Rykneld Homes Limited (202234671)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234671

Rykneld Homes Limited

24 October 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs since its complaint response of 27 June 2023.
2. the condition of the property when it was let, and the landlord’s handling of repairs following this.
We have also considered the landlord’s:
1. record keeping.
2. complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bedroom bungalow with a garden. The resident moved to this property at the end of February 2023. The landlord said the resident has disclosed mental health support needs and some physical health needs due to arthritis and muscular pain.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will ensure that void repairs are conducted in line with its lettable standard. This sets out what a resident should expect when they move into a new property. It says:
1. the bathroom suite, shower and toilet will be clean and in good working order.
2. there will be no major cracks or loose/bulging plaster on the walls, and these will be in a condition to be painted or decorated.
3. doors and windows will be secure and in working order.
The repairs and maintenance policy outlines how the landlord will respond to repairs depending on priority, as follows:
1. emergency repairs – same day response.
2. priority 1 – next working day.
3. priority 2 – within 3 working days.
4. priority 3 – within 15 working days.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.
On 27 February 2023 the resident reported cracks in the walls at the property. Shortly after, the landlord told him it would arrange to inspect his concerns. The landlord noted it spoke to the resident’s mother (Ms R) on 10 March 2023. She said some issues at the property were unresolved. She said:
1. there were cracks throughout the property, some of which the resident had identified when stripping the wallpaper.
2. the wet room floor was “dirty” and in poor condition.
3. she considered the landlord should have provided fencing at the bottom of the rear garden.
4. there was graffiti in the cement of the front path.
The landlord later noted internally that a repairs manager and its managing director had attended the property on 14 March 2023. It noted they had apologised “for any works they identified which should have been completed at void stage”. It detailed that as a resolution it had agreed to:
1. patch and redecorate cosmetic cracking in the hall, living room and the bedroom.
2. install a new wet room.
3. install a 6ft fence at the bottom of the rear garden.
4. remove graffiti from the front path.
Ms R made further contact with the landlord on 17 May 2023. She said that:
1. internal work had been completed but the resident remained concerned about a crack in the wall that continued to open.
2. works agreed to the front path and to install a back fence were still outstanding.
3. the resident now wished to make a complaint as he felt work should have been completed prior to him moving in.
The landlord visited the resident’s home on 23 May 2023. It noted that it met with Ms R and told her:
1. some of the measures agreed by its managing director and repairs manager on 14 March 2023 went “over and above” the lettable standard.
2. patch repairs and redecoration had been completed as a gesture of goodwill.
3. fence installation had also been agreed as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 25 May 2023. It said that:
1. a new wet room had been installed on 5 May 2023 as it had agreed the existing wet room, while functional, was not at the acceptable standard for letting.
2. graffiti had been removed on 5 May 2023 and this should also have been removed during the void stage.
The landlord said that although some work should have been completed during the void stage, it had apologised, and work had been agreed to resolve this. It said:
1. all work had been completed within 10 weeks of it being agreed which was within its standard repair timescales.
2. fencing, patching and decoration work had been completed as a gesture of goodwill. This was to compensate the resident for any inconvenience caused and it did not consider financial compensation was appropriate.
On 31 May 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said that the landlord had not explained the gesture of goodwill offered. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 27 June 2023. It noted the resident had sent photos of work he considered was outstanding. It said that these photos showed cracks in plasterwork, missing trim on a door frame and a possible window repair. It said its housing officer had attended on 26 June 2023 to take a picture of the current crack in the wall. The landlord said that as this crack had opened slightly it would arrange a repair. It said its housing officer had also reviewed an area of plaster in the resident’s kitchen, and it did not consider this a repair. However, it said it would complete this work when it attended to fill the crack in the resident’s living room.
The landlord said it had delivered the goodwill gestures in recognition of the resident’s mental health and the possible distress caused by works. It said:
1. alternative accommodation was offered due to the extent of the work required, and the resident had declined this.
2. decoration was usually the resident’s responsibility, but it had fully redecorated to alleviate stress and in recognition of his physical health.
3. it had installed a new fence, when this would usually be the resident’s responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement.
The landlord noted the resident had sent photos of missing trim on a door. It said he had also reported this issue previously. It said it would now arrange an appointment to fit the missing trim. In recognition of this and the stress and inconvenience the resident said he had been caused, it said it had cleared the arrears of £108.34 on his former property. The landlord said that it could not see that the resident had previously reported any issues with his windows, so it had arranged for its repairs team to contact him about this.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of some repairs he has raised since its stage 2 complaint response of 27 June 2023. These include further concerns about the fence in his rear garden and cracks around the exterior of his property. We have seen no evidence he has raised a formal complaint with the landlord about its handling of these issues. As such, they have yet to be considered through the landlord’s complaints handling procedure, and we have seen no evidence of a complaint handling failure on behalf of the landlord. Therefore, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, this complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. If the resident remains concerned about the landlord’s handling of repairs reported since 27 June 2023, he may wish to raise a new complaint with it now. If he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to his complaint, he may then refer the matter back to the Ombudsman as a new complaint once he has concluded the landlord’s complaints procedure.

The condition of the property when it was let, and the landlord’s handling of repairs following this.

After his tenancy began the resident raised concerns about cracks in the walls. Later Ms R outlined concerns about the condition of the wet room floor, graffiti on the front drive, and fencing. The landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps by arranging to inspect these issues. It later set out that its managing director and a repairs manager had attended the property on 14 March 2023. Following the visit the landlord noted it had apologised for any work they had identified that should have been completed during the void stage. But this did not specify which of the work it considered should have been completed before the property was let.
It was important for the landlord to make clear records around its attendance at the property. That was particularly so as it later said it had agreed some of the work as a gesture of goodwill. Not making adequate contemporaneous notes of this visit was a failing in record keeping. The resident was confused about the basis on which work had been agreed. In his complaint he said there were contradictions in what the landlord said about which work should have been completed before the property was let. He said the landlord’s managing director had said the property should not have been let in “such a state”. Clear records of what had been discussed with the resident during the meeting in March 2023 would have helped to demonstrate why it had agreed the various additional work.
The landlord later told the resident that it had installed 6ft fencing in the rear garden as a gesture of goodwill. It said it had also done so in recognition of his mental health, as he had said he felt vulnerable due to the gaps in hedging. In line with the landlord’s fencing and boundary policy, it was not required to install such a fence. It had recorded during earlier inspections that it considered the existing wire fence to be suitable. However, after agreeing to undertake this work, it was reasonable for it to complete it in a timely manner.
The resident expressed concerns that this work had taken so long to complete. While the landlord agreed this work on 14 March 2023 it was not completed until 19 May 2023. In response to this the landlord said the work had been completed within 10 weeks, which it said was within its standard repairs timescales. But this is not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy. This sets out a range of timescales for repairs, from same day response to up to 15 working days, depending on the priority. It is therefore unclear why the landlord considered 10 weeks to be within its repairs timescales. Given the work needed to be arranged through a contractor, it may not have been possible for the landlord to complete it within its usual repairs timeframes. But it should reasonably have communicated with the resident about the likely timescale for the work. It told Ms R on 20 April 2024 that it would contact the resident to advise when it would be completed. But we have seen no evidence it did so. That was a failing. Communicating with the resident about the work would have helped to manage his expectations about when it would be completed. It could have avoided some of the frustration and concern he experienced about this.
The landlord also said that it had completed patch repairs to walls and decorating as a gesture of goodwill. It is apparent from the landlord’s records around this time that it had identified only cosmetic cracks in the wall. As it later told the resident, these would normally be his responsibility to rectify, in line with its lettable standard. While the resident disputed this, the landlord took appropriate steps by inspecting his concerns. However, as noted earlier, clear contemporaneous records about why it had agreed the further work would have helped to avoid any confusion around this. In its stage 2 complaint response of June 2023 the landlord agreed further work to resolve a small crack in the living room, which had opened slightly. That was also reasonable. However, its completion of this work is not detailed in its repair records. It told us that it had completed the work under the extra void works raised earlier on 5 April 2023. But it would have been appropriate for it to clearly record that it had completed the work, which it had agreed as part of its stage 2 complaint resolution. Not doing so was a further record keeping failing. As such, we have ordered that the landlord contact the resident to check this work has been completed.
We have found other record keeping failings by the landlord. Its records do not detail when fencing was installed or when it completed work to remove graffiti on the front path. The landlord later said in its stage 1 complaint response that both had been completed on 19 May 2023, and this is not disputed by the resident. However, it should have made appropriate records of this work. Such records help the landlord to evidence and monitor how it has responded to repair requests, in line with its duties and its repairs policy. We have ordered that the landlord review policies and guidance to staff around accurate record keeping.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord noted that the resident had also raised concerns about his windows. It stated that it was unclear what repair concern he was reporting about these. It said it would arrange for its repairs team to contact the resident to clarify. Repair records note it attempted contact with the resident on 23 June 2023 and left a voicemail requesting that he make contact to discuss his concerns about the windows. That was reasonable.
The landlord also noted the resident’s concerns about missing trim to the side door. It acknowledged this had been raised by him previously. However, the records we have seen do not show this. That is a further record keeping failing. The landlord said it would arrange an appointment to fit the missing trim to the door surround. But we have seen no record of this work being arranged or completed. We have not seen evidence the resident has subsequently raised this as an outstanding repair. But the landlord should have made appropriate record of its completion of this work. That it did not is a further record keeping failing that means it cannot demonstrate that it responded appropriately to this repair report. We have ordered that it contact the resident to check this work has been completed.
In its complaint responses the landlord acknowledged that the wet room was not at the acceptable lettable standard. It also said graffiti should have been removed before the start of the new tenancy. The resident asked that the landlord compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused by work needed after his tenancy started. In response to this the landlord said fencing, patching and decoration work had been completed to compensate the resident for any inconvenience. It said it did not consider financial compensation was appropriate. But there is no evidence it discussed or agreed with the resident that this was appropriate compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the issues. As noted earlier, we have seen no evidence it had set out previously on what basis it had undertaken that work. Nor is there evidence it fully considered the level of inconvenience caused by work it acknowledged should have been completed before the resident’s tenancy began.
The landlord said in its stage 2 complaint response that it had offered alternative accommodation to the resident, mainly because the wet room was to be replaced. It said the resident had declined this offer. In correspondence the resident confirmed the landlord had offered alternative accommodation during the visit on 14 March 2023. But this is not appropriately detailed in the landlord’s records. It later said this was offered as a goodwill gesture, in recognition of the resident’s mental health and the distress the work could cause. But it was not appropriate to categorise this as a goodwill gesture. It was a step the landlord should reasonably have considered anyway during disruptive work, in line with its decant policy. That was particularly so as it was aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The resident told us that he had declined the offer of alternative accommodation because he did not want to move out of the area. As the landlord did not make appropriate records at this time, it is unclear what alternative accommodation it discussed. It would have been appropriate for it to explore with the resident the options for temporary accommodation. It would also have been reasonable for it to revisit and review the position prior to starting work to replace the wet room at the end of April 2023. That there is no evidence the landlord did so is a failing. The resident told us that while the wet room replacement work was ongoing, he had to travel by bus to shower at his parent’s house over a period of 11 or 12 days. This was an inconvenience to him that the landlord has yet to appropriately recognise.
We note that the landlord arranged for arrears of £108.34 on the resident’s previous property to be cleared in recognition of the stress and inconvenience he experienced. We also acknowledge that the landlord undertook some additional work as a goodwill gesture. This was a positive step that went some way towards recognising the distress and inconvenience to the resident. But it did not sufficiently recognise the impact of its failings, and did not go far enough to put things right. That is particularly with regards to the inconvenience the resident was caused while his wet room was replaced. With consideration of the circumstances, and with reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an award has been ordered. This is aimed at recognising the level of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident during this work.

Complaint handling

Both the landlord’s complaint responses were within timescales outlined within its complaints policy. We also acknowledge that the landlord took appropriate and reasonable steps to inspect the resident’s concerns about the property, and completed further work in response to these. However, as outlined above, we have found that the landlord failed to appropriately consider the full extent of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to the additional works needed. In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code the landlord should have used the complaints process as an opportunity to meaningfully engage with the resident and the issues being raised. It could then ensure that steps were taken to put things right.
We have also found failings in the landlord’s response to concerns the resident raised about the time it took to complete fence installation. As noted earlier, it incorrectly stated that this work had been completed within its standard repairs timescales. It also did not identify its failure to appropriately communicate with the resident about when this work would be completed. Overall, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Its failings caused the resident frustration and left him feeling that the impact of the failings had not been fully recognised. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, we have ordered an award aimed at recognising the impact of this failing.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of repairs since its complaint response of 27 June 2023 is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
1. maladministration in the landlord’s handling of concerns about the condition of the property when it was let, and its handling of repairs following this.
2. maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
3. maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation of £400, made up of:
  1. £250 for the impact of failings in its handling of concerns about the condition of the property when it was let, and its handling of repairs following this.
  2. £150 for the impact of its complaint handling failings.
3. contact the resident to check that plastering and door trim repairs agreed in the stage 2 complaint response have been completed.
4. remind staff of the repairs timescales set out in the repairs policy, and of the importance of ensuring that any reference to these is accurate and correct.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review policies and guidance to staff around accurate record keeping. This should be completed with the aim of ensuring that record keeping failings we have identified in this report are not repeated.