Octavia Housing (202220210)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220210

Octavia Housing

30 May 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 response to the resident’s:
1. Request for preventative measures for future floods.
2. Request to replace a damaged fridge-freezer.
3. Reports of broken ventilation in the property.
4. Request to replace the window locks.
5. Reports of a repair to the aerial socket.
6. Reports of outstanding work in the bathroom.
7. Request for a reimbursement of rent while staying in temporary accommodation.
8. Associated complaint.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and has lived in the ground floor flat since 2011. The building is owned and managed by the landlord. The landlord has confirmed the resident has learning and mobility issues.
The resident’s home was affected by severe floods in July 2021. She was moved into temporary accommodation while repairs were completed in her home. On 21 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord regarding outstanding repairs which included locks on windows, broken air vents, the aerial not working, and damage to her fridge-freezer. The landlord arranged a visit to the property 23 February 2022, but the outcome has not been provided as evidence. The resident returned to her home in April 2022.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 28 June 2022. She said:
1. she was waiting for the bathroom to be replaced but was concerned the condition of her current bathroom was causing further disrepair
2. there were outstanding repairs to be completed (these included window locks, however the resident said a full list had been provided previously)
3. she had paid rent while living in temporary accommodation
4. she wanted the bathroom replaced, the outstanding repairs completed, and a full rent refund all by the end of July 2022
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2022. The landlord partially upheld the complaint and in summary said:
1. the snagging items (deadlocks on windows, a bedroom window lock, blinds for bedroom and kitchen and an aerial for the living room) would be completed by the contractor
2. it was still procuring a contractor for the bathroom replacement, but it would be completed before March 2023
3. it provided alternative accommodation therefore would not refund any rent as no additional charges had been made for the alternative accommodation
The resident requested an escalation of her complaint on 20 July 2022. She said:
1. some work had been completed but some remained outstanding (replacement of window locks, vents not working correctly, aerial not installed)
2. she had been told conflicting information regarding the bathroom replacement and wanted clarification as to when it would be done
3. she understood the rent refund outcome, but did not think the £15 daily food allowance was enough
4. the fridge-freezer had been damaged and needed replacing
The landlord provided its final complaint response on 28 September 2023. It confirmed the complaint was about the impact of the flash flooding in 2021 and the subsequent work, and the delays in responding to the complaint escalation from 2022. In its response the landlord:
1. apologised for the impact caused by the storms in 2021
2. confirmed the problem with the vents had been resolved
3. said it had worked with the resident to identify the works, co-ordinate the moves and had provided additional funding for the running of the dehumidifier, subsistence costs and removals and storage costs
4. confirmed it would replace the fridge-freezer
5. confirmed the bathroom had been replaced in 2022-23
6. confirmed it had inspected the bathroom in September 2023 following concerns raised by the resident, confirmed the install was correct, but it would arrange the clearance of any blockages from the waste pipe, a power flush, and a replacement of the plug
7. advised it had replaced the heavy-duty patio doors to reduce the risk of flooding, however the flood consultants did not view the windows as a risk therefore they would not be replaced
8. said it had tried to connect the TV aerial socket into the communal aerial and find locks to fit the windows, however this had proved difficult, so a building inspector would visit and advise how to resolve the problems
9. partially upheld the complaint due to the delay in responding to the complaint in 2022, and offered £350 in addition to the replacement of the fridge-freezer
The resident referred her complaint to us on 12 December 2023. She said she was not happy with the response and wanted more compensation.
On 15 December 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident following contact from us. It confirmed it was continuing to complete the work, and the lead officer was in regular contact with her. It confirmed that after the stage 2 response was provided, it had increased the compensation offer to £450 due to the complaint handling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on her health. Although we can consider the impact the situation had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. This is a matter better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue this matter further, she should seek legal advice.
The resident referred to concerns regarding the security of the communal door due and the antisocial behaviour in the building. There is no evidence this matter was raised by the resident in either of her complaints, nor was it included in either of the landlord’s complaint responses. A landlord must be given the opportunity to respond formally to a complaint from a resident via its complaint process. As such this issue will not be assessed as part of this investigation.

Request for preventative measures for future floods

There is no evidence the resident raised these concerns in her stage 1 complaint or escalation request. However, in June 2023 with the stage 2 complaint still open, she raised this through her MP. On 21 June 2023 the MP emailed the landlord and confirmed the resident wanted further flood prevention measures explored and implemented to prevent a recurrence of the damage. There is no evidence of a response to the MP or the resident at that time. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
On 6 September 2023 the resident confirmed the patio door at the front of the property had flood proof doors fitted but she believed the back patio doors should be changed also. In its final complaint response on 28 September 2023, the landlord confirmed it had replaced the heavy-duty patio doors to reduce to the risk of flooding. Although it is not known when the doors were replaced, the landlord’s actions were reasonable and demonstrated an understanding of the resident’s concerns following the floods.
In terms of the windows, the landlord advised it had raised the resident’s concerns with its flood consultant who did not view the windows as a risk. The landlord confirmed it would not be replacing them but would continue to maintain them through its cyclical work. The landlord is entitled to accept the opinion of the expert, therefore its response was fair and reasonable. Further, as it advised it would continue to maintain the windows as part of its cyclical programme, it committed to its repair obligations. As such we find no maladministration.

Request to replace a damaged fridge-freezer

On 21 February 2022 the resident told the landlord her fridge-freezer had been damaged. The evidence suggests the landlord arranged a visit to the property on 23 February 2022 but there is no evidence to confirm this happened or what was agreed as a result. This was a record keeping and communication failure by the landlord as it failed to keep the resident updated.
There is no evidence of any further contact from either party regarding this issue until the resident raised it in her complaint escalation on 20 July 2022. Between July 2022 and June 2023, the resident sent the landlord several update requests. On 15 February 2023 she told the landlord she was several months pregnant and needed the fridge-freezer replaced as soon as possible. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord at that time. This was a communication failure.
On 6 September 2023, she told the landlord she had a newborn baby and needed a new fridge-freezer. It was evident from the resident’s repeated contact to the landlord that the matter was urgent, and it was having an impact on her and her newborn baby, yet the landlord failed to respond or demonstrate empathy to the resident’s situation. This was unreasonable.
The landlord responded on 11 September 2023 when it confirmed it had enquired on grants for a new fridge-freezer. On 13 September 2023 it confirmed to the resident she had received a grant previously therefore could not have another one. It advised there was an opportunity to apply for one from a different source and it sent the application form to the resident. This was reasonable.
In its final complaint response on 28 September 2023, the landlord acknowledged that at some point during the temporary move, the appliance had been damaged. It said it was difficult to determine how it happened, but confirmed it would replace the fridge-freezer as a gesture of goodwill. The replacement was delivered on 12 October 2023, 19 months after the issue was first raised by the resident. Although the landlord did replace the fridge-freezer, the lack of communication and the time taken to resolve the matter was unreasonable. The landlord failed to demonstrate an understanding of the impact on the resident or the urgency of the request. Furthermore, it did not evidence any consideration into offering an interim solution until the matter could be resolved.
Considering the above, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace a damaged fridge-freezer. The landlord failed to acknowledge its failings or offer any redress. As such, and in line our remedies guidance an order has been made to pay the resident £100 compensation for the impact caused by the delays in the landlord’s handling of the issue.

Reports of broken ventilation in the property

The landlord’s Repair Policy states it is responsible for ventilation. In relation to timescales it states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs within 15 working days
On 21 February 2022 the resident told the landlord the vents in the bathroom and kitchen were not working. There is no evidence to confirm what the landlord did to resolve this issue at the time, or any communication to the resident. This was unreasonable as the landlord failed to meet its repair responsibilities. Furthermore, it is a record keeping and communication failure by the landlord as it failed to keep the resident updated.
There is no evidence of any further contact regarding this issue until 20 July 2022 when the resident raised it in her complaint escalation. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at the time. This was a further failure by the landlord to meet its repair obligations and to keep the resident updated.
With the stage 2 complaint still open, the resident raised it again on 16 May 2023 and on 21 June 2023 via her MP who emailed the landlord to highlight the resident had asthma. The landlord’s records confirm the issue was passed to the building services team. The vents were cleaned on 7 July 2023, 17 months after it was first raised by the resident, this was not appropriate as it was not in line with its Repair Policy.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it confirmed the problem with the vents had been resolved. It did not however acknowledge or apologise for the time taken to resolve the problem. Furthermore, it did not offer any form of explanation for the delay, offer any redress, or identify any learning to prevent a recurrence. The landlord failed to acknowledge that it did not meet its repair responsibilities in a timely manner, nor did it address the impact or inconvenience to the resident. This was unreasonable. As such, a finding of service failure is appropriate.
In line with our remedies guidance, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £100 compensation. Although there was no permanent impact on the resident, the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings and made no attempt to put things right.

Request to replace the window locks

In line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord’s Repair Handbook states it is responsible for windows.
On 21 February 2022, the resident told the landlord the bedroom and living room windows needed locks. This was following previous security issues when the resident was living in temporary accommodation. The landlord arranged to visit the property on 23 February 2022 however there is no evidence to confirm if the visit took place. Furthermore, there is no communication with the resident to confirm the outcome of the visit or how the landlord intended to resolve the problem. This was a communication and record keeping failure. Additionally, the landlord has not provided evidence to confirm it met its repair obligations. This was not appropriate.
The resident raised the matter again in her stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2022 when she told the landlord she did not feel safe or secure in her home. The landlord confirmed the bedroom window lock and the deadlocks on the windows were outstanding items for the contractor to complete, but there is no evidence of any further progress being made or any communication with the resident. The landlord is responsible for the completion of repairs, regardless of whether these are conducted by a contractor. It should have effective processes in place to ensure repairs are monitored and completed within the published timescales. There is no evidence it did this, this was unreasonable.
Subsequently, the resident raised the issue again in her complaint escalation on 20 July 2022. There is no evidence of any communication from the landlord and no evidence of any repairs. This was not appropriate as the landlord had failed to meet its repair obligations or keep the resident updated.
There is no evidence of further contact regarding this issue until 31 August 2023 when the landlord spoke to the resident about the outstanding issues. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of the windows to show they were not secure. She highlighted she lived on the ground floor and did not feel secure.
In its final complaint response on 28 September 2023 the landlord confirmed it had tried to find locks to fit the windows, but this had proved difficult. While it advised a Building Inspector would visit and advise how to resolve the matter, there is no evidence this happened. The resident has confirmed to us the contractor tried several different options to resolve this matter, but it was unsuccessful. The resident has however confirmed the windows have locks and they are secure, but she remains concerned about her safety due to previous issues.
There is no evidence the landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue, or that it had offered any redress in acknowledgement of this. Had it done so, it would have demonstrated an awareness of the resident’s security and safety concerns. This was a failure by the landlord.
Considering the above, we find service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to replace the window locks. The landlord was made aware of the issue and the security concerns of the resident in February 2022, but it took too long for it to address the matter. This was not appropriate as the landlord did not demonstrate it had complied with its repair policy. In line with our remedies guidance an order has been made to pay the resident £100. This is an appropriate level of compensation for the failures highlighted in this report and in acknowledgement of the distress and inconvenienced to the resident because of the delays.

Report of a repair to the aerial socket

The landlord’s Repair Handbook confirms the landlord is responsible for communal aerials.
On 21 February 2022 the resident raised this issue with the landlord. The landlord’s records indicate it arranged a visit for 23 February 2022 but there is no evidence to confirm this happened. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord. Further, there is no communication with the resident to confirm how it proposed to fix the problem.
The resident raised the issue in her stage 1 complaint on 28 June 2022. In its response on 7 July 2022, the landlord confirmed it was an outstanding action for the contractor to carry out. It confirmed it would keep the resident updated until the work was completed. This was reasonable, however there is no evidence it did. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
The resident included the issue in her complaint escalation on 20 July 2022 when she said the aerial not been installed. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident at the time. This was a communication failure, but also a failure to meet its repair obligations.
There is no evidence of any further contact from the resident from July 2022. In the landlord’s final complaint response on 28 September 2023, it confirmed it had tried to connect the TV aerial socket into the communal aerial, however it had proved difficult. It confirmed a Building Inspector was going to visit the property and advise how to resolve the problem. This was reasonable and demonstrated a commitment to fixing the problem. Following the commitment to follow this through, the landlord contacted the resident on 4 October 2023 to advise the flood contractor would be in contact with her to regarding the aerial, however there is no evidence of this, or any communication with the resident. This was a failure by the landlord to monitor the issue and to keep the resident updated.
On 16 January 2024, almost a year after it was first raised by the resident, the landlord’s records confirm it visited the resident and there was no issue with the aerial.
In summary, while the resident may not have been significantly affected by the delay, the landlord failed to meet its repair responsibility and did not resolve the issue in a timely manner. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident, did not acknowledge the time taken or the inconvenience caused and did offer any redress in recognition of its failure. As such we find service failure.
An order has been made to pay the resident £100. This is in line with our remedies guidance and is an appropriate amount in acknowledging the time taken and the inconvenience to the resident.

Reports of outstanding work in the bathroom

On 28 June 2022 the resident asked the landlord to replace the bathroom. Although a contractor was due to repair broken tiles in the bathroom, the resident felt this was a waste of money due to the bathroom being replaced. This request was included in her stage 1 complaint to the landlord, to which the landlord responded and confirmed the bathroom would be completed before March 2023. This was a reasonable response.
On 27 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord if the contractor commissioned to do the repairs in the property could replace the bathroom. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord at the time. This was unreasonable and a communication failure by the landlord.
The evidence confirmed the property was surveyed in preparation of the bathroom replacement on 24 November 2022 and the work was scheduled to start in February 2023.
On 6 March 2023 following the completion of the bathroom replacement, the resident raised concerns with the landlord about the bath making a noise when used. The landlord attended on 13 April 2023 to inspect the bathroom however due to no access, it was rescheduled to 18 April 2023. There is no evidence to confirm if the visit took place, or the findings, and on 21 June 2023, the issue was raised by the resident’s MP. There is no evidence of a response to the resident or the MP at the time. This was a communication failure by the landlord.
On 24 August 2023, the landlord’s internal communication confirmed the property had been completed and handed over with some outstanding issues. It confirmed the issues were completed (painting, shower curtain), but the resident was concerned the bath made a noise when in use. The landlord inspected the bathroom on 18 September 2023 and found the installation was acceptable, but the matter would be monitored for any further changes. This was confirmed in the landlord’s final complaint response, when it advised it would arrange the clearance of any blockages from the waste pipes, a power flush, and a replacement plug. While this was reasonable, there is no evidence to confirm if this work was completed. Furthermore the resident has informed us she continues to experience problems with blockages and the water draining away from the bath.
In summary, we find service failure with the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of outstanding repairs in the bathroom. While the delay in the landlord’s actions did not adversely affect the resident, the time taken to resolve the concerns raised was not appropriate as it was not in line with policy. The landlord did not acknowledge this or offer any redress for the time taken. In line with our remedies guidance, and to reflect the inconvenience to the resident who spent time and effort contacting the landlord about the issue, an order has been made to the pay the resident £100 for the failures highlighted in this report. An order has also been made to contact the resident and investigate the ongoing problem with the water draining away.

Request for a reimbursement of rent while staying in temporary accommodation

The landlord’s Decant Policy states:
1. if a resident cannot stay with family and friends, it will make an offer of accommodation, or make hotel/B&B arrangements for the resident
2. it will compensate a resident for costs sustained from moving from one property to another
3. if a resident stays in a hotel/B&B, it will give a food allowance (£15-£20 a day per adult and certain travel expenses)
On 28 June 2022 as part of her stage 1 complaint, the resident requested a full rent refund for the time she spent living in temporary accommodation. The landlord confirmed in its stage 1 complaint response on 7 July 2022 that it would only refund rent if it had not supplied temporary accommodation. As the landlord had arranged this, it advised it would not be refunding the rent as no additional charges had been made for the temporary accommodation.
Furthermore, in its final complaint response, the landlord confirmed it had provided additional funding to cover the dehumidifier costs, subsistence costs and removal and storage costs during the work. The landlord’s communication on these matters were appropriate as it confirmed the funding it had already provided to the resident.
While it is not our role to comment on the landlord’s policy, we would expect the landlord to provide its decision and reasons for this in a timely manner. The evidence suggests it did this, and as such we find no maladministration.

Associated complaint

The landlord’s Complaint Policy states it would acknowledge complaints within 3-working days and respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10-working days of receipt.
Our Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states landlords should:
1. acknowledge, define, and log stage 1 and 2 complaints within 5-working days of receipt
2. issue a full response to stage 1 complaints within 10-working days of the acknowledgement, and within 20-working days of a stage 2 complaint escalation request
3. decide whether an extension to these timescales is needed and inform the resident of the expected timescale for response. Any extension must be no more than 10-working days for stage 1 complaints (20 working days for stage 2 complaints) without good reason, and the reason(s) must be clearly explained to the resident.
The resident raised her complaint on 28 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged receipt on 29 June 2022 and provided its stage 1 response on 7 July 2022. This was appropriate as it was in line with policy.
In its response the landlord addressed the points raised by the resident, provided an update on each, and committed to keeping the resident updated until the outstanding items were completed. This was reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 20 July 2022. While the landlord’s records indicate it acknowledged the complaint on 22 July 2022, the actual acknowledgement was not provided. This was a record keeping failure by the landlord.
There is no evidence of a response from the landlord following the acknowledgement. Although the landlord was in contact with the resident regarding the substantive issues, there is no evidence of any discussion regarding the complaint. On 15 February 2023 the resident told the landlord she had not received a response to her complaint. There is no evidence of a response from the landlord. This was a communication and complaint handling failure by the landlord.
On 20 March 2023 the resident contacted us about her complaint. She confirmed the points she had raised to the landlord and advised she had not received a response. We asked the landlord to provide a response by 3 April 2023 but there is no evidence it did this. On 23 June 2023, the resident’s MP contacted us to confirm the landlord had not responded to the resident’s complaint. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not provide a response to any party and that the resident, and her MP had to contact us for help in progressing the complaint.
On 23 August 2023 we asked the landlord to provide a response by 31 August 2023. The landlord sent the resident an extension letter advising it needed more time to conclude the complaint in full. Although it advised it would provide a full response by 13 September 2023, it did not do so until 28 September 2023, 14 months after the escalation request. This was not appropriate. It was a significant complaint handling failure by the landlord as it failed to comply with its policy or the Code.
The landlord failed to acknowledge, apologise or provide an explanation regarding the complaint handling and the time take to respond. Furthermore, it did not identify any learning to prevent a recurrence of such failures. The landlord’s response was brief and lacked detail to demonstrate it had conducted a thorough investigation. It failed to give an indication as to when outstanding actions would be completed which was unlikely to provide the resident with reassurance that they would be completed. This was unreasonable.
The landlord partially upheld the complaint due to the delay in responding to the escalation. In acknowledgement of its complaint handling failures, the landlord offered £350 compensation. The landlord’s evidence confirmed it increased this offer to £450 shortly after providing the stage 2 response. This exceeded the maximum compensation stated in its Compensation Procedure where there have been multiple service failures and was in line with our remedies guidance. However, due to a lack of learning from the complaint, a finding of service failure is appropriate.

Record keeping

As per our Spotlight report on knowledge and information management, published in May 2023, we expect landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. Failure to do so can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
The evidence shows the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted our ability to carry out a thorough investigation. This includes limited or no information regarding repairs and communication with the resident. This has contributed to the other failures identified in this report. As such we find service failure with the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request for preventative measures for future floods
2. request for a reimbursement of rent while staying in temporary accommodation
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
1. request to replace a damaged fridge-freezer
2. reports of broken ventilation in the property
3. request to replace the window locks
4. report of a repair to the aerial socket
5. reports of outstanding work in the bathroom
6. associated complaint
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide us with evidence to confirm it has:
1. written a letter of apology to the resident for the failures identified in this report and the lessons learnt to prevent a recurrence
2. paid the resident a total of £950 which is made up of the following:
  1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay in replacing the fridge-freezer
  2. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay in repairing the vents
  3. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the landlord’s delay in repairing the aerial
  4. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the delays in the landlord replacing the window locks
  5. £100 for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the delays in the landlord repairing the outstanding work in the bathroom
  6. £450 as per the final complaint response for the inconvenience to the resident caused by the delays in the landlord responding to the complaint
3. contacted the resident to arrange a further investigation into the drainage problems in the bathroom

Recommendations

The landlord should consider delivering complaint refresher training for staff involved in the process.