Sheffield City Council (201902716)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201902716

Sheffield City Council

7 February 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 residents have complained about the landlord’s handling of repairs issues, in particular:
1. The installation of a new front door.
2. Damp and mould.
3. The bathroom light.
4. The installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
The Service has also investigated the landlord’s communication and complaint handling including the level of compensation awarded.

Background and summary of events

The landlord’s Customer Information Leaflet on Repairs and Maintenance confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to repair and maintain:
1. The structure and outside of the buildings (roofs, outside walls, outside doors, window sills and frames, chimneys and chimney stacks, drains gutters and outside pipes).
2. Inside walls, skirting boards, doors, door frames, floors, ceilings and major replastering work.
3. Electrical wiring, sockets and light fittings, gas and water pipes.
4. Heating equipment (such as fires, radiators and storage radiators) and water heating equipment (such as boilers and immersion heaters).
5. Kitchen and bathroom fixtures (such as sinks, basins, baths, showers and toilets).
The landlord has different timescales for each category of repairs, as follows:
1. Emergency Repairs – 4 hours.
2. Urgent Repairs – 24 hours.
3. Appointable Repairs – up to 25 days.
4. Planned Work – up to 55 days.
The landlord’s Corporate Complaint Policy (April 2014) sets out the following stages:
1. Problem Solving – the complaint is resolved within 3 working days.
2. Investigation Stage – a written response should be sent within 28 working days of receipt.
3. Review Stage – a written response should be sent but there is no set timeframe for responding.
The landlord’s updated Corporate Complaint Procedure (August 2021 then September 2022) sets out the following stages:
1. Problem Solving – the complaint is resolved within 3 working days.
2. Investigation Stage – a written response should be sent within 10 working days of receipt. An extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
3. Review Stage – a written response should be sent within 20 working days of receipt. An extension should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, and his property is a 2-bedroom upper maisonette. His tenancy agreement commenced on 1 April 2013. He lives in his property with his partner, another adult and 2 young children. For simplicity this report shall make reference to “the residents”.
The parties do not dispute that in December 2018 the landlord inspected the property for mould although there is no contemporaneous record of the inspection. On 11 December 2018 the landlord raised an order to apply anti-mould paint in the bathroom, hall and living room as an appointable repair. It also raised an order to repair the door and frame as when the door was unlocked it was not catching to keep closed.
On 30 December 2018 an emergency repair was raised after the residents reported that the front door was not locking. On 10 January 2019, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to measure for a new front door.
On 23 January 2019 the landlord raised an order to install an extractor fan in the kitchen. Its contractor attended on 6 February 2019 but due to the location of the boiler and pipe boxing the operative was unable to fit the fan.
On 23 January 2019 the landlord also raised an order for specialist mould treatment works to the kitchen walls as planned works. The contractor attended on 4 March 2019, but the appointment was not convenient for the residents. On 5 March 2019, they emailed the landlord stating that since the inspection it had only applied anti-mould paint in the first bedroom. The landlord raised another order for the mould treatment works in the kitchen on 6 March 2019 but later cancelled it. Its repair records do not indicate why.
On 27 March 2019 the landlord raised a new order for mould treatment works in the kitchen, bathroom and living room as planned works. Its records indicate works were completed on 2 May 2019.
The landlord’s complaint responses confirm it advised the residents that the new front door would be fitted in April 2019 after it had been manufactured. After the residents wrote expressing concern that no appointment had been made for the door, on 30 April 2019 the landlord advised them that the door had not been manufactured due to new legislation around fire doors. Its internal correspondence notes that the type of door required had a top light and wing light which did not conform to “bilateral testing”. It would let the residents know the estimated time of arrival as soon as its door manufacturer could make that type of door.
On 6 November 2019 the residents sent a letter to a senior staff member at the landlord to set out their “grievances” against the repairs service. They stated that not all works to remedy damp and mould from the inspection of December 2018 had been completed including the application of anti-mould paint in hallway and second bedroom and installing a fan in the kitchen. There is no evidence that the landlord had provided a further update to the residents about the door after speaking to them in April 2019. The residents also stated in their letter that a new UPVC front door had not been installed. The landlord did not respond to the letter.
On 13 November 2019 the landlord raised an urgent repair to check for a leak in the bathroom. This was because a contractor had removed the light as it was causing the electrics to trip. It raised another order for a roofer to complete follow-on works.
Also on 13 November 2019, the landlord raised an order to treat damp to the bathroom ceiling and walls and in one of the bedrooms. The works were not completed. The landlord’s repair records do not state why. On 27 January 2020 the landlord instructed its specialist damp contractor to undertake a full survey of the home with a target date for completion of 15 April 2020. The damp survey by the contractor was delayed by the implementation of COVID-19 lockdown restrictions.
On 29 January 2020, in response to a councillor enquiry the landlord said:
1. It would renew the bathroom ceiling. Once this had been completed the light and fan would be reconnected.
2. Due to the damp issues in the property, it had requested a full damp survey.
3. It was still waiting for a door to be delivered, but due to fire regulations and the style of the door it was awaiting testing of the specification.
On 27 January 2020 the landlord raised a planned repair to renew the bathroom ceiling and reinstall the light. The repair records confirm the works were completed on 19 March 2020.
The landlord cancelled the order for the new door in July 2020 although there are no contemporaneous records confirming the reasons it took this decision at this stage. There is no evidence that the residents were advised of the decision.
After COVID-19 lockdown restrictions were lifted, the landlord’s damp contractor arranged to survey the residents’ property on 7 August 2020. On 20 August 2020 the landlord received its report. The contractor identified from the pattern of moisture readings that “condensation was a major cause of dampness” in the property. It recommended the cleaning of mould and the application of anti-mould paint throughout the property.
On 13 October 2020 the residents emailed the landlord complaining that the works to remedy the ongoing mould problem, and the installation of a new door were outstanding. They referred to their complaint letter of 6 November 2019.
On 26 October 2020 the landlord raised an order for works recommended in the damp survey to be carried out.
On 2 November 2020 the residents reported that their bathroom light was not working again. The landlord raised another order for a roofer to investigate a roof leak into the bathroom.
On 27 November 2020, the residents wrote to the landlord stating that they had not received a response to their email of 13 October 2020 and repair issues remained unresolved:
1. The front door needed to be replaced. They believed the door was supposed to have been on order for 2 years but “due to consistent lies and inaccuracies by countless council staff” it had likely only been on order for 1 year.
2. There were damp problems throughout the property. The damp specialists had found that extensive works were needed.
3. The bathroom light was not working again. They had no other lighting in the bathroom, so it was pitch black.
After the second Covid-19 lockdowns between October 2020 and December 2020, the damp contractor arranged and completed the damp works on 9 February 2021, during the third lockdown.
The residents wrote further on 23 March 2021 stating that they still had not received a response to their email of 27 November 2020. Moreover, they had been told on the phone that there were no outstanding repairs.
On 25 March 2021 the landlord raised an urgent repair to reconnect the bathroom light. The works were completed the following day.
On 16 June 2021 the landlord raised a repair order for a blockage under the kitchen sink.
On 24 June 2021 the landlord raised a new order to renew the front door and frame.
On 13 August 2021, the residents wrote to the landlord stating they had not received a response to their complaint initially logged in 2019 and re–sent in 2020 about repair issues. They noted unresolved repair issues at that time included the outstanding front door, an internal drainage issue casing dirty water to pool in the washing machine and water pooling outside the property.
The residents wrote further on 3 September 2021 reiterating that there were longstanding repair issues. They also raised concern that the landlord had not responded to their complaint, which they understood was logged on 29 October 2020.
On 13 September 2021 the landlord inspected the residents’ property and on the following day it raised several repairs with a target date of 13 November 2021. The landlord’s repair records show that the works included:
1. renewing the bathroom ceiling and light.
2. reviewing the tiling in the bathroom.
3. plastering the living room wall.
4. a patch repair to the front bedroom ceiling.
5. adjusting the kitchen door and drawer fronts.
6. installing an extractor fan in the kitchen.
7. resealing the bedroom and living room window.
On 7 October 2021, the Service asked the landlord to respond to the residents’ complaint although we only referred to the insecure front door. On 14 October 2021 the landlord sent a response to the complaint. It noted that repairs were outstanding including the renewal of the front door and frame, changing the angle of the kitchen sink waste to improve drainage and repairs raised after the inspection of 13 September 2021.
The landlord stated that it would prioritise the completion of the works and apologised for the length of time that the residents had been waiting for completion. It also apologised for not responding to the previous complaint.
On 17 October 2021 the residents posted a letter to the landlord, received on 20 October 2021, advising that there were several other repair issues at that time that the landlord had neither mentioned in the complaint response nor contacted them about recently. This included a slow running external drain at the front of the property, a leak around the toilet base, bubbling damp paint in the bathroom, and damp/draught/water ingress around the windows in the bedrooms and the living rooms. The residents further noted that there were water damaged carpets and decorations from the leak. They said they could not afford the running costs of a humidifier that had been provided and had incurred costs in using a vacuum cleaner to suck up water from the leak.
The landlord did not complete the works to install a new door and frame after the response of 14 October 2021 which prompted the residents to contact the Service again. On 14 January 2022 we asked the landlord to respond to the residents’ complaint at stage 2 although again we only referenced the insecure front door issue.
There is no evidence that the landlord took any further action on the issue on the front door until seeking to inspect again on 13 and 17 May 2021. On 17 May 2021 the landlord inspected and identified works in the lounge, kitchen, first bedroom and bathroom. The lounge works included “replaster wall between kitchen and lounge (3 square metres)”, the kitchen works included checking the plumbing under the sink to prevent the washing machine backing up and the bathroom works included removing the toilet and checking for leaks. The residents did not allow works to be completed at this time on the advice of their solicitor.
With regards to the complaint handling, after the residents advised the Service that they had not received a response to their complaint, we wrote to the landlord on 30 March 2022 asking it to respond by 6 April 2022. As the landlord did not respond by this date, the Service issued a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 26 May 2022, instructing the landlord to respond to the complaint by 7 June 2022.
On 9 June 2022 the landlord sent the stage 2 response:
1. It accepted that it had delayed in competing works, exacerbated by the suspension of the repairs service in March 2020, November 2020 and January 2021.
2. It accepted that there had “been an ongoing and persistent failure” to renew the door and frame as agreed in January 2019, and that it had not maintained an acceptable level of communication or responded to complaint. However, the residents had most recently refused on 13 and 17 May 2022 to provide access.
3. Regarding the front door lock mechanism, it carried out a temporary fix on 18 January 2019. After the residents contacted it again on 30 April 2019, it agreed for a further lock and to fill in holes around it.
4. It accepted that the works to renew the bathroom ceiling and light should have been completed sooner. The repair was reported in November 2019, the ceiling works completed in March 2020 and the light and fan completed on 4 November 2020.
5. With regards to the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen, it did not respond to the residents’ complaints of August and November 2019. The order of 14 September 2021 remained outstanding. It apologised for the unacceptable level of service.
6. The works raised on 14 September 2021 should have been completed by 30 November 2021 but were still outstanding. It apologised for the delay and inconvenience.
7. It noted the list of repairs identified at the visit of 17 May 2022 but that the residents had stated that they were obtaining legal advice and would be refusing access for the works.
8. It accepted it did not reply to complaints in a timely manner, did not fully respond to complaints and did not follow up on the actions stated in its response on 14 October 2021.
9. Damp issues in the residents’ home were resolved following works being carried out by its damp subcontractor.
10. It offered £1,500 for the failings in service identified and wanted to compete all outstanding repairs to remedy the complaint.
The landlord arranged to complete the outstanding works between 18-20 July 2022, although the residents advised the list of works in the response was not extensive enough.

After the complaints procedure

On 25 September 2022 the residents reported that they had not had an update on the following:
1. Water was still backing into the washing machine, making their clothes smell.
2. The front door which had been measured for the sixth or seventh time that week.
The landlord’s contractor attended to investigate the drainage in the kitchen on 19 October 2022. However, on 24 October 2022 the residents reported that water remained in the washing machine. The landlord arranged for a plumber, plasterer and joiner to attend on 1 November 2022 with a staff member. It was to look at the pipework under the sink and inspect the pump/filter on the washing machine as it could be faulty and causing the water not to drain.
The landlord logged further drainage repairs on 26 October 2022 and 17 October 2022. It initially sent its drainage contractor but after the residents reported that the washing machine was still filling up with water, the landlord agreed to send round a plumber, joiner and plasterer.
The landlord’s internal correspondence indicates that the new front door was installed on 19 December 2022. Its repair records show that the installation of the kitchen extractor fan was completed on 14 December 2022 with the fan fitted in a windowpane. On 21 December 2022 the residents advised the Service that only “a couple” of jobs were outstanding.
In January 2024 the residents advised the Service that all works had been completed aside from works to remedy the drainage issue outside the front door which meant water entered the property. They have raised a new complaint with the landlord about this issue.

Assessment and findings

Front door

The landlord has a repair obligation to ensure the residents’ front door remains in good repair. The landlord initially identified the need for a new front door in January 2019. As the works depended on the manufacture of a new door the landlord could not be sure when it would be ready. However, it had a responsibility to manage the residents’ expectations about when the works would be completed. It advised that the initial anticipated installation date of April 2019 could not be met due to a change of legislation.
Thereafter, there were lengthy delays during which the landlord did not take any action to expedite the installation of a new door. This indicates that there was a failure by the landlord to track and monitor the installation of the door with its contractor and supplier. It further indicates there was not one particular member of staff of team that took ownership of the repair.
The landlord did not proactively update the resident to explain the delay. It did not reply to the residents’ letter of November 2019 and its response to the councillor in January 2020 was vague, with no explanation of how fire regulations affected the style of the door to be installed and how this was being overcome. The landlord cancelled the repair in July 2020 but there is no evidence that it advised the residents at the time. Nor did the landlord respond to the residents’ correspondence of October 2020, November 2020 and March 2021. As a result, the residents’ distress, inconvenience and uncertainty was unnecessarily prolonged.
With regards to the cancellation of the door in July 2020, the Service acknowledges that COVID-19 caused difficulties in supply chains and a backlog in manufacturing industries. However, the landlord did not keep a contemporaneous record why this decision was taken, nor is there any evidence that the landlord explored other options. This lack of record is a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations and provides an audit trail of its decision making. Accurate and complete records enable the landlord to provide timely and accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
It was not until June 2021, 11 months later, that the landlord raised a new order to install a new door and frame. There was a further delay of 11 months by the landlord in taking the necessary action to confirm the specifications of the door as it did not inspect until May 2022. The landlord has provided no good reason for these delays which prolonged the already extensive delay. This further shows a lack of oversight and responsibility over the works. Alongside this, the landlord did not provide updates to the residents on the progress of the works even after committing to prioritise these works in its complaint response of October 2021, exacerbating their distress and inconvenience.
Ultimately, the door was not installed until December 2022, nearly 4 years after the order was raised. Even allowing for disruptions to the repairs service caused by COVID-19 this was an unreasonable delay, which was caused by cumulative failures in service. During this period, the residents had the inconvenience of a front door that was not fully secure. Their distress and inconvenience was exacerbated by the landlord not providing them with meaningful updates that explained the delays and what was occurring at any given time. Given that there were several independent failings in service that accumulated over a period of time, and which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident, the Service considers that there was severe maladministration.

Damp

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this. The guidance was not in effect at the time of events in this complaint; however, this investigation has considered the reasonableness of the landlord’s response in light of its repair obligations.
The landlord identified dampness and mould in the residents’ property in December 2018. However, aside from the work orders raised at this time, it did not keep a record of the visit. It therefore failed to keep an appropriately detailed record of the visit upon which it could rely to justify its findings. It also did not advise the residents of the outcome of the inspection to manage their expectations. Consequently, there was a difference in understanding in the extent of the works to be completed. For instance, the residents understood that anti-mould paint would be applied in the bedrooms.
The landlord raised different orders for mould treatment works which ultimately were completed on 2 May 2019. While the delay was partly due to access difficulties, the landlord therefore did not meet the timeframe for the works, either as appointable repairs or planned works, following the inspection of December 2018.
After the residents stated in November 2019 that not all damp treatment works had been completed, the landlord decided to commission a survey by a specialist damp contractor. This was prudent as inspections by appropriately qualified experts are crucial to the diagnosis of issues. However, it is unclear why the landlord took over 2 months to instruct the contractor. Furthermore, the landlord missed opportunities in the interim to check if the work it had previously ordered had been completed in all the required areas of the property and to an adequate standard, as the residents had reported.
There was a delay in the survey by the damp contractor due to COVID-19 lockdown restrictions which was outside the control of the landlord. However, after receiving the contractor’s report in August 2020 it took the landlord 2 months to raise an order for the works causing further delay. The damp works identified were completed in February 2021. The landlord has therefore now taken identified action to resolve the damp and mould in the residents’ property and there is no evidence that they made further reports to the landlord. However, there had been delays by the landlord in taking the action identified at its initial inspection of December 2018, instructing its damp contractor and agreeing the further works identified. These delays were particularly unreasonable given that there was mould throughout the property and that there were young children in the household who are particularly at risk from mould.

Bathroom light

The landlord has a repair obligation to ensure that the electrical wiring in the residents’ property is safe and that light fittings are working and in good repair. The landlord’s repair orders of 13 November 2019 indicate that the residents had no light in their bathroom from this time after the light fitting was removed. The reinstatement of the lights was to be completed alongside works to remedy a roof leak and ceiling replacement works, which were carried out in March 2020. However, ultimately, the residents had no lights in the bathroom for 4 months. Notwithstanding the need for roof works, this was an unreasonable length of time, given the potential risks of using the bathroom in darkness and especially at that time of the year when the nights are longer.
On 2 November 2020 the residents reported that the bathroom lights were not working again. Again, it took the landlord 4 months, until March 2021 to restore lighting in the bathroom. This further delay compounded the distress and inconvenience and demonstrated a lack of urgency from the landlord.
In both cases, the landlord was aware that there may be delays to the lighting repairs due to need to trace a leak and carry out roof works. The Service accepts it may take more than one inspection to ascertain and remedy a leak, particularly where the root cause is unknown or not immediately visible. However, the landlord failed to explore interim measures, such as temporary battery lights which may have mitigated the impact. This demonstrates a lack of appreciation of the residents’ situation.

Extractor fan in kitchen

The landlord accepted the need for an extractor fan in the kitchen as it raised an order on 23 January 2019. It transpired the works could not be completed on 6 February 2019 due to the lack of a suitable location. The landlord should therefore have considered what the options were, for instance by sending a surveyor and considering whether alterations to the kitchen was feasible. However, it did not do so.
The residents raised the issue in their letter of 6 November 2019; however, the landlord did not respond. This prolonged the delay and caused further inconvenience to the residents. The landlord confirmed the need to install an extractor fan at the inspection of 13 September 2021. However, there is no evidence that the landlord then took any further action to complete the works. These further delays show a continued lack of ownership and oversight of the repair by the landlord.
Ultimately, the fan was installed in December 2022, nearly 4 years after the original order. Even allowing for disruptions to the repairs service caused by COVID-19 this was an unreasonable delay, which was caused by cumulative failures in service.

Communication and complaint handling including the level of compensation awarded

In their letter of 6 November 2019, the residents set out their dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of repair issues at that time, in fact stating that they had “grievances”. The landlord should therefore have identified and registered a formal complaint. This would have provided a framework and process to resolve the substantive repair issues. However, the landlord failed to respond.
The residents wrote further on 13 October 2020, 27 November 2020, 23 March 2021, 13 August 2021 and 3 September 2021 expressing further dissatisfaction with the ongoing handling of repairs. Again, the landlord failed to register a complaint despite the residents making clear repairs had been outstanding for over a year. It therefore did not follow its complaints procedure or the Service’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) of the time which stated that “A landlord shall accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so.”
It was only until the residents contacted the Service that the landlord responded to their complaint, in October 2021, nearly 2 years after the original letter of complaint. As such the time and trouble the residents experienced in pursuing their complaint and receiving a response was much greater than what would reasonably be expected.
Despite the Service’s intervention, there were further failures in the landlord’s complaint handling. It did not respond to the residents’ complaint escalation of 17 October 2021, causing them to contact us for assistance again. It repeatedly failed to provide a stage 2 response as instructed necessitating a CHFO being served. Even the response on 9 June 2022 was outside the requested timeframe. These further failures exacerbated the delay in the landlord’s complaint handling and the residents’ time and trouble.
With regards to the content of the complaint responses, as set out in the Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle of “Putting it Right”, landlords should put residents back in the position they would have been in if there were no failures in the landlord’s service provision. This entails identifying what had previously gone wrong and offering redress. If necessary, landlords should confirm their understanding of the complaint and the outcomes being sought with the resident. Clarification should be sought if the complaint is not clear. This will ensure decisions are based on evidence and the facts of the case.
The landlord’s complaint response of 14 October 2021 did not meet this guidance and in fact was brief and cursory. It simply noted that were some outstanding repairs, without having clarified all the repair issues the residents were unhappy about at that time. This was necessary given that new repairs had arisen since the residents’ initial letter of complaint, such as problems with the kitchen drainage and water backing up into the washing machine. The landlord did not consider when it was made aware of each repair item listed, how it had responded and the extent of delays. The landlord also did not take into account the number of times the residents had pursued their complaint.
The stage 2 response was more detailed as it summarised the action taken on a number of repair issues and made reference to outcome of inspections it had taken. However, as the landlord did not address all the issues raised in the residents’ complaint escalation of 17 October 2021, the response was incomplete. It did not adhere to the Service’s Complaint Handling Code at the time which stated “Landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.”
The landlord in the stage 2 response accepted there were failings in the service it had provided and offered compensation of £1,500. However, this award was an overall amount that did not differentiate between the failings in the complaint handling and the failings in the substantive repair issues. Moreover, the landlord did not separate the repair issues that had been taken into account in arriving at the award. The compensation award did not reflect the full length of delays as most repairs had not been completed at the time the landlord issued the final response. The Service also notes that the landlord has not provided a Compensation Policy which could have informed its award. Taken altogether the award, while well-intentioned, was arbitrary.
There were significant failures by the landlord over a number of years, both in the handling of several repair issues and the handing of the complaint. Given the extent of the failings and the impact on the resident, and taking account the Service’s remedies guidance, the landlord’s compensation offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
There were several independent failings in the landlord’s complaint handling over several years, namely a failure to respond. The landlord showed disregard for its policies and good complaint handling practice, including the Code. Taken together with the detrimental impact on the resident, the Service finds severe maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of a new front door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the bathroom light.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of an extractor fan in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s communication and complaint handling including the level of compensation awarded.

Reasons

It took nearly 4 years from the original works order for a new front door to be installed. The delay was caused by cumulative failures in service. During this period, the residents had the inconvenience of a front door that was not fully secure. Their distress and inconvenience was exacerbated by the landlord not providing them with meaningful updates that explained the delays and what was occurring at any given time.
After identifying the need for damp treatment works at the inspection of December 2018, the landlord did not complete the works within the timeframes in its repairs procedure. After the residents made a further report of damp in November 2019 the landlord delayed in instructing its damp contractor. It also delayed in ordering the works recommended by the damp contractor.
The landlord on 2 separate occasions delayed in repairing the bathroom lights. It did not explore interim measures whilst the repair was pending.
It took nearly 4 years from the original works order for an extractor fan to be installed in the kitchen. The delay was caused by cumulative failures in service.
The landlord failed to register a formal complaint on several occasions, only doing so after being contacted by the Service. The stage 2 response was significantly delayed necessitating the Service to issue a CHFO. The complaint responses did not adequately identify and address the repair issues in the residents’ complaint. Whilst the landlord awarded compensation in the stage 2 response, it did not break down the award. The award itself was not proportionate to the circumstances of the case.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send an apology to the residents for the failures identified in this investigation. The apology should be sent by the Chief Executive.
2. Pay the residents compensation of £2,750 comprising:
  1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to the installation of the new front door.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay to damp works.
  3. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the repairs to the bathroom light.
  4. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to the installation of the kitchen extractor fan.
  5. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays to other repairs identified at the inspection of 13 September 2021.
  6. £500 for the residents’ distress and inconvenience and their time and trouble arising from the failings in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.
  7. The landlord may deduct any payments made during its complaint process. Therefore, if it has already paid the £1,500 offered at stage 2, it should pay the residents £1,250.
3. Contact the residents to confirm completion of repairs that they complained about that were outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response. If there are any repairs that are still outstanding the landlord should arrange further works with them. The landlord should notify the Service of the outcome of contact and of any action agreed with the residents.
4. Provide a decision to the residents on their claim for damaged to their carpets and decorations from a leak and for expenses incurred using a vacuum cleaner. If the landlord cannot make a decision without carrying out further investigation or referring the matter to its insurers, it should make this clear.
5. Carry out a review of the handling of this complaint. The review should assess why the landlord did not respond to the residents’ correspondence or register complaints, and why there was a delay in sending the stage 2 response. The landlord should consider if its current complaint handling processes will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. The landlord should notify the Service of the outcome of the review.
6. Devise a programme whereby all staff with responsibility for investigating housing complaints will have training on complaint handling within the next 12 months. The training should be in line with the guidance within the Service’s current Complaint Handling Code.
The Service recommends that the landlord:
1. Review its record keeping practices for repairs and maintenance for cases where damp and mould is reported. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of inspections and surveys carried out, and of works raised and completed in each part of the property.
2. Devise a Compensation Policy for housing complaints. The policy should take into account the Service’s Remedies Guidance.
3. Update the Complaints Policy to align with the current Complaints Procedure.