Peabody Trust (201910038)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910038

Peabody Trust

3 May 2021

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been a Shared Ownership Leaseholder, in respect of the property, since January 2013.
The property is a flat located on the first floor.

Legal and policy framework

Repair Guide

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s repair guidance. This demonstrates how repairs will be prioritised and suggests that for routine repairs, the landlord endeavours to complete the necessary works within 20 working days.

Complaints policy

The landlord has provided this Service with a copy of its complaints policy. The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s website for details on how it manages its complaints. Of particular relevance, the Ombudsman has noted that the landlord will:
1. Acknowledge complaints within three workings days.
2. Undertake an investigation at stage one and respond within 10 working days.
3. Undertake an independent review at stage two and respond within 15 working days.

Compensation policy

The Ombudsman has also reviewed the landlord’s compensation policy. This indicates that:
1. Offers of compensation will usually be made only once all remedial actions or repairs have been completed. This enables it to understand completely any adverse impact on the complainant.
2. The landlord will offer a maximum of £400 where compensation is due for time, trouble and inconvenience caused.
3. The landlord will offer up to £100 where compensation is due for poor complaint handling.
4. If it is considered that the resident has not had full enjoyment of their home, compensation will be considered.
5. For routine defects, a maximum of £300 will be awarded if not completed within 60 days.

Summary of events

The landlord has confirmed that in October 2018, the resident reported an issue with her window. She was advised, as a leaseholder, that she needed to obtain an independent report to demonstrate that the issue was a matter for the landlord.
On 20 March 2019 following a privately arranged inspection of the resident’s bedroom window, the operative reported that the hinges had clipped causing damage to the window and restricting its normal operation. This was preventing the window from closing. The operative explained that while he was able to close the resident’s window externally, the window was non-operational and could not be closed from the inside once opened.
On 4 April 2019 the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the issue could not be repaired internally. The resident shared the independent operative’s report and asked the landlord to confirm the date in which someone could attend to complete the work.
The landlord’s records suggest that on 1 July 2019 the resident raised a complaint. She advised the landlord:
1. She had not been able to open or close her window for 8 months.
2. At the time when her window would not close (in December 2018), her requests for assistance had been ignored by the landlord. She had therefore been forced to employ a private contractor to close her window externally.
3. She had been informed that she needed to provide an inspection report in order for the repairs to progress. Despite doing so, however, it still took four months before the landlord attended her property.
4. A similar issue had also been identified with the kitchen window. She had been advised not to use this and that the repair would be undertaken in the following 3 weeks.
5. She was told to contact the Leasehold Team as the windows were likely under warranty. The Leasehold Team redirected her to the New Homes Team who again redirected her to the Maintenance Team.
On 9 July 2019 the resident chased an update on the progress of her repair request. She requested contact as a matter of urgency.
The Ombudsman can see that the landlord wrote the resident on the same day. It advised the resident that her email had been forwarded to the repairs team for a job to be raised to remedy the window. Its contractor would be in contact within five days to arrange an appointment.
It appears that the landlord next contacted the resident (via telephone) on 16 August 2019. Within this call, the landlord noted the resident’s report that while an operative had attended her property to inspect the window, no external inspection had taken place. The resident was still only able to open the window but unable to shut it and was unsure whether the issue resided with the frame or the hinges. The landlord noted that a more detailed report would be needed in order for it to pursue this as a latent defect.
On 27 September 2019 the landlord confirmed for the resident that the issue had been referred to its Responsive Repairs Team to proceed with works.
The resident responded to this on 29 September 2019 thanking the landlord and requesting that it provide an indication, once it had spoken to the Responsive Repair Team, of the timeframes for the works to be completed.
The resident was informed by the landlord on 3 October 2019 that it had notified the developer of the need to undertake works and was awaiting confirmation to go ahead with the repairs. It anticipated that a response would be provided by the end of the following week.
The resident chased this on 13 October 2019. She was informed on 14 October 2019 that the landlord would proceed with the works.
On 14 October 2019 the resident requested confirmation of the timeframe that the repair team were working towards and of the contractor that would be undertaking the works.
The landlord explained on 17 October 2019 that it was trying to ascertain which Responsive contractor would be responsible but advised the resident that she could contact the Repair Team for more information.
On 6 November 2019 this service wrote to the landlord. The service noted that the resident had registered a complaint with the landlord but had not received a response. The landlord was therefore encouraged to reply to the resident within 15 working days.
On 7 November 2019 the landlord informed the resident that the repair team had cancelled the scheduled repair. She was instead asked to check her window warranty to establish whether the mechanisms were covered.
On 6 December 2019, 14 December 2019, and 8 January 2020 the resident chased the landlord for an update on her repair and complaint. The resident requested that the landlord escalate her matter to the appropriate managers on the 8 January 2020.
On 9 January 2020 this service wrote to the landlord for a second time. The landlord was encouraged to write to the resident by 23 January 2020 to provide her with an update on the complaint investigation and on the action (if any) taken to address the outstanding window repair.
On 13 January 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that it had made contact with the managing agent of the resident’s estate to establish whether the window was something it could investigate / rectify.
The landlord went on to explain on 14 January 2020 following a telephone call with the resident, that the complaint had been discussed with the Home Ownership Team and the Latent Defects Team. It was unable to identify the issue as a Responsive Repair and was advised by the Home Ownership team that the concerns would need to be investigated by the Latent Defects Team. This had therefore been assigned to this team for investigation.
The resident again requested that the complaint be responded to on 16 January 2020.
On 22 January 2020 the landlord (Latent Defect team) wrote to the resident. It stated that it had been unable to undertake an inspection of the resident’s property as:
1. The property was built in 2012 and therefore usage, wear and tear and a lack of maintenance may have caused the issue.
2. The report shared by the resident did not specifically indicate what the cause of the window issue was. It was therefore unable to attribute the cause to the developer.
3. Window mechanisms were generally demised to leaseholders in accordance with their lease.
The landlord stated that it had intended to investigate the issue with hope that it could pinpoint the cause, but this had not been possible. It therefore advised that it had contacted the window installer as a last resort and obtained costs. The resident was again advised to review the warranty for her windows. It was explained that if it were proved to be the leaseholder’s responsibility, any associated costs with instructing the window installer would be passed on to her.
On 29 January 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She stated:
1. It was irrelevant when the building was built. The landlord had failed to offer any reports that would suggest that the issue was due to wear and tear as it had failed to undertake an inspection. The suggestion that this was a maintenance issue was not supported by any evidence.
2. The landlord needed to review the lease which related to her property rather than referring to generic leases. Works to the window door and the metal window frame which formed part of the wall of the building were the landlord’s responsibility.
3. Two of the landlord’s contractors had visited following her complaint but neither were able to inspect the windows as there was no scaffolding. Only a visual inspection was undertaken with the windows closed. She unaware of any other arrangements the landlord had made to investigate the matter.

The resident requested that the landlord treat her email as further notice of the defect and requested a response by 5 February 2020 to confirm that the repair would commence.

On 31 January and 12 February 2020 this Service wrote to the landlord and requested that it provide a complaint response to the resident within seven days. It does not appear that this was done.
The landlord did contact the resident on 12 February 2020, however. It explained that it was in the process of arranging (and authorising) the window installer and would provide an update by 27 February 2020.
On 19 February 2020 the landlord’s Home Ownership team wrote to the resident. It explained that before it could consider whether the matter was a latent defect, which the developer would be responsible for, an investigation needed to take place. It explained that it had received approval on 10 February 2020 to engage with the window installers. The landlord stated that the window installer would make contact to undertake an inspection.
The resident responded on 24 February 2020. She sought to establish whether this was the landlord’s final response and noted that while she recognised the need for investigation, contractors had already attended her property on the landlord’s behalf. No remedial action had been taken, and no reports shared. She stated that she did not accept the landlord’s explanation and a reasonable timeframe for investigation had passed. Furthermore, the window installers had not contacted her to date.
On 27 February 2020 the resident expressed dissatisfaction that she had not received an update as the landlord had suggested. The landlord responded to this, informing the resident that it was still attempting to authorise the window installers before works could commence.
On 2 March 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident with a stage one response. It explained:
1. The onus of proof as to whether an issue was a potential latent defect fell on the landlord or leaseholder as relevant. This was by way of a detailed report. If, after consideration of the report, a defect was believed to exist, this would be taken forward.
2. While the report provided by the resident’s independent operative set out what the issue was, it did not state what caused the issue. The landlord was therefore unable to determine whether this was a latent defect or not.
3. It had been attempting to raise an inspection of the property with the repair team however was unable to as the window mechanisms were individual to each flat and was therefore deemed the resident’s responsibility. The resident was advised to check with her solicitor to establish whether this was covered under the warranty.
4. To move forward, a request had been made for the window installers to attend and investigate the issue. This was not usual practice and therefore arrangements had to be made for the company to be set up and approved. The landlord explained that once this had happened and the purchase order had been raised, it would be able to instruct the window installer to inspect the window. It explained that it was unable to provide a timeline at this stage but would provide weekly updates starting 9 March 2020.
On 5 March 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord. She noted that her complaint had been ongoing for over a year and that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s responses. She requested that the landlord provide its final response within 15 working days in line with its policy. The resident explained that this matter had impacted both her and her son, and she did not feel that she had been treated fairly. She highlighted that her key issues were:
1. The landlord had refused to attend to the external window repair, in line with the lease conditions during a time of low temperatures.
2. She had been forced to sleep in the living room with her son for three days before having to fill the gaps in the window with bedsheets and towels to prevent the cold from coming in. She eventually arranged for a private contractor to close the window.
3. Over a year had passed and the issue remained unresolved, despite providing an inspection report as requested.
4. The landlord’s contractors had attended her property and yet no reports were shared. The landlord also still maintained that no suitable review of the window had taken place.
5. There had been inappropriate treatment and discrimination by virtue of being a leaseholder. She had been passed from team to team and did not consider this to be an acceptable practice. She had also been accused of not maintaining the window without any proof of this.
6. There was a failure to keep her updated. She frequently had to chase the landlord for an update and on many occasions was ignored. What’s more, the landlord had not adhered to the timeframes for responding to her complaint. It took eight months to respond to her stage one complaint.
7. She did not believe that the service charge, which she had paid for the last seven years had been used appropriately as the landlord had not undertaken the expected service.
On 6 March 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s further complaint. It confirmed that the resident’s issue would be resolved but provided no timeframe. The Ombudsman also notes that on 16 March 2020 the landlord confirmed to the resident that the window installer had been authorised to undertake the works.
On 20 March 2020 the landlord provided a further stage one response. It stated:
1. It was arranging for the window installers to attend and identify the cause of the issue. Once this had happened, it would be in a better position to advise whether the fault could be dealt with by the developer or not.
2. It was expecting to receive an appointment date from the window installer on the following week. It would contact the resident on 27 March 2020 to confirm that she had received an appointment.
3. It apologised that the issue had not been addressed within a reasonable timeframe, and that the resident had to raise her concerns to multiple people. The landlord also apologised that the correspondence, dated 2 March 2020 was titled ‘stage one response’ and noted it did not address all of the points raised or include details of how the resident could escalate her complaint.

The landlord concluded that in view of the delays experience, £300 would be offered as a good will gesture. This was in recognition of the time, trouble, and inconvenience caused. The landlord also agreed to reimburse the resident for any costs incurred.

On 23 March 2020 the landlord explained to the resident that the window supplier would be unable to arrange any appointments due to the pandemic. It explained that it would provide updates as and where the situation changed.
On 25 March 2020 the resident informed the landlord that she was unwilling to accept the landlord’s offer of compensation and instead wished to escalate her complaint. She explained:
1. She was displeased that despite the landlord acknowledging that a stage one response had been provided, a further stage one response was issued. She stated part of her complaint was thus related to the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
2. In relation to her email, sent on 5 March 2020, several points had gone unaddressed.
3. The landlord had not committed to completing the works, despite further evidence being provided which showed that in July and October 2019, it had confirmed it would fix the windows.
4. She was displeased that the landlord had implied that developer input was needed. The landlord had had the opportunity to speak with a developer for over a year and had not done so.

The resident expressed that the landlord needed to take responsibility to complete the repair. She acknowledged that due to the pandemic, there would be a delay in completing the works, however requested that the landlord complete the works within three months of the pandemic ending. She added that £300 as a good will gesture was insufficient given that the landlord had breached the lease agreement. She again requested a review of her service charges.

On 2 April 2020 the landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint had been escalated to stage two. The landlord noted that it would consider her history and contact the resident in a weeks’ time to discuss a way forward.
On 9 April 2020, after assessing the resident’s repair history, the landlord acknowledged that the issue had been ongoing for an unacceptable length of time. It noted that pursuing the issue under its Latent Defect process had only delayed the issue and so it would now seek to establish whether the repair should be taken forward by the managing agent or itself. The landlord expressed that by the time lockdown had finished, it would be clear on who (within its service) was responsible for the works and could go ahead with the repair. In relation to compensation, this would be reviewed.
On 24 May 2020 the resident contacted the landlord. She explained that she sought to establish whether the landlord had made any progress in arranging her repair or a further inspection as the lockdown was easing. With no response, the resident followed this up on 6 June 2020 and 16 June 2020 (via her MP). She added that she was still awaiting a stage two response.
The landlord responded on 26 June 2020. It apologised for the lack of contact and explained that due to staff being furloughed and contractors being closed, progress had slowed. The landlord noted that it was now in a position to move forward as services had started to resume. The landlord noted that a surveyor needed to inspect the windows firstly and so a request had been made to arrange this.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord’s surveyor undertook the inspection of the resident’s windows.
The Ombudsman can see that in an internal email to the landlord, the surveyor reported (on 10 July 2020):
1. Both the bedroom and kitchen windows comprised of the same design. Overtime, the windows had dropped slightly in the frames, and subsequently caused issues with opening and closing.
2. If works were to be instructed, the landlord would need to erect scaffold towers to address both the bedroom and kitchen. The windows would need to be removed and the friction stay replaced with a more durable type. Additionally, whilst the windows were out, all hinges could be replaced, and lock mechanisms checked.
3. The resident was currently unable to use the window in the bedroom and was uneasy in using the kitchen window. The surveyor noted that this could result in condensation issues.
On the same day the landlord shared the findings with the resident. It noted that this would cost up to £5000 to repair and explained that it needed to consider its options (whether it should do the work; whether this issue existed with other properties; and whether it could claim via its insurance or as a latent defect).
On 16 July 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It explained that it was still attempting to identify the scale of the issue. It explained that it was again in discussion with the Latent Defects Team, the Repair Team and the Home Ownership team. It therefore requested further time. The landlord returned to the resident on 30 July 2020 explaining that after discussing the matter with the relevant teams, it was likely that the repair team would complete the work. It noted that it was still in discussion with this team however, and would continue to update the resident.
The Ombudsman can see that there was communication between the landlord and resident throughout July and August 2020. During this time, the resident requested that the landlord provide its final response on several occasions. Towards the end of August 2020, the landlord advised the resident that its contractors would be undertaking the repair once payment had been arranged. It explained that it anticipated that the works would be booked for mid-September, subject to availability. Further information would be provided once the date had been booked and a stage two response once the works had been completed.
On 8 September 2020 the resident wrote to the landlord highlighting that it had been three weeks since it had made contact. She added that no appointment had been scheduled. Again, in September 2020, there were several back and forth emails in which the resident sought to confirm the scope of the repairs and confirmation of when the landlord would provide its final response.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord confirmed for the resident that its contractor would rectify the resident’s window on 6 October 2020, ensuring that the mechanisms were working appropriately (enabling it to open and close). It confirmed that its contractor had also been advised of the findings of the report. The resident reminded the landlord that there were two windows.
On 5 October 2020 the landlord informed the resident that the appointment had been cancelled. The resident therefore contacted the landlord on 7 October 2020 enquiring about the new timeline for works to be complete.
On 13 October 2020 the resident emailed the landlord asking it to agree an email response timeframe so that she did not have to continuously chase a response. She added that the landlord had been arranging works for two months without progress. It appears that the landlord called the resident on the following day and advised that a final response would be issued.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident. It apologised for that it had not been in touch and that it had been unable to confirm a new date for works to be undertaken. The landlord explained that a date could not be set until the relevant team were able to provide the health and safety information. It advised the resident that it would escalate matters internally and provide the resident with an update.
On 6 November 2020, following a further prompt from the resident on 31 October 2020, the landlord contacted the resident. It apologised for the delay in getting back to her and confirmed that it was drafting a response which it would share over the next few days. It noted that there had still been delays with the contractor and explained that it may need to consider another contractor to step in.
On the same day, this Service wrote to the landlord and requested that the landlord offer a final response within 15 working days.
On 9 November 2020 the landlord provided its final response. The landlord apologised for the length of time that had passed and explained:
1. It was initially unsure whether it was responsible for the window latches.
2. When the issue was initially raised, it was advised by the Home Ownership team that the managing agent would not be responsible for the work. The landlord explained that it therefore passed this to its Latent Defect team to go to the original developer to fix the repair. Unable to prove this as a design fault however, this was sent back to the Home Ownership team who passed this to the repair contractor. The repair contractor also refused to take responsibility for this, however.
3. The resident raised her complaint in 2019. As no team had claimed responsibility for the work however, no response was provided by the appropriate service area. Its Customer Experience team stepped in and provided a stage one response after contact from the Ombudsman Service.
4. Due to the lockdown, its services were later reduced and its contractors unavailable. A surveyor and contractor were, however, sent out to assess the work required. The works were ordered by the Latent Defect team who were able to find a specialist contractor however delays were still being experienced with its contractors and the lockdown had created a significant backlog.
5. The resident’s complaint had identified a significant failure in its process with no one taking responsibility. Changes had therefore been made to the Home ownership team to prevent this from reoccurring. It noted that when the issue was first reported in May 2019, it would have been reasonable for this to be resolved within two months. It would therefore award compensation for 17 months. It explained it would offer:
6. £150 for its poor complaint handling.
7. £600 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience; and
8. £510 for the delays in not completing the work and the impact on the resident’s enjoyment of her home. This was calculated as £30 per month for 17 months.

The landlord explained that it would continue to monitor the resident’s case and would review the compensation again if there were further significant delays.

On 11 November 2020 the resident thanked the landlord for its response. She stated, however, that what was still missing was the deadline in which the landlord was committing to undertake the work. She requested that the landlord confirm this so that she could consider whether it was acceptable, given that she had first raised this issue during the winter of 2018.
The Ombudsman notes that following back and forth communication, the landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 18 December 2021 to undertake the works.
On 23 December 2020 the resident explained that while some works were completed, the bedroom window still did not close properly as the handle needed replacing. She noted that the contractors were unaware of this as the window had not properly been examined.
On 30 December 2020 the resident reported being unable to open the window again. She expressed that given that the temperature was around 3 degrees, it made her room uninhabitable.
On 4 January 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord. She requested that the landlord call her back as a matter of urgency to update her on what was happening with her window. She highlighted that the window still could not be closed and that there was a draft coming in.
The Ombudsman can see that on 25 January 2021 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to fit an appropriate handle to the window however the wrong handle was brought. Further issues were identified with the lock on the window.
The landlord explained to the resident on 1 February 2021 that it would provide an update once its contractor had ordered the correct parts and confirmed a date.
The Ombudsman can see that there was back and forth communication throughout February 2021. On 23 February 2021 the landlord explained to the resident that the locking point was an additional issue. As such it would have to arrange payment to its contractors before it would attend. The resident was advised that this could take up to three weeks. It appears that the resident’s window handle was resolved on or around March 2021.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows.

While it took some time for the landlord to accept, it is not disputed that the landlord was responsible for the repair of the resident’s defective windows or that the works should have been undertaken within a reasonable amount of time and was not. This was recognised by the landlord as early as 9 April 2020 and readdressed within its final response on 9 November 2020. In recognition of this, the landlord offered the resident an explanation on why things had gone wrong and made an offer of compensation for each of its failings, which was appropriate. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, the final response failed to satisfactorily resolve the complaint.
The Ombudsman appreciates that in acknowledgement of the delay in completing the repairs, and the impact on the resident’s ability to enjoy her home, the landlord made an offer of £30 per month for 17 months. This was as it recognised that it would have been reasonable for it to complete the works within two months of the defective windows being reported. The Ombudsman is content with the offer of £30 per month and notes that this exceeded the maximum award (£300) issued where a routine defect has not been completed within 60 days. It is clear to the Ombudsman, however, that the matter went unresolved for a longer period than 17 months.
As confirmed by the landlord itself, the matter was first reported in October 2018. The Ombudsman accepts that at this time, it was unclear whether the landlord was responsible for the defect and the resident was therefore advised to arrange an independent inspection to evidence the issue with the windows. Due to the gaps in the records shared, however, the Ombudsman is unable to determine when the landlord requested that the resident arrange an independent inspection. In the absence of this information, the Ombudsman has been unable to establish why it was not until April 2019 that a report was sought, and any part that the resident had to play in this delay.
The Ombudsman has noted nonetheless that an inspection report was provided on 4 April 2019. It is therefore fair to consider the landlord’s repair responsibility from this moment. Taking this into account, the Ombudsman has found that there were 19 months between April 2019 and the landlord’s final response in November 2020. Contrary to the landlord’s view, it would have therefore been reasonable to compensate the resident for the whole period.
Additionally, the Ombudsman is also dissatisfied that while the landlord sought to put things right, it still failed to confirm for the resident when her windows would be repaired. The substantive issue was therefore somewhat overlooked, and resolution was not achieved. The Ombudsman can see that it was not until 18 December 2020 that the landlord began undertaking works to rectify the resident’s windows (and still not all issues were addressed). The Ombudsman notes that the resident pointed out for the landlord on 11 November 2020 that the matter remained unresolved as she was no clearer on when works would be completed, however the Ombudsman cannot see that the landlord offered her any clarity in its responses.
In relation to the compensation offered for the resident’s time, trouble, and inconvenience, the ombudsman notes that the landlord made an offer of £600, exceeding the maximum under its compensation policy (£400) by 50%. The Ombudsman has considered the extent of the impact on the resident and has concluded that this award was reasonable. As there were several failures over a significant period of time, this resulted in an excessive level of involvement from, and trouble for, the resident. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s offer fairly reflected this experience up until 9 November 2020.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the repair of the resident’s window was partly held back by the COVID-19 outbreak and the subsequent impact on services. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, much of the delay in the works being appropriately allocated and completed was caused by the landlord’s failure to undertake an adequate inspection of the windows, and within good time, and to arrange the appropriate contractor. The Ombudsman notes that despite the resident providing access, and visits being made to the resident’s property, the landlord still failed to adequately investigate the window mechanisms. Although the landlord required further information following receipt of the inspection report provided by the resident, it delayed in coordinating an appropriate assessment until 10 July 2020 (over a year later).
Moreover, while it is unclear when the resident’s window handle had stopped working, on the balance of probability, it is likely that this too would have been identified early on had the landlord undertaken an adequate inspection and commenced works. The ombudsman has not considered this to be a new issue as the resident was unable to use her window during the 19-month period that the repair remained outstanding. The Ombudsman is further concerned as although the issue was identified in December 2020, despite the resident’s experience and the timescale (20 working days) set out under the landlord’s repair guidance, the landlord still failed to complete the works until June 2021. This was inappropriate.
The Ombudsman has made no comments in relation to the outstanding lock as the Ombudsman has seen few details relating to this and notes that the landlord clearly identified this as a new issue on 23 February 2021.
As suggested under the landlord’s compensation policy, an offer of compensation will usually be made once all remedial repairs have taken place to enable the landlord to completely understand the extent of any adverse impact. It therefore would have been appropriate to revisit the compensation due, and to account for the additional seven months that the works remained outstanding. Although the Ombudsman can see, from the landlord’s final response, that this was its intention, the Ombudsman cannot see that a further consideration of the compensation took place. The landlord therefore failed to honour this practice and to uphold the suggestion made in resolution of the resident’s complaint.
With this, the resident has requested reimbursement for her heating costs and has provided this service with evidence to demonstrate that the charges have been greater than she had experienced in previous years. While it is difficult to categorically identify the draft coming through her window as the sole cause for her increased bills, the Ombudsman notes that on several occasions (e.g. on 3 March, 21 September, 31 October, and 31 December 2020, as well as into 2021) the resident reported her experience of cold/a draft, as well as the methods she was forced to employ, and no action was taken. While the resident made no mention to having to keep her heating on for long periods, this would have been expected. In the Ombudsman’s view, had the landlord upheld its responsibility and acted within the appropriate timeframe, the resident may not have incurred such high bills. It would therefore be reasonable for the landlord to review the resident’s bills prior to 2018, looking at your average cost over the years leading up to this, and to offer reimbursement to account for the difference in the resident’s 2018, 2019 and 2020 winter bills.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has also considered the resident’s suggestion that a partial refund of her service charge should be offered as she did not believe that the landlord had offered the expected services. While the Ombudsman appreciates the rationale, the Ombudsman accepts the landlord’s decision not to do so. This is as the service charge is not linked to the landlord’s repair responsibilities or its failure to uphold them. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s compensation policy fairly accounts for any failings in its repair service and offers guidance on what may be due. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to rely on this in attempting to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

With regards to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, the landlord accepted that this was below the expected standard. The Ombudsman appreciates that within the landlord’s final response, it recognised that there was a failure to take responsibility for the complaint and therefore an offer of compensation was made which exceeded the maximum available under the landlord’s complaints policy. Still, although it was reasonable for the landlord to make an offer, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the level of compensation offered failed to adequately reflect the resident’s experience.
Firstly, the landlord’s failure to take ownership of the complaint resulted in an extensive delay at both stage one and two of the complaints process. Contrary to the complaint policy which suggests that complaints will be acknowledged within three working days and (at stage one) be responded to within 10 working days, the landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint until eight days after and took almost nine months to offer a complaint response. This was despite prompts from the Ombudsman service on 6 November 2019, 9 January 2020, 31 January 2020 and 12 February. This was inappropriate.
At stage two, moreover, while the landlord was expected to respond to the resident within 15 working days, it failed to provide its final response until seven months after it had confirmed that the resident’s escalation request had been accepted. The Ombudsman is further concerned by this as the resident requested the landlord’s final response on multiple occasions and was never given a sufficient explanation as to why this remained outstanding.
Secondly, and as raised by the resident on 25 March 2020, it was inappropriate that the landlord offered two stage one responses. As per the landlord’s complaints policy, and the advice given within the Housing Ombudsman Service’s Complaint Handling Code, the complaints process should only consist of two stages. Therefore, following the landlord’s stage one response on 2 March 2020, the landlord should have sought to offer its final response to enable the resident to exhaust its procedure in a timely fashion. Coupled with the failings outlined above, this added to the delay in resolving the resident’s complaint.
Thirdly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was little acknowledgement for the landlord’s failures in communication. The Ombudsman has identified several occasions in which the resident requested further information, an update on the status of the repair, confirmation of when works would take place, or a final response, but was not furnished with this information. The landlord failed to provide frequent updates contrary to its suggestion on 2 March 2020 that it would provide the resident with weekly updates starting 9 March 2020. It was inappropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord on several occasions for a response and this resulted in an unreasonable level of involvement from the resident. This was exacerbated by the confusion of having to deal with several different departments and inconsistent advice on where responsibility for the windows lay.
While the Ombudsman is concerned with the lack of coordination and ownership of the resident’s window repair amongst the landlord’s departments, the Ombudsman can see that the landlord acknowledged that this was particularly problematic, within its final response. It was appropriate for it to advise that significant failings had been identified and changes would be made to ensure that a similar issue did not occur in the future.
In light of the above points, and in considering all circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has concluded that the offer of compensation did not satisfactorily recognise the resident’s experience, the landlord’s omissions, or put things right. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the resident received a poor service and the landlord failed to act in accordance with both its repair responsibilities and its complaints policy. As the landlord did recognise some of its omissions, the Ombudsman has not determined maladministration. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, however, there was a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows; and
2. A service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The Ombudsman has arrived at the above determination as:
1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, while the landlord made an offer of compensation, it did not go far enough to put things right. Not only did the landlord fail to advise the resident on when the works would be completed, despite the significant length of time that had passed, in the Ombudsman’s view, the landlord also failed to offer an award which proportionately reflected its failure. What’s more, the Ombudsman is concerned with the landlord’s reluctance to adequately investigate the resident’s window until over a year later. At minimum, the landlord should have undertaken a full assessment of the windows, at the earliest opportunity, to verify the resident’s report, have a better understanding of who might be responsible, and how long it would take to restore to working order. Finally, and contrary to the landlord’s compensation policy, the landlord failed to reassess the extent of the adverse effect and to make a fair adjustment to the compensation previously offered. It therefore missed a further reasonable opportunity to put things right.
2. There were several issues identified with the landlord’s handling of the complaint. At both stages of the landlord’s complaints process, it failed to honour the timeframe set out within the complaints policy and further delayed its response by offering a second stage one response. This was inappropriate. Furthermore, the landlord failed to maintain a reasonable level of communication and this resulted in the resident having to consistently chase the landlord for updates. The Ombudsman is concerned with the failure to take ownership of both the resident’s repair and complaint, and is not satisfied that the compensation offered was satisfactory in resolving this matter.

The Ombudsman has concluded that there was a failure to uphold the repair responsibility, to act in accordance with the compensation policy, to offer a reasonable service, and to adhere to the complaints policy.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

In recognition of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective windows, and the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint, I now order the landlord to award the resident £2,015. This is made up of:
1. £780, increased from £690, to account for the length of time taken to repair the resident’s window and the impact on her enjoyment of her home. This has been calculated as £30 per month for 26 months, noting the additional months that the window handle remained outstanding.
1. £810, increased from £720, to account for the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience. This has been calculated as £600, which the landlord originally offered for the period up until November 2020, plus an additional £30 for each month (7) that the repair had been outstanding after this time.
2. A new order of £75 to account for the landlord’s unsatisfactory record keeping and resulting impact on this complaint investigation.
3. £100 to account for the landlord’s failure to review the compensation, as it suggested it would; and to put things right by clearly setting out, after 19 months of waiting, when the repair would be completed within its final response.
4. £250 to reflect the landlord’s poor handling of your complaint and poor communication.
The landed should also assess the resident’s heating bills and offer a reimbursement to account for any overpayment in 2018, 2019, and 2020 (based on the average of previous years).
The landlord should reimburse the resident for any costs accrued in arranging the inspection of her property as it committed to doing so itself.
The landlord should make the above payments within four weeks of receiving the Ombudsman’s determination. This award should be made in replacement of the landlord’s original compensation offer.

Recommendations

The landlord should ensure that it keeps accurate, detailed, and contemporaneous records where both its repair and complaints service is concerned. The landlord should be able to evidence that it has acted in accordance with its obligations and should offer a full record of its actions where requested. As seen in this case, failure to provide an appropriate audit trail can result in this Service making a finding against the landlord.
The landlord should consider its handling of the resident’s repair / complaint in this case, and should ensure that learnings are noted to improve its service. The landlord may wish to refer back to the Complaint Handling Code, published on the Housing Ombudsman Service website, to refresh itself on what the Ombudsman would expect to see.
The landlord should, as it suggested it would, consider its departmental responsibilities and establish where such repairs should lay for future cases. This will prevent residents / leaseholders being passed from department to department.
As there were several occasions within this case where the landlord appears to have arranged the works and then cancelled them, the Ombudsman would also recommend that the landlord takes more care not to loosely commit to works and should make every effort to uphold what it says it is going to do.