint responses, there is a notable lack of sincere apologies for the delays identified in this section of the investigation. This is despite its complaints policy noting it complies with the Code which lists an apology as the first example of a remedy to be offered. The landlord has also missed the opportunity to explain why these issues occurred. This is a significant failure given the number of separate occasions it failed to complete repairs within its published timescales. An order for an apology has been made below.
Furthermore, the landlord failed to demonstrate any learning from the issues which it could have shown it had put into practise with the ongoing repairs listed in the complaint. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery and it is unreasonable that the landlord failed use its complaint process to do so.
In its stage 1 response, in addition to the compensation noted against each repair as detailed above, the landlord also offered the resident £200 compensation for:
1. Time and trouble in relation to poor communication from the landlord.
2. Stress and inconvenience caused.
3. Having to continually chase for updates.
In the stage 2 response, the landlord increased this offer to £390. It is positive that the landlord acknowledged the cumulative impact that dealing with this number of repairs may have had on the resident. This offer is in the range this Service would offer for failures that had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. For this reason, no further orders for compensation have been made for the overall time and trouble or distress and inconvenience caused by this situation, other than those already outlined above against each repair.
In conclusion, although this investigation has found that the landlord compensated appropriately for its failures in its communication with the resident, it failed to fully make use of the alternative remedies available to it such as a sincere apology or an explanation for why things had gone wrong. Therefore, this investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy says it will respond to complaints in line with the Code. This means that it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
At stage 1, the landlord requested an extension of time on 9 June 2023 due to the volume of information it needed to review. The resident agreed to an extension of a further 10 working days. The landlord provided the response on 21 June 2023 which is within the agreed extended response time. Although it would have been better for the landlord to have requested the extension of time earlier in the process, the landlord did receive the resident’s agreement and issued the response within the extension period granted. There was therefore no adverse effect on the resident and this investigation has found no further failures in its handling of the stage 1 complaint.
The resident requested to escalate the complaint on 3 July 2023 due to a lack of action on some of the points raised in the complaint. The resident chased the stage 2 response on 20 and 26 July 2023. It was not until 27 July 2023, 19 working days after the resident had requested an escalation, that the landlord requested a further 10 working days to respond to the complaint. This repeated last minute request for an extension suggests a pattern of poor complaint management which is a failure.
The resident agreed to the extension but noted that she had expected to be informed of this earlier rather than having to chase for the update herself. Confusingly, on 14 August 2023, the landlord then told the resident that she would receive a response after all the works were completed. This is a failure against the Code, which explicitly states that complaint responses must be provided when the answer to the complaint is known and not when the outstanding actions to address the issue are completed. The landlord then issued its response on 16 August 2023, 19 working days after it had requested the 10 working day extension and 32 working days after the resident asked for the complaint to be escalated.
Although the overall delays were not excessive, the landlord failed to proactively update the resident who was left chasing on a number of occasions. For this reason, this investigation has found service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint and has made an order for a further £50 compensation to be paid to the resident in recognition of distress and inconvenience this failure caused the resident.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress for its failures in handling the resident’s reports of repairs to the bath panel.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the back door, soffits and facias, damp proof course, shower isolation switch and drains.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s conduct and communication with the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report. This should include any learning identified or implemented since this the time of this complaint.
2. Under paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, self-assess against the recommendations made in this Service’s spotlight report on KIM.
3. Confirm, in writing to the resident, its stance on the outstanding window units requiring replacement.
4. Pay the resident £1,390 compensation, comprising:
  1. £150 previously offered in relation to its failures in handling the other repairs.
  2. A further £800 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling the other repairs.
  3. £390 previously offered for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in communicating with the resident.
  4. £50 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
This money should be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any monies owed by the resident.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £10 it already offered in recognition of its failures in handling the repair to the bath panel.
The landlord should confirm what warranty or guarantee, if any, exists for the woodworm treatment completed in August 2023 and if this is transferable. Upon receipt of this information, the landlord should provide any relevant documentation to the resident.