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

Stockport Homes Limited (202330682)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330682

Stockport Homes Limited

17 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. Reports of repairs to the roof, including the required insulation.
    2. Reports of staff conduct.

Background

  1. The resident is a secured tenant of the property, a 2-bedroom house. He lives at the property with his partner and young children. The landlord is a local authority. The tenancy is managed on the landlord’s behalf by an arm’s length management organisation which, for the purposes of this report, will be referred to as “the landlord”.
  2. The resident’s property has a history of damp and mould repairs. On 2 December 2022 the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property and recorded there was no insulation in the eaves of the loft. Despite numerous visits to the resident’s property during 2023, the repair was not completed. On 31 August 2023 the landlord visited the property to complete a further inspection.
  3. On 8 September 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the behaviour of 2 of its staff members following a visit to his property. He also complained about a third member of staff who wrote to him “threatening” legal action. On 19 September 2023 the resident made a further complaint regarding delays to repairs of his roof.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response regarding staff conduct on 29 September 2023. It said that while it understood the situation may have been upsetting for the resident, there was no evidence of bullying or harassment, and it did not uphold his complaint. On 10 October 2023 the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response for the roof repairs and noted 1 urgent repair at the property had taken place within the last 12 months, which was carried out within 24 hours of the job being recorded.
  5. The resident escalated his complaints with the landlord on 1 and 11 October 2023. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023, which combined both complaint points. The landlord said:
    1. It had spoken to all of the staff members who were still employed by the landlord that were subject to the complaint. It was satisfied that in the main, the conduct of its staff was appropriate.
    2. In respect of some allegations, it was unable to come to a conclusion due to differing recollections of the events. It stated it recognised the distress caused an apologised.
    3. It acknowledged there had been delays to other aspects of roof works, such as ensuring the loft installation was evenly distributed into the eaves of the property and offered the resident £700 compensation.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought the complaint to us.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. We encourage residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues while they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
  2. In his correspondence with us, the resident has referred to the standard of roofing work carried in 2016. For the reasons outlined above, this matter is out of scope. This investigation will focus on the landlord’s actions between 8 September 2022 to 24 November 2023. This being the timeframe of 12 months prior to the original stage 1 complaint being made, through to when the landlord issued the stage 2 response. We consider this a fair timescale for both parties due to the passage of time and availability of evidence.
  3. The resident has referred a previous complaint to us regarding the landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property, which was subject to its own investigation and determined by us. In this case, we have not re-investigated the wider context within which the roof repairs were raised. The focus of this investigation is solely on the resident’s complaint that repairs identified by the landlord’s contractor had not been completed. This is the issue the landlord considered and addressed in its complaint responses of 10 October 2023 and 24 November 2023.

Repairs to the roof

  1. On 7 November 2022 the landlord raised a job to inspect the resident’s roof for defects and check the insulation in the loft. The landlord attended the property on 2 December 2022 and recorded loft needed insulation to be placed in the eaves and some slates on the roof needed to be renewed. The job was sent to a contractor on 15 August 2023.
  2. The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. The landlord’s repairs policy sets out the categories of repairs and the timescales in which it aims to complete them. The policy defines routine repairs as non-emergency repairs, which it aims to attend within 30 days.
  3. The landlord acted in line with its policy by completing the inspection within 30 days. The resident could have reasonably expected the repairs that followed the inspection to be completed by the beginning of January. This did not happen, and the landlord failed to send the job to its contractor until 8 months later. The landlord’s failure to allocate the job sooner was unreasonable and a deviation from its policy position.
  4. On 1 August 2023 the resident reported to the landlord a slate had slipped on his roof. The landlord attended the following day and completed the repairs. The landlord’s repairs policy states it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours and confirms loose / dangerous roof tiles are included in this category. The landlord’s action in relation to this repair were in line with its policy and appropriate.
  5. On 19 September 2023 the resident made his formal complaint to the landlord. He said that the landlord’s contractor attended his property on 4 September 2023 and reported on works that needed to be completed urgently, including installing loft installation into the eaves. He said the landlord had known about the situation with the loft insulation since November 2022 and he wanted the identified roofing works to be completed.
  6. The landlord has not provided evidence of a visit to the resident’s property on 4 September 2023. However, an inspection report from a visit to the resident’s property on 21 September 2023 confirmed the loft insulation still needed to be addressed.
  7. The landlord chased the job with its contractor on 29 November 2023. The contractor reported it was having problems arranging access and the resident had been asked to provide availability but had failed to do so. The landlord’s own records support it was also having difficulty arranging access with the resident for other repairs during this time. The landlord cannot be held responsible for delays caused by the resident not allowing access.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 response, dated 10 October 2023, acknowledged that a contractor visit to the property did place in September 2023, in which a number of repairs were recommended. The landlord said that none of the repairs were classed as urgent and it would review the report and schedule in any works needed. The landlord did not acknowledge the insulation repair from December 2022 was still outstanding.
  9. The resident escalated his complaint with the landlord the following day and said that despite numerous visits to confirm the insulation needed to be redistributed, the work had not been carried out. The landlord’s stage 2 response apologised for the delay caused and said its contractor would be returning to complete the works within the next 2 weeks. The landlord also offered the resident £700 compensation for the prolonged delays to the repair.
  10. The landlord’s compensation policy allows awards of £250 to £700 for significant service failures that have a long-term impact on the tenant. The landlord’s offer was at the top of this scale.
  11. In summary, while the landlord completed the urgent repair swiftly, it took too long to carry out repairs to the loft insulation. It was responsible for a delay of 8 months, before it passed the job to its contractor. The landlord’s records confirm this repair was successfully completed prior to January 2024.
  12. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, our role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In doing so we consider whether the redress was in accordance with our Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. 
  13. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which is available online, sets out awards of compensation between £100 and £600 are appropriate when there is evidence of maladministration by the landlord which adversely affected the resident. In this case, the delays in completing the repairs caused the resident distress and inconvenience, given his belief that the insufficient insulation may have contributed to damp and mould within the property.
  14. The landlord’s offer of £700 is more than the amount typically awarded by the Ombudsman for the failings identified. Therefore, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to put things right and as such, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which resolves the complaint. 

Staff conduct

  1. On 31 July 2023 a representative of the NHS contacted the landlord and requested the resident’s property was inspected as an emergency due to concerns of damp and mould. The landlord was already aware of the issues in the property. However, it contacted the resident the same day and 2 of its contractors attended that afternoon to complete an inspection.
  2. The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 August 2023. It stated he had refused 3 previous appointments for damp and mould works to take place as they were not convenient and refused to allow further work to take place on 31 July 2023 following the landlord’s visit. The landlord highlighted the terms of the resident’s tenancy agreement, including his obligation to allow the landlord access to carry out repairs.
  3. On 8 September 2023 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord that its staff were bullying him and causing him harassment. The resident said:
    1. The visit on 31 July 2023 took place with only a couple of hours’ notice.
    2. During the visit one of the staff members complained about his workload and told the resident’s partner he could do with a hug, when asked if he would like a bar of chocolate.
    3. He had received threats of legal action from the landlord which he described as harassing and he wanted the behaviour to stop.
  4. In its stage 1 complaint response, dated 29 September 2023, the landlord said it had been unable to speak with a staff member that was subject to the complaint as he had since left the organisation. The landlord also said:
    1. The visit to his property was conducted at short notice due to concerns raised by the NHS for the children living at the property. Its staff acted in line with the safeguarding training it provided.
    2. Multiple requests had been made to the resident to arrange appointments for works to take place, which had been refused. This had resulted in the landlord writing to the resident setting out his obligations under the tenancy agreement.
    3. It apologised for any upset caused to the resident. But stated the actions of its staff did not constitute bullying or harassment.
  5. The landlord’s records which were provided to us show the request made by the member of the NHS. It also shows the instances where repairs, in particular a mould wash, had been delayed due to difficulties in arranging access with the resident. Given the landlord’s obligations to maintain the structure and fixtures of the property, the content and tone of its correspondence with the resident were reasonable in the circumstances. However, it failed to acknowledge the resident had complained about comments made by a member of staff and it was unreasonable that it did not set out how it would investigate his concerns.
  6. The resident escalated his complaint on 1 October 2023. He said:
    1. The staff members who attended his property wore body worn cameras and he was not informed they would be recording. He said this was worrying as his children were in the property.
    2. The staff member who made an inappropriate comment to his partner was also “relishing in the fact that watches tenants leaving court crying”.
  7. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 24 November 2023 and apologised for any unintentional distress it may have caused. The landlord’s response addressed each complaint point as follows:
    1. The devices worn by the staff members who attended his address were to communicate with a call centre if needed and were not capable of recording images. The devices were not operated during the visit.
    2. The staff member alleged of making inappropriate comments had been spoken to. He recalled the conversations but said he did not make the comments alleged. The landlord said it was unable to corroborate the allegations but agreed the comments were inappropriate and it was sorry for any offence caused if the comments were made.
    3. It had reviewed all contact with the resident in the previous 12 months and advised there had been 33 reports of repairs which required visits for surveys and for the repairs to be completed. It apologised for any frustration caused due to the number of visits and said all visits were necessary.
    4. Following the resident’s refusal of the mould wash on 31 July 2023, the staff member felt it was necessary to make a safeguarding referral. This decision was based upon the concerns of the NHS representative and the previous difficulties the landlord had encountered in arranging the repair. The landlord accepted that with hindsight, the matter could have been dealt with by liaising with the family’s health visitor. However, the staff member felt it was necessary at the time.
    5. The landlord also reiterated the points made in its stage 1 response.
  8. The landlord was satisfied there had been no service failure in the actions of its staff and its evidence supported this. The stage 2 response did not offer the resident compensation for this aspect of his complaint. The landlord’s compensation procedure states it will only award compensation when there has been an identifiable service failure and suggests awards between £10 and £50 may be appropriate for minor issues such as failures in communication. Given the landlord’s failure to address all aspects of the resident’s complaint at stage 1, it would have been reasonable for it to offer compensation in these circumstances to put things right for the resident.
  9. The landlord demonstrate it had taken reasonable and appropriate actions to address the remaining points of the complaint. And when it was unable to form a conclusion based on conflicting evidence, it offered further apologies for any upset that may have been caused to the resident. This was reasonable. However, landlord failed to address an element of the complaint in its stage 1 response and acknowledge this failure at stage 2. This caused the resident further time and trouble in escalating his complaint and was unreasonable.
  10. This leads to a determination of service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct. An order has been made for the landlord to pay £50 compensation to the resident for the time and trouble caused.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of repairs to the roof.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of reports of staff conduct.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay directly to the resident £50 compensation for its failings in handling reports of staff conduct.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the sum of £700 compensation awarded as part of its complaints process for delays to repairs if it has not already done so.