Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited (202333396)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202333396

Richmond Housing Partnership Limited

20 December 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

  1. The resident’s complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of repair reports relating to:
    1. Drainage issues.
    2. A broken living room window.
    3. A bathroom extractor fan.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, described as a level access, 1-bedroom end of terrace house, since 2010.
  2. The landlord has advised its records do not list any vulnerabilities for the resident. However, it has also advised it is aware of a letter the resident sent it in 2020 in which he stated he had been disabled since 2010 and has a “significant neurological based disability”. It did not provide further details.

Summary of events

  1. The resident emailed the landlord on 10 November 2022 to raise a complaint. He raised the following concerns:
    1. He had contacted the landlord “many times” over the previous 18 months regarding “blocked rainwater drains and soakaway” to the rear of his property. A contractor had attended a year earlier and advised a “vacuum truck and CCTV (survey)” were required to resolve the blockage, but the landlord had not yet acted on this recommendation and the drains remained blocked. The landlord said on 5 October 2022 that it would update him but had not done so. He also stated he had been advised that the downpipe “to the rear of the adjacent property” was blocked and needed clearing.
    2. He had also disputed the landlord’s position regarding the replacement of a blown panel on his bedroom window, which it determined had to be replaced “like-for-like” and, following a change in building regulations, must include a ventilation grille. He said the landlord had promised that its surveyor would respond to his query over the previous 18 months, but they had not done so. However, he noted the building regulations had since changed (in June 2022) but acknowledged these were “not in (his) favour”.
  2. On 29 November 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response, which it understood was about “drainage issues (and) replacement window with trickle vent”. To resolve the complaint, it noted the resident wanted the drainage issues to be resolved (including a CCTV survey) and for “confirmation of (the) window replacement process”. It stated it had contacted its contractor to “establish the current status” of the repairs and made the following findings:
    1. Its drainage contractor attended on 14 September 2021 and “proceeded to suck out roots and silt from lines to clear”. However, they were “unable to completely clear all lines” and recommended a CCTV survey be carried out so they could decide how to proceed.
    2. On 20 October 2021, the drainage contractor attended again and “reported that a tanker and CCTV are required to clear out possible soak away”. Following this, a quote was submitted for approval.
    3. On 22 September 2022, the drainage contractor attended again but were “not able to gain access” to complete the CCTV survey. The landlord noted a new appointment had been arranged to complete recommended works.
    4. It acknowledged that the drainage works had “taken a considerable amount of time to resolve” and offered “sincere apologies” for “any delays in receiving communication from us”. It also apologised for “any upset” caused and accepted its service “should have been better”.
    5. To “put things right” it had booked an appointment on 5 December 2022 when the drainage contractor would “locate the blockages and carry out the required works”. They would also complete a CCTV survey. It stated that “if any follow-on works are needed”, the contractor would inform its Repairs Team who would arrange these and monitor them to completion.
    6. Regarding the window replacement, it acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its previous response regarding a query as to whether his bedroom window “needed to be fitted with a trickle vent when it was replaced” in April 2022. It said it had passed the resident’s concerns on to its surveyor, who confirmed it would need to fit a trickle vent to the window.
    7. It understood the resident was unhappy with this outcome, but it quoted details of new building regulations which had recently come into effect. It clarified that from 15 June 2022 any new windows installed had to comply with a requirement for trickle vents to be placed in the upper frame of a window or door. It said its repair team would proceed to manage these outstanding repairs and ensure they were completed.
    8. It would make a “discretionary offer” as it considered its “service could have been better”. It offered £100 to reflect the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the complaint, the inconvenience caused and the delay in completing the repairs.
  3. On 5 December 2022, the resident responded to the landlord via email. He raised the following concerns with the landlord’s stage 1 response:
    1. He denied that a drainage contractor had attended on 22 September 2022 (he said he had CCTV) and maintained that no-one had attended since October 2021, when they had originally advised a CCTV survey and vacuum truck would be required to resolve what was suspected to be “tree root blockage and a possible collapsed drain”. He noted the contractors had attended that day (5 December) and again advised him of “the likelihood of tree roots and collapsed drain”. He queried whether a further year would pass before the landlord resolved the issue.
    2. Regarding the “trickle vents on (the) double glazing”, he said the landlord’s response did not address his complaint. When the landlord’s contractor had initially attended, they advised that trickle vents were a legal requirement in any new/replacement windows. The resident said he had disputed this with the landlord and asked it to approve a replacement which did not contain the vents, which the landlord reportedly agreed to initially before later stating, following advice from its surveyor, that the vents were required. He stated he had “repeatedly” provided evidence that challenged this but, despite the landlord advising the surveyor would respond to him, they had not. He acknowledged that the regulations had since changed but stressed that at the time of the initial repair, the requirement for windows to contain trickle vents did not exist. He also said his complaint was about the surveyor’s failure to contact him and that he was given inaccurate information (that the vents were a legal requirement) at the time.
  4. On 11 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord again, also including his MP in the correspondence. He raised the following points and concerns:
    1. He had reported on 11 November 2022 that his main lounge window had been shattered by the landlord’s gardening contractors. He stated the landlord had initially sent an operative when he was not at home and they had left when he did not answer the door, despite the rear window being accessible via communal grounds. A further operative attended but, after taking a photo of the window, they left without taking measurements or making it secure as it was “not (their) job”. He reported he had been told that the contractor subsequently passed the repair to the landlord, who then passed it back to the contractor. While a glazing contractor had then attended on 19 December to take measurements, he had had no further contact and the “window remains vulnerable”, with the remaining panel wobbling when he closed his rear door.
    2. On 11 November 2022 he had also reported that his bathroom extractor fan had stopped working. An appointment was booked for 20 December, when an operative attended but then made a follow-up appointment for 3 January 2023. He said he was at home, but the operative arrived late, and he later received a note through the door, cancelling the appointment. Despite since contacting the landlord to rearrange the appointment, it had not responded.
    3. He had not received a response to his email of 5 December 2022, in which he outlined that the stage 1 response had fully not addressed his complaint.
    4. It was now “some years” since he raised concerns about “non-functioning” drains outside his property, but the landlord had not resolved the issue and “as a consequence our gutters continue to overflow spectacularly”. 
  5. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 18 May 2023. It noted the complaint issues remained the same as at stage 1 but also included its handling of an extractor fan repair. It went on to make the following comments and findings:
    1. Regarding the drainage issue, it said that regarding the issues “outside the properties”, its new contractors would carry out a CCTV survey. It said they would arrange a “suitable” appointment.
    2. Regarding the window replacement and extractor fan repair, it stated a surveyor would attend the property on 30 May 2023 to “assess the property and arrange (its repairs contractor) to resolve this issue”. It asked the resident to also “confirm with…our surveyor” regarding the fitting of the trickle vents, although it did not clearly explain what was to be confirmed. It said these works could then be “arranged with our contractors”.
    3. It said it had “attended to some of the initial repairs” highlighted in the original complaint but that other “remaining repairs have been delayed”. It apologised for the repair delays the resident had experienced and upheld the complaint. It made a further “discretionary offer” of £100, using the same justification (and wording) as it had in its stage 1 response.
  6. While submitting information for this investigation, the landlord clarified in January 2024 that it considered its stage 2 response had addressed the resident’s concerns over the living room window repair.
  7. In an update to this Service on 25 September 2024, the resident stated that, up to that date, none of the repairs had been completed. On 13 December 2024, prior to issuing this determination, the Ombudsman asked the landlord for an update and for it to clarify its position as to whether it considered all repair issues were resolved or if any remained outstanding. At the time of this determination, the landlord had not yet provided a response.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. In correspondence with this Service prior to this determination, the resident also raised concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of his reports regarding a tree in his garden, and specifically that its roots may be damaging his property. While the resident has stated he has complained to the landlord regarding this issue, and it has not responded, this issue did not form part of the complaint which was brought to the landlord in November 2022, and which is under investigation here. Nor has this Service seen evidence that the matter has been brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint.
  2. Paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member’s (a landlord’s) complaints procedure. For this reason, this aspect of the resident’s complaint will not be considered within this investigation. In the interests of supporting effective dispute resolution, we have however recommended that, if it has not already done so, the landlord should open a new complaint case for the resident and formally respond to the concerns he has raised the tree in his garden.

The drainage issues

  1. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  2. Records show the resident first raised concerns about a blockage in the external drains in 2012. There are no further indications he raised the matter again until July 2021. From that point, in its submission to this investigation, the landlord advised that a subcontractor attended in August 2021 and found “heavy blockages”. A job was raised and attended the following month, when a contractor “removed roots and silt” from the drains but was “unable to fully clear”. A full CCTV survey of the drainage system was requested on 8 October 2021 with a contractor attending later that month, although they were “unable to (carry out the survey) due to the blockages”. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised that, on the same day, the contractor had reported that “a tanker and CCTV are required to clear out possible soak away”. It advised the resident that, following this, a quote had been submitted for approval.
  3. However, it remains unclear how the landlord progressed the repair from this point onwards. Its repair records lack clarity regarding any appointments made or any actions it undertook. Its stage 1 response refers to a further attendance by its drainage contractor in September 2022, when they were “unable to gain access”, but it is noted that the resident has disputed they attended.
  4. The landlord’s complaint response acknowledged that the drainage works had not been resolved for “a considerable amount of time” and offered an apology and discretionary payment regarding the delay. It advised that a further appointment was therefore booked with its contractor on 5 December 2022, to “carry out the required works” and complete a CCTV survey. In an email sent to the landlord that day, the resident acknowledged the contractors attended as scheduled, but this does not appear to be reflected in either the landlord’s repair records or the summary it provided to this investigation. This raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping and oversight of the repair.
  5. In May 2023, its stage 2 response advised that “new contractors” would carry out a CCTV survey and a suitable appointment would be arranged. However, this is again not reflected in the repairs information seen by this Service. The landlord’s repairs summary indicates that a job was completed on 7 February 2023, but no details were provided and the landlord itself noted there was “no confirmation of works carried out”, which again indicates poor record keeping. From the information available, it remains unclear exactly what steps the landlord had taken to resolve the drainage issue at the time of its stage 2 complaint response, or whether it followed through with the actions it committed to in its final response.
  6. In his complaint correspondence, on several occasions the resident mentioned that the drainage contractor confirmed to him in December 2022 that the drains had “collapsed”. However, the landlord did not respond to this suggestion in its complaint responses. If it disagreed with the observation, it should have explained this and provided details of what the contractor’s findings were. However, while it is acknowledged that landlord did appear to send a drainage contractor to attend on several occasions from 2021 to 2023 – some of which are acknowledged by the resident – there are no details or reports regarding any of these visits within its repair records, meaning it is not possible to ascertain the findings or recommendations they made. This is not appropriate and means the landlord’s records are incomplete and it is unable to demonstrate that it has a proper understanding of the repair issues or that it responded to the issue appropriately or in a timely manner.
  7. In its repair summary – again not reflected by the repair records provided – the landlord advised that its new contractor raised a new order on 1 May 2024 “to clear (the) drains”. It advised that works were completed on 16 May 2024, although it did not provide details of the works that were carried out. In correspondence with this Service, the resident advised he had not received any further correspondence from the landlord regarding the issue since 1 May 2024. This investigation has not seen evidence to show that a CCTV survey has been completed at any point, as was initially ordered in October 2021, or that the landlord has appropriately diagnosed or resolved the reported issue with drainage to the rear of the resident’s property.
  8. Considering this, and the length of time the issue appears to have been outstanding – from October 2021 to May 2024 at the very least – the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s repair reports relating to drainage issues. The landlord has therefore been ordered to pay the resident £500 compensation to better reflect the scale of the delay and the time and trouble the resident has been caused chasing the issue. It should also clarify if a CCTV survey of the drains has been completed and compile a report that outlines its understanding of the drainage issues and whether it considers the repairs have been resolved. If repairs are outstanding, it should draw up an action plan to ensure that repairs are arranged and completed in a timely manner.

The broken living room window

  1. Records show the resident contacted the landlord on 14 November 2022 to report that the outer pane of his living room window had been shattered by the landlord’s contractors in a “freak accident” (a stone was sent into the pane by a garden strimmer). An order was raised for the window to be boarded, and the landlord’s records indicate this took place on 16 November 2022.
  2. Following this, a follow-on order was raised on 18 November 2022, but the landlord noted that its contractor’s operative was unavailable due to having an injured hand. Internal records indicate that a request was made on 22 November 2022 for the job to be passed to another contractor, and this instruction went through 3 days later. However, from that point, there is no further information regarding the repair within the landlord’s repair records.
  3. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged there had been a delay and offered an apology and £100 “discretionary payment”, although it was not made clear how much of that was related to the window and how much to other repair issues. In any case, the Ombudsman considers that this was not reasonable redress in the circumstances, given that almost 6 months had passed since the window was broken – by operatives working for the landlord, albeit accidentally – and it was yet to be replaced. This was a significant length of time for the window to have been left boarded and not replaced. The landlord has not given any indication as to why the job was not re-issued or progressed. If there was only 1 operative able to carry out the repair and they were unavailable due to injury, the landlord – who retained overall responsibility for completing the repair, whether they employed contractors or not – should have looked at alternatives options to ensure the repair was completed in a timely manner. That it did not do so was a failing and did not treat the resident fairly.
  4. Its stage 2 response also stated that a surveyor would attend on 30 May 2023 to assess the property but there is no indication from the landlord’s records regarding what any findings were from this inspection, or if it even took place. Instead, the repair appears to have been left unresolved and un-actioned for a further year, before the repair was re-raised on 1 May 2024. This was a completely unacceptable length of time for the resident’s living room window to have been left unrepaired and boarded up.
  5. Having re-raised the order, in its submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised the repair was completed on 15 June 2024. However, the resident disputes this and states that, as of the time of this determination, over 2 years since he first reported the window had been broken, the external pane has still not been replaced and his living room window remains boarded. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has not provided any other evidence that the repair is complete, and notes that the completion date quoted matches that of other unrelated repairs which the resident has acknowledged have been completed. The resident has also provided a clear timeline of further appointments, including one in July 2024 when an operative attended to take measurements, which suggest that the window repair was not, in fact, completed in June 2024.
  6. Based on the evidence available, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that that repair has been completed. Even if they had been completed in June 2024, this was still 18 months that the resident was left with a boarded up living room window and evidence of around a year where the landlord cannot evidence any actions it took to progress the issue or complete the repair. This was a significant and unreasonable delay which would have caused the resident a considerable amount distress and inconvenience. He has advised that, due to his reported disability, he used to enjoy watching the birds in the garden from his living room, a pleasure he has been denied since November 2022.
  7. Taking into consideration the landlord’s handling of the repair and the lack of the evidence that the issue has been resolved, the Ombudsman considers there was severe maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repair reports relating to a living room window. The landlord is ordered to write to the resident to apologise for the delay and the impact had on him and to pay £960 compensation (£40 for each month the repair has been outstanding – this is reduced to £720 if the landlord can provide evidence that the repair took place in June 2024). If the repair remains outstanding, it is also ordered to draw up an action plan to resolve the issue as soon as possible and pay the resident a further £50 for each month the repair remains outstanding. 

The bathroom extractor fan

  1. Landlord repair records show a repair order was raised to repair the resident’s bathroom extractor fan on 9 December 2022. A further entry made on 20 December 2022 indicates that a follow-on order was raised for a new extractor fan to be installed to “replace (the) very old one”. This indicates that, initially at least, the landlord responded reasonably to the repair request.
  2. Following this, an appointment appears to have been booked for 3 January 2023. In his complaint, the resident acknowledged the appointment was booked but said it did not take place, advising that he waited in, but the operative did not arrive. Instead, he later had a note through the door cancelling the appointment. Landlord records indicate the resident was advised later in the afternoon that the appointment was cancelled as the operative’s van broke down. Both parties accept the appointment did not take place and records show the resident was asked to contact the landlord and rebook the appointment.
  3. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was unreasonable that the landlord placed the onus for rebooking the appointment on the resident, given that the 3 January 2023 was cancelled through no fault of his own. While a contractor’s van breaking down is outside the landlord’s control and unfortunate events will happen from time to time, the landlord should then have been more proactive in rearranging the appointment for the resident. Its response was not customer focused and caused the resident time and trouble in trying to re-book.
  4. In his complaint escalation request, the resident stated he had been chasing the landlord for 3 months since that appointment was missed but had received no response. While this investigation has not seen evidence of further contact with the landlord, internal correspondence from 24 March 2023 shows the landlord’s Customer Service team emailed its contractor asking it to “please book a new (appointment) slot ASAP and send a letter to confirm”, which indicates the repair had been chased at least once. However, there is no record that any new appointment was booked, or contact was made with the resident. This was not appropriate and meant the delay was unnecessarily delayed.
  5. The escalation request itself should also have prompted the landlord into action with regards to re-booking the appointment. Its stage 2 response, sent over a month later on 18 May 2023, offered an apology and £100 discretionary payment for delayed repairs (it did not specify how much of this was related to the extractor fan). It also said a surveyor would attend on 30 May 2023 to “assess” and arrange for its contractor to resolve the issue.
  6. It is unclear why a further surveyor’s appointment was required given the landlord already knew the nature of the job (to replace the fan) and it had previously advised the resident that repair simply needed to be re-booked, rather than reassessed. This was another unnecessary delay to the repair, adding further inconvenience and confusion to the resident.
  7. As with the broken window, there is no evidence a survey took place on 30 May 2023 or that any actions took place before the job was re-raised on 1 May 2024, almost a year later. This is a significant and unreasonable length of time for the job to have been left outstanding, particularly when the landlord was aware the issue was already the subject of a complaint as of May 2023. It also means that the apology and financial offer at stage 2 cannot be said to constitute reasonable redress.
  8. In its submissions to this Service, other than explaining issues it had with its former contractor, the landlord has provided no explanation as to why the job was not re-raised or re-booked sooner. While both parties have confirmed that the fan was replaced in June 2024, relatively promptly after the order was re-raised with the new contractor, the repair nonetheless took 18 months to complete. This is unreasonable and evidence of a significant and avoidable delay which would have caused the resident distress and inconvenience and damaged the landlord/tenant relationship.
  9. From the evidence seen, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of repair reports regarding the bathroom extractor fan. The landlord is therefore ordered to pay the resident £255 compensation (£15 for each of the 17 extra months it took to complete the repair from January 2023 to June 2024), an amount that the Ombudsman considers better reflects the level of service failure and impact this would have had on the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. Records show the resident contacted the landlord in December 2022, a week after receiving its stage 1 response. In his email, he raised concerns that the landlord had not adequately addressed all aspects of his complaint, particularly regarding his comments about the advice he received in relation to the requirement for trickle vents and the lack of contact from a surveyor.
  2. While he did not explicitly ask for his complaint to be escalated, the Ombudsman considers the landlord should have treated it as such, given his comments about the contents of its stage 1 response. If the landlord was in any doubt as to whether the resident intended his email to be a formal escalation request, it should have contacted him to discuss the email further. That it did not do so was unreasonable and, in fact, this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord responded at all, which ultimately prompted his further escalation request in April 2023. It is noted that, within its submissions to this Service, the landlord labelled the resident’s December 2022 email as “Escalation Request”, which indicates that it too later identified this should have been acted on. However, there is no indication that it acknowledged this to the resident at any stage. Its responses both at the time and later were not appropriate and evidence of poor communication and complaint handling.
  3. Having received the resident’s comments about its stage 1 response, at stage 2 the landlord still did not appear to fully address his concerns about the lack of contact from a surveyor. While it did provide information from the surveyor in its final response, its responses do not give any indication that it properly investigated the resident’s concerns that he had been waiting a significant length of time to receive further advice from a surveyor. This would have made the resident feel that his concerns had not been taken seriously.
  4. There was also a lack of evidence that the landlord carried out a proper investigation of the repair issues the resident raised, with the landlord’s responses mainly advising when a future appointment would take place, rather than give any indication it had considered the events up to that point. While it acknowledged there had been repair delays and it offered an apology and “discretionary payment” regarding these, it did not break down how much of the redress related to each repair issue, nor did it provide any further details regarding any of the failings it had apparently identified. This was inappropriate, not in keeping with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles and would have again given the resident the impression his complaints were not being treated seriously.
  5. The landlord’s conclusion is confusing, where it stated that it could “see that (it) attended to some of the initial repairs highlighted in your stage one complaint, (but)…the remaining repairs have been delayed and I apologise for the delays you have experienced”. It goes on to say that “on this basis…I can see that your escalation…was justified, therefore I uphold your stage 2 complaint”.
  6. However, it is unclear which repairs raised at stage 1 the landlord considered to have been completed and what it considered to be “the remaining repairs”, given that its stage 2 response acknowledged that all repairs remained outstanding. The Ombudsman has noted that this paragraph appears word-for-word in another resident’s complaint recently investigated (202223743) in which it was also unclear which repairs the landlord believed had been completed. It is therefore of concern that the landlord may be using either template responses or cutting and pasting portions of complaint responses. While it is reasonable to use templates to assist when writing letters or reports, the landlord should be careful to ensure that set paragraphs apply to the facts of each case. A lack of attention to detail will lead to a lack of confidence from residents that their concerns have been investigated as thoroughly as they should be. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review how it compiles its complaint responses and, if it uses templates to assist in their completion, assess how it can ensure that each response is tailored to the specific facts of each case.
  7. Overall, due to the failure to escalate the resident’s complaint in December 2022 and concerns over the content of its responses, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure by the landlord regarding its complaint handling. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £125 compensation to reflect the inconvenience and impact of this on him.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repair reports relating to drainage issues.
    2. Severe maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repair reports relating to a broken living room window.
    3. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repair reports relating to a bathroom extractor fan.
    4. Service failure regarding the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

  1. The landlord’s repair records are scant and lacking in detail and therefore do not fully make clear the steps it took to resolve the drainage issues. There is a lack of evidence regarding the attendances its contractor undertook and any findings they made. It did not respond to the resident’s concern that the contractor had advised him the drains were collapsed and there is evidence of lengthy periods when the repair was not progressed or investigated further.
  2. There was a significant and avoidable delay in repairing the resident’s living room window, with over a year appearing to pass without any actions being taken at all to ensure the repair was resolved. It remains unclear whether this repair has been completed. The impact on the resident was considerable and this has not been recognised by the landlord.
  3. There were similar delays with replacing the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom, with 18 months passing between the date the order was raised and the repair being carried out and a full year passing with no apparent action.
  4. The landlord failed to appropriately escalate the resident’s complaint in December 2022 or show that it had fully responded to all the concerns he raised. Its responses did not demonstrate that it had fully investigated all the issues and focussed on future appointments and resolutions rather than considering any service failures up to that point in more detail.  

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the delay in completing the repair to his living room window. The apology should be issued by a member of staff at Director level.
    2. Pay the resident £1,840 compensation, consisting of:
      1. £500 to reflect the delays relating to the reported drainage issues.
      2. £960 to reflect the delays relating to the broken living room window (reduced to £720 if the landlord can evidence the repair was completed in June 2024).
      3. £255 to reflect the delay in replacing the bathroom extractor fan.
      4. £125 to reflect its complaint handling failures.
    3. Write a report clarifying if and when a CCTV of the drains has been completed, its understanding of the issue and any findings made by its contractors so far. It should clarify whether it considers the repair issues to be resolved and, if not, draw up an action plan that ensures any identified outstanding repairs are completed in a timely manner. It should provide both this Service and the resident with a copy of this report.
    4. The landlord should provide evidence that the resident’s window pane was replaced in June 2024 or otherwise clarify why this information was incorrect. If the repair remains outstanding, it should compile an action plan to complete the repair as soon as possible and pay the resident a further £50 for each month it has remained outstanding. 

Recommendations

  1. Within his submissions to this Service, the resident has advised he has mobility issues and physical disabilities and that he obtained the property at least partly due to these circumstances. However, the landlord advised it did not have any details on his records regarding any vulnerabilities. The landlord is therefore asked to contact the resident and gather further information regarding his reported disabilities so it can ensure its records are updated appropriately and that it is aware of any health issues going forward. 
  2. The landlord is recommended to review how it compiles its complaint responses and, if it uses templates to assist in their completion, assess how it can ensure that each response is tailored to the specific facts and circumstances of each case, so as to ensure best practice and resident confidence that their concerns are given individual attention.
  3. The landlord is also recommended to write to the resident and fully address his outstanding query regarding the trickle vents in his bedroom windows, confirming its position as to whether he could have been provided with windows that did not contain the vents, prior to the change in legislation in June 2022, and whether he was provided with the correct information at the time.