St Albans City and District Council (202300948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202300948

St Albans City and District Council

30 April 2025

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damage caused when conducting repairs, quality of works, and the landlord not completing a snagging list.
2. Radiators not heating the property sufficiently.
3. Repairs required to address concerns about the property’s condition.
We have also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, a local council. The property is a 3-bedroom house.
On 22 January 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord about the property’s condition. She reported the property was cold, with insufficient insulation. She said that in summary there were faults with the loft and roof. She also said she was not willing to wait until the summer for a door replacement. The landlord contacted her on 24 January 2023 and mutually arranged for an inspection of the property on 31 January 2023. After the inspection, the landlord told the resident on 8 February 2023 the plan of works at the property which consisted of:
1. A camera inspection of the cavity for presence of cavity wall insulation and it to report back on findings.
2. An asbestos test in the loft space prior to any works in the loft. Subject to the asbestos test it would upgrade the loft insulation to 270mm throughout the loft space.
The resident asked the landlord about its use of contractors on 3 March 2023. The landlord replied on 6 March 2023 saying the inspections for insulation would be carried out in “due course”. The landlord attended the property on 9 March 2023 to carry out an asbestos test. The resident said on 10 March 2023 that she wanted timescales. On 13 March 2023 the landlord told the resident that if she felt that a formal complaint against it was warranted, for her to provide more detail.
The resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2023 which said she:
1. Was complaining due to the unresponsiveness and slow progress of ongoing, unresolved issues.
2. Wanted to know who was co-ordinating the repairs.
3. Was unsure why a surveyor did not measure the door in the property.
4. Wanted to know why the landlord carried out a mould wash to a small area of the property.
5. Felt there was mismanagement of taps, roof work, insulation, rear extension, the back door, and front door.
The landlord attended the property on 17 March 2023 to carry out a camera inspection of the cavity wall insulation. On 27 March 2023 the landlord confirmed to the resident it would upgrade the cavity wall and loft insulation. The landlord also said it would first need to remove the asbestos. On 15 May 2023 it confirmed an appointment to do this on 22 May 2023.
On 18 May 2024 the landlord sent the resident a stage 1 complaint acknowledgement and said it would provide a response by 5 June 2023. The resident replied to this on the same day, saying the landlord had previously refused to accept her complaint. The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 5 June 2023 which said:
1. It was evident that works had not been completed. It should have communicated to her to avoid further delays and repeat visits should not have happened.
2. Due to the number of repairs raised, the property should have been passed to a supervisor to manage. This was now assigned to a supervisor.
3. Specialist contractors had been scheduled to undertake insulation works.
4. A flooring investigation was undertaken.
5. Rear and front doors had been delivered to contractors.
6. It apologised for not logging the resident’s complaint when she requested, this was due to human error and not intentional.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 6 June 2023 saying the cavity wall and loft insulation was going through a tendering process. This was part of its planned works, which is why the resident was not provided dates of completion. The resident replied on the same day saying she thought it should not be going through a tendering process, and she did not have timescales. On 13 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that this was being done as an upgrade project and is not a normal repair.
On 7 August 2023 the resident enquired about the timescales for the insulation. The landlord responded on this date and told her the tender process started on 1 August 2023. The landlord said it was unable to provide dates at that stage. The resident escalated her complaint about insulation issues on 8 August 2023. She asked why the tender process was not started earlier. She did not want to go another winter without cavity wall insulation. She said there would be scaffolding at her house already for the loft insulation, she said the landlord should do both at the same time.
On 8 September 2023 the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. The landlord apologised for delays and her concerns over the insulation not being installed in time. The landlord also said:
1. Internal confusion had arisen due to 2 of its teams being involved. It accepted it needed to co-ordinate better between the teams to give residents a better service.
2. The following would be undertaken on:
  1. 11 September 2023 the cavity and loft insulation would be installed.
  2. 13 September 2023 it would start the re-pointing of external brickwork.
  3. Completion of the above, it would remove the scaffold.
On 9 January 2024 the resident asked the landlord about dates for the loft insulation. The resident also remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to us on 13 January 2024, she wanted us to investigate her concerns. On 9 February 2024 in addition to repairs at the property, she told us she wants us to look at the following:
1. Damage caused when conducting repairs, quality of works, and the landlord not completing a snagging list.
2. Radiators not heating the property sufficiently.
In April 2024 the resident temporarily moved from the property while the landlord was undertaking works.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this 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 Scheme says we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure.
The resident submitted her complaint on 14 March 2023 which did not include damage caused when conducting repairs, quality of works, and it not completing a snagging list. There is no evidence she complained of this at the time.
As the complaint about the issue with damage caused when conducting repairs, quality of works, and it not completing a snagging list, has not exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, it falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Similarly the resident’s complaint of radiators not heating the property sufficiently did not form part of her complaint on 14 March 2023. Therefore, the landlord has not had an opportunity to respond via its internal complaints procedure.
For the same reason and in line with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of radiators not heating the property sufficiently has not exhausted the internal complaints procedure and will not be commented on by us.
If the resident would like to bring the above issues to us for potential investigation, she should pursue it fully through the landlord’s complaint process first.

Scope of investigation

The scope of this investigation is limited to the issues that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This ensures the landlord is given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction before our involvement. While we have reviewed the resident’s complaint of 14 March 2023, it is clear that when escalating her complaint on 8 August 2023, she raised concerns specifically about the insulation of the property. Her escalation email did not refer to any of the other issues previously reported. Although we are aware that the resident made multiple reports and service enquiries during 2023, any matters not progressed through the full 2–stage complaint process fall outside the scope of this investigation. These issues can be raised separately with the landlord if the resident wishes to pursue them. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the insulation upgrades, which has completed the formal complaints process.

Repairs required to address her concerns of the property’s condition

The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are:
1. Be fair.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from the outcomes.
We will apply the above principles when considering the landlord’s actions and responses.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Excess cold is a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether its properties are sufficiently insulated or amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Under the landlord’s ‘housing repairs handbook’ it states non-emergency repairs are normally completed within 28 days. The landlord also has a category for repairs which it considers are planned improvements, this has no completion timescales published in the handbook.
The resident put the landlord on notice that her property was cold due to a lack of insulation on 22 January 2023. The landlord agreed with the resident it would carry out an inspection of the property on 31 January 2023. This was appropriate and in line with its non-emergency repair timescales. No information has been provided by the landlord that it had recorded the room temperatures of the property in its inspection. However, the landlord did not dispute the resident’s reports of issues.
Following the above, the landlord decided on 8 February 2023 it would look at repairing the structure of the property. This included a camera inspection of the structure, for cavity wall insulation. This also included an asbestos check and further insulation in the loft. While this was reasonable action by the landlord, at this stage it did not clearly communicate when its contractors would carry out the inspection. The landlord told the resident on 6 March 2023 that it would undertake the inspection, but no timescales were provided. This was unfair to the resident who expended time and trouble chasing the landlord for timescales. It missed the opportunity to manage her expectations about its planned improvement policy and upcoming repairs at that stage.
The evidence shows the landlord inspected the loft on 9 March 2023 for asbestos. The cavity wall insulation was checked on 17 March 2023. It was on 27 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that it would remove the asbestos in the loft which would allow it to install further insulation. The landlord also confirmed on 27 March 2023 that the cavity wall insulation would be upgraded, but did not specify when. As these repairs were being completed under planned improvements, the landlord does not have a set time to action it by. However, it was reasonable the landlord first told the resident on 15 May 2023 that it would remove the asbestos in an appointment on 22 May 2025. The landlord did complete this on the day it stated, which was appropriate.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response omitted timescales for insulation works. This was despite the landlord admitting it could have been clearer with next steps to the resident. Therefore, although it confirmed it had scheduled specialist contractors it had not managed the resident’s expectation, as evidence by her reply to the stage 1 complaint response. She said she was unsure when the insulation upgrades would take place. The landlord confirmed on the following day that these repairs were being done under planned improvements and again on 13 June 2023. It was going through a tendering process, which is why the resident was not given dates. While the landlord was responding quickly to the resident’s contact, it would have been reasonable from the outset on 8 February 2023 for it to tell the resident this. By not doing so, it mismanaged her expectations of the time it would take to complete insulation upgrades to the property.
The landlord stated in its final response that its co-ordination between its 2 teams should have been better. We acknowledge the resident’s dissatisfaction that the landlord only started the tendering process on 1 August 2023. However, it was reasonable that the landlord apologised to the resident about this.
Additionally, in the landlord’s final response, it did confirm timescales for insulation upgrades to the resident, which was reasonable. The evidence shows that the cavity wall insulation was started on 11 September 2023 and completed by 24 September 2024. Ultimately, the works started in line with the timescales stated and was appropriate.
In contrast, we have seen conflicting evidence on the status of the loft insulation and when it was carried out. The evidence shows this was not completed on 11 September 2023 and the scaffolding was removed on 27 September 2023. Instead, the landlord attended to this in April 2024, which was around 7 months since it said it would complete the repairs. This was inappropriate. The landlord failed to monitor the commitments it made in its final response. There has been no evidence provided when the landlord specified it completed the works in April 2024. The resident spent time and trouble chasing the landlord about this and it was not proactive in keeping her updated about the loft insulation. Her escalation email of August 2023 evidences she would have experienced distress having to go through another winter prior without insulation work completed.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management, which was published in May 2023 set outs several recommendations for landlords. One recommendation is for a landlord to develop organisational key data recording standard requirements, that will ensure good records that support the business and demonstrate compliance. It also sets out that failing to create and record information accurately results in landlord’s not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate. It also contributes to inadequate communication, and redress.
As such, record keeping is a core function of a repairs service. This is not only so that the landlord can provide information to us when requested, but also because this helps the landlord with its repair obligations. Record keeping enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents. The landlord’s failure to monitor works with the loft insulation demonstrates poor record keeping. A recommendation has been made for it to review the spotlight report.
The landlord also failed to monitor the repair and update the resident accordingly about the loft insulation, despite its stage 1 complaint response which said it would be clearer to the resident. This was unreasonable and further demonstrates it had not learnt from its findings in its stage 1 complaint response, as errors were being repeated.
The landlord also committed to the re-pointing of external brickwork on 13 September 2023. The evidence shows this was not started on this date, which was inappropriate. The contractors needed approval of the colour of the pointing samples, which was confirmed on 19 September 2023. The works were then completed by 22 September 2023. This meant there was a short delay of around 9 days. However, there is no evidence the resident was kept informed of the delays and the reason behind this. Therefore, this 9-day delay was unreasonable.
While the landlord identified learning from the complaint, which included better co-operation between its teams, there were still errors being repeated. It was not clear to the resident after its stage 2 complaint response about the loft insulation and re-pointing of the brickwork. The landlord had also not considered the time and trouble expended by the resident in pursuing the matter. Other than attempting to carry out the insulation upgrades, the landlord has not attempted to put things right. As such, we have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to address her concerns of the property’s condition. Orders have been made in this regard.
Under our guidance on remedies, consideration is given for, distress, time, and trouble caused to a resident by service failures. The guidance on remedies also considers the length of time the resident experienced detriment. We have considered the 7 months the resident experienced delays to the loft insulation. As well as the 9 days to the repointing of brickwork and the resident’s time spent chasing the landlord. For the combined delays, time and trouble expended, and the distress experienced, an award of £300 has been ordered. This is in line with our guidance on remedies.

Complaint handling

The landlord sent us its internal complaints procedure. This says it operates a 2-stage process. At stage 1 an ‘automatic’ acknowledgement is sent, and a response is provided in 10 working days. The landlord says it may extend this by a further 10 working days but would explain why. At stage 2 an automatic acknowledgement is sent then a response is provided in 20 working days. The landlord says it may extend this by a further 20 working days but would explain why.
We have seen evidence the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord on 14 March 2023, but this was not acknowledged until 18 May 2023. This meant 44-working days had elapsed since the resident submitted her complaint until it was acknowledged. This was unreasonable.
It is clear the resident expressed her dissatisfaction to the landlord with the time taken to acknowledge her complaint. The resident told the landlord it had refused to consider her complaint. The evidence shows the resident raised this complaint after receiving an email which said if she felt a formal complaint was needed, to provide further detail. The inaction by the landlord to log the complaint was therefore inappropriate as its policy says complaints would enter its formal process and will be passed to the relevant service manager for review. This did not happen until 18 May 2023 despite it prompting the resident to submit further detail. This prolonged the resident’s complaint journey and caused inconvenience.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint acknowledgement said it would respond in 15 working days with a deadline of 5 June 2023. However, this was 11 working days after acknowledging the complaint, not 15 working days. Even so, the landlord should have told the resident the reasons why it was taking longer than 10 working days, as stated in its policy. By not doing so, the landlord’s actions were inappropriate and delays to her complaint journey continued.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, it did apologise for not logging the resident’s complaint in March 2023. The landlord told the resident it was a human error. Despite this, at that stage there was no evidence besides acknowledging this error, it did anything to put things right for its complaint handling. This was unreasonable.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 8 August 2023, the landlord’s final response was not provided until 23 working days later. This was inappropriate as it was 3 working days outside the standard timescales it sets in its complaints policy. The resident referred to receiving a complaint acknowledgement. However, this has not been provided to us. Therefore, as there is no evidence we are unable to conclude that the landlord appropriately advised reasons why it would take longer than 20 working days to provide a response.
The landlord’s final response did not consider any delays at stage 2 of its internal complaint procedure, which was not appropriate. As the landlord has only acknowledged some delays prior to acknowledging the complaint at stage 1 of its process, it has not acknowledged all its failures identified above. It has also not attempted to put things right, considering the resident has experienced delays to her complaint journey, she has been inconvenienced and spent time, and trouble in pursuing the matter. There is no evidence the landlord has identified learning from its handling of the complaint either.
The combined failings by the landlord at stage 1 and stage 2 amount to maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. Orders have been made in this regard, which includes compensation to be paid to the resident. We have considered the initial 44-working day delay and no explanations for complaint responses which had taken longer than its policy states (total of 4 working days over). We have also considered the landlord failed to address the detriment caused, which includes the time and trouble, and inconvenience experienced by the resident. In line with our guidance on remedies, an award of £100 has been made for cases with this length of disruption to the resident’s complaint journey.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the following complaints are outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damage caused when conducting repairs, quality of works, and it not completing a snagging list.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of radiators not heating the property sufficiently.
In accordance with paragraph 52. of the Scheme, there was maladministration in:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to address her concerns of the property’s condition.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Apologise to the resident for its failings in:
  1. Mismanaging the resident’s expectations for the repairs required to address her concerns of the property’s condition. As well as the delays to the loft insulation upgrade.
  2. Complaint handling as identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £400 in compensation, comprised of:
  1. £300 for the distress caused and the time, and trouble expended by the resident in relation to insulation upgrades in the property.
  2. £100 for the time, trouble, and inconvenience experienced because of its complaint handling failings.
3. Conduct a case review and identify learning, with a view for repeat errors to not occur. The learnings are to be shared with us.
The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to us.

Recommendation

The landlord is also recommended to review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management (published in May 2023) to assist with its standards of record keeping.