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

Soho Housing Association Limited (202328172)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202328172

Soho Housing Association 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 complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s related requests for reasonable adjustments.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property is a flat with a shared communal entrance. No tenancy agreement was provided to this Service. The resident has a representative who has advocated on his behalf in relation to the complaint. For the purposes of this report, both the resident and his representative are referred to as ‘the resident’, except where their different roles are relevant to events. The resident has said he has a disability and vulnerabilities in relation to mental health.
  2. The complaint relates to outstanding repairs that the resident said he raised in June 2017. He also said that his requests for reasonable adjustments in carrying out the repairs were ignored by the landlord.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of a leak at the property in June 2017. It wrote to the resident twice to arrange an appointment to “carry out essential works”. In July 2017, the resident advised the landlord that his mail was being interfered with.
  4. In January 2018, the resident wrote to the landlord confirming the bathroom light and fan had been repaired. He requested a schedule of works that were required at the property “so that he could be ready” for the contractor visits. The resident wrote to the landlord a further 5 times between February 2018 and October 2019 highlighting outstanding works that were required in the kitchen and bathroom. The resident’s letters made reference to contractor visits and photos taken during these visits.
  5. In February 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting that his housing officer be present to supervise any works within the property “due to his disability”. He also asked again for a schedule of works. In October 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to an “urgent” gas safety check that was required.
  6. The resident wrote to the landlord in October 2019 outlining the outstanding repairs. He said that he had no use of the back bedroom due to damp and mould, and that he had limited use of the kitchen as there was a hole in the ceiling. A letter was sent to the resident from solicitors acting on behalf of the landlord in relation to gaining access for a gas safety check to be carried out. The resident responded saying he would leave his house keys with a neighbour.
  7. The resident reported a leak in the kitchen on 23 January 2020. The repair log shows this was repaired on 31 March 2021, 14 months later. The notes say “section of ceiling in kitchen in order to repair leak. Once leak repaired, plasterboard to be reinstated, skimmed and painted”.
  8. In August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord saying he had no knowledge of any previous appointments and requested as a reasonable adjustment that he was provided with advance notice of any appointment. The landlord wrote to the resident in October 2020 in relation to access to carry out an electrical safety check.
  9. The repair log shows that on 13 July 2021, no access was provided in order to carry out an electrical safety test. The landlord sent a letter to the resident in relation to access for an electrical safety check in September 2022.
  10. In March, May, and July 2023 the landlord wrote to the resident in relation to an electrical safety check that was required at the property and requested access to replace the front door. The repair log shows this was completed on 4 December 2023.
  11. On 14 August 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He requested a clear schedule of works and specified timed appointments with the housing officer present. He went on to outline all the works that were outstanding in the property. An internal email by the landlord on 22 August 2023 said that a letter of appointment was hand delivered to the resident. On 29 August 2023, the landlord contacted the resident’s representative saying it had attended the planned appointment and the resident was not at the property.
  12. On 6 September 2023, the resident contacted the landlord saying that an inspection would be needed to identify all required works and “the best way” would be to provide a list of works and how long each job would take to complete. He went on to say that this would assist him in knowing what was required.
  13. The landlord sent its stage 1 response on 8 September 2023. It outlined its understanding of the complaint. It said that it had enclosed copies of letters it had sent the resident in the past year. It went on to say that it was not possible for a member of staff to “always” be onsite for the repairs “along side the contractors”. It said it would provide appointment times and details in advance. The landlord said that prior to the representative’s email it had not been made aware of any issues at the property or had any repairs raised in 2022 or 2023, so it could not offer any compensation under those circumstances. In addition, it said it would like to carry out an inspection and arrange for the correct contractors to attend.
  14. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023. He said that the landlord was made aware of the outstanding repairs, and it was due to its poor record keeping that it had not raised previous repairs, even after contractor visits. He also said that he had not received any of the letters it had sent, and it was reasonable that he did not provide access to “strangers”. The repair log shows a note was added for no cold calling in relation to appointments.
  15. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023. It said that it did not know why it had not received any of the resident’s historical letters reporting the repairs, for which it was sorry. It went on to say it would do everything it could to resolve the issue and offered the resident £180 compensation. This was broken down into £30 for the delay in responding at stage 2 and £150 for not acknowledging the resident’s letters and delays to carrying out the repairs.
  16. The resident contacted this service on 13 November 2023 saying that the landlord had ignored his letters, and the repairs remained outstanding. As a resolution he wanted the landlord to apologise for its failings and offer reasonable compensation for his lack of use of the property.
  17. This Service contacted the landlord several times in relation to requests for evidence. However, the landlord did not initially respond. In October 2024 we issued it a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO). This was because it failed to provide any case evidence to support our investigation.
  18. The landlord contacted this Service on 21 November 2024 saying it was very concerned about its failing in this case and would provide its full support to get matters resolved. It subsequently provided further partial evidence.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. The evidence provided by the resident contains historical documentation going back to 2017. These documents cover events that have given rise to the complaint, such as historical communications with the landlord that show the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the repairs at the property and his requests for reasonable adjustments. When investigating a case, we consider proportionality and fairness when deciding the scope of the investigation and how much emphasis we should place on any historical issues. The repair issues in this case have been long running, and thus it is fair to include some more historical events in order to decide what is fair, given all the circumstances of the case.

Repairs and reasonable adjustments

  1. The landlord’s repair policy allows for emergency repair to be attended to within 4 hours and routine repairs within 20 days. The policy does not specify what repair responsibilities the landlord has. Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) a landlord has a responsibility to carry out necessary repairs/works within a reasonable timeframe.
  2. The repair policy also says that whenever a repair is raised, a record must be kept on its systems to ensure accurate repair information is held.
  3. The evidence shows that the landlord was aware of a leak in the property as early as June 2017. On 11 January 2018, the resident contacted the landlord requesting a schedule of works that were required in the property. He said that this would enable him to “be ready” and know why the contractors needed access. There was no evidence to show that the landlord responded to the resident or provided him with a schedule of works as per his request. The resident’s request was reasonable, and the landlord should have acknowledged this as a reasonable adjustment request. By doing so, the landlord could have offered the resident the reassurance he sought or taken the opportunity to tailor its communication to ensure his needs were met.
  4. On 1 February 2018, the resident contacted the landlord saying he did not want any visits without an appointment and highlighted that there were many repairs outstanding. He again requested a schedule of works. This was another missed opportunity by the landlord to communicate with the resident and reassure him it was taking his reasonable adjustment request seriously.
  5. The resident provided copies of a further 3 letters he had sent the landlord between 11 June and 22 October 2018 outlining that there were outstanding repairs. He also said that contractors had attended and taken photos of the repairs that were needed. Despite this, no evidence was provided by the landlord to demonstrate that the resident was responded to or repairs orders raised. This was inappropriate.
  6. The lack of repair records and case notes is concerning. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to this Service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
  7. In this case, it is apparent from the evidence provided by the resident and the lack of evidence provided by the landlord that it failed to meet its repair obligations. This was unfair to the resident, who had clearly communicated to the landlord that there were outstanding repairs in the property. The absence of repair records also makes it difficult for this Service to assess what repairs have been carried out and whether any repair works were completed within the landlord’s repair policy timescale.
  8. On 24 February 2019, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting the housing officer be present to supervise any works to the property due to his disability. He also repeated his request for a schedule of works. The letter makes reference to a visit that was arranged for 27 February 2019. However, there is no record of this visit in the repair log provided by the landlord. This was not appropriate, as the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it met its responsibility to carry out the necessary repairs/works within a reasonable timeframe in accordance with its obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
  9. Under the Equality Act 2010, the landlord has a duty to adopt a reasonable alternative method of providing its services to the resident. At this point, the resident had clearly highlighted to the landlord his disability and need for reasonable adjustments. While it may not have been practical for the housing offer to be present for the entire duration of the works, the landlord could have considered other options, such as an introductory visit with the contractor. It should have documented that it considered the resident’s request and, if it was not possible to accommodate it, why this was. It was evident that arranging appointments and unannounced visits was causing the resident distress, yet the landlord did not demonstrate sympathy or communicate with him on how it could alleviate those concerns.
  10. On 15 and 17 November 2019 the landlord wrote to the resident explaining that 3 appointments had been offered to him in writing in relation to an overdue gas safety check. Copies of these letters have not been provided to this Service. Furthermore, there is no record of any gas safety checks, or a lack of access, detailed in the repair log. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place.
  11. On 21 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the outstanding repairs. He said that he did not have use of the back bedroom, and that he had limited use of the kitchen due to damp and mould and a hole in the ceiling. The repair log shows that a works order was raised on 23 January 2020 and categorised as urgent. The repair log shows this work as completed 527 days (14 months) later on 31 March 2021, and would not be considered a reasonable time frame for any category of repair. It is concerning that the repair log shows the repair as complete because the resident said in his stage 1 complaint of 14 August 2023 that this work remained outstanding. Further, his representative said that she had carried out a “recent visit” and provided the landlord with video and photo evidence that this work had not been done. This evidence has been seen by this Service.
  12. On 10 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord requesting advanced notice of any appointments. He said that this was a reasonable adjustment to make. The landlord wrote to the resident on 24 October 2020, 13 July 2021, 20 September 2022, 6 and 13 March 2023, and 19 May 2023, saying its contractors had been trying to contact him regarding the electrical safety check. It advised the resident to contact the contractors and provided a contact number. However, despite contacting the resident 6 times in relation to failed access it did not offer the resident an appointment in writing as per his reasonable adjustment request. This was not appropriate and unfair to the resident. It also delayed the electrical safety test being carried out.
  13. As mentioned above, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 August 2023. Photos of the outstanding disrepair were provided to the landlord, with the resident saying there was “some appalling disrepair in the kitchen”. He requested that visits/appointments were communicated to him in writing due to his disability.
  14. On 22 August 2023, the landlord evidenced that it hand delivered a letter to the resident in relation to an inspection for 29 August 2023. An email was sent to the representative on 29 August 2023 saying it had attended the appointment but the resident was not at home. It went on to say that the resident had left keys with a neighbour to provide access. The landlord said that as it did not have prior knowledge of the arrangement, it was not willing to enter without the resident present. It was reasonable for the landlord not to enter the property without the resident present or having prior knowledge of the arrangement with the neighbour.
  15. The landlord responded on 8 September 2023 saying it had not received any responses to the letters it had sent that year. It said that, going forward, it would communicate appointments to the resident in writing and update its tenancy system to reflect this. The landlord evidenced that the tenancy system was updated as per the request, which was appropriate. It said that it had not been made aware of any issues at the property and its repair records did not show any jobs raised for 2022 or 2023. The repair log does not show any repairs for that time period, and no documentary evidence has been provided by the resident to indicate that he contacted the landlord regarding repairs in 2022 or 2023.
  16. The resident raised a stage 2 complaint on 15 September 2023, saying he disagreed that the landlord was not made aware of the issues at the property. He said it was due to its poor recording keeping that it had no details of previous repairs raised even after contractor visits. The repair log shows work orders were raised on 6 October 2023 in relation to carrying out a mould wash in the bedroom and repairing the hole in the kitchen ceiling and plastering the walls. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 16 October 2023. It said it did not know why it had not received the resident’s historical letters reporting the repairs and apologised, saying it would do everything it could to resolve issue going forward. It offered the resident £150 for the delay in acknowledging his letters and carrying out the repairs. It offered £30 for the delayed stage 2 response.
  17. Had this Service assessed complaint handling separately, we would have found reasonable redress. This is because although the stage 2 response was 1 day outside of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code timescale of 20 working days, the landlord apologised and offered the resident £30 compensation. This is considered proportionate to put things right. The decision has therefore been made to address the landlord’s complaint handling as part of the substantive issue.
  18. We have been unable to make a full assessment of the landlord’s handling of the outstanding repairs and reasonable adjustment requests due to the lack of evidence. Furthermore, some of the evidence provided by the landlord cannot be relied upon. Nevertheless, it is clear from the evidence provided by the resident that he repeatedly asked for appointments to be made in advance in writing. Despite writing to the resident 6 times in relation to failed access, the landlord did not evidence that it provided any appointment in writing. In addition, the resident asked the landlord 9 times between January 2018 and August 2020 for a schedule of works, which he said would allow him “to be ready” for the contractor’s visits.
  19. He also explained at least 5 times between February 2018 and October 2019 that there were outstanding repairs, which prevented the use of the back bedroom and limited his access to the kitchen. It is evident that the resident experienced distress and inconvenience over an unacceptably prolonged period of time (6.5 years). The timeline of events shows that this was between January 2018 and August 2024, when the landlord’s repair log shows the works were complete. Therefore, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s requests concerning outstanding repairs and related requests for reasonable adjustments.
  20. We have ordered the landlord to pay the resident a proportionate amount of compensation to put things right. In the absence of the landlord’s compensation policy, which it did not supply, our award reflects the evidence we have seen and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies. Our guidance shows that awards in excess of £1,000 are proportionate in cases where serious failings by a landlord have resulted in severe long-term impact to a resident.
  21. Our order includes a rent related element based on approximately 10% for the delay period. The rent figures provided by the landlord have been used as a guideline only and are not intended to amount to an exact refund.
  22. As a result, a total of £5,343.94 has been awarded to reflect the resident’s loss of enjoyment of the property. This equates to 10% of the weekly rent (£155.77) for 343 weeks covering the period between January 2018 and August 2024..

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord’s handling of repairs and the resident’s related requests for reasonable adjustments.

Orders

  1. Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination (adjusted to allow for the Christmas period), the landlord is ordered to take the following action and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance:
    1. Write to the resident via his representative to apologise for the failures identified in this report, in line with this Service’s apologies guidance. The apology should be made by the landlord’s chief executive.
    2. Contact the resident to ascertain if there are any outstanding issues at the property. If so, it must prepare an action plan of works needed, including an approximate timescale for completion.
    3. Pay directly to the resident compensation totalling £5,343.94 to reflect his loss of enjoyment of the property.
  2. If it has not already done so, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of this case within 10 weeks to identify learning and to provide this Service with a summary of the review. The review should include:
    1. What went wrong and the steps it will be taking to ensure that the failures are not repeated.
    2. A review of its staff training, policies, and procedures to ensure similar failings in responding to requests for reasonable adjustments reported by residents do not occur in the future.
    3. Consideration of introducing a separate reasonable adjustments policy if one is not already in place.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its handling of reports of damp and mould and considers whether it would be appropriate to review or introduce a policy in relation to how it responds to such reports. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould for further detail and recommendations.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord familiarises itself with this Service’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs.
  3. It is recommended that the landlord includes more details in its repairs log, including when a specific repair job is closed or completed.
  4. It recommended that the landlord assess its internal record keeping procedures against the recommendations of this Service’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). This should include the completion of this Service’s free online training in relation to KIM for landlords and relevant staff, if this has not been done recently.

Chat to us