Stroud District Council (202223015)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223015

Stroud District Council

23 November 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of planned works and repairs to the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. The property is a ground floor flat. The landlord has advised that it has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident’s household but the resident has reported that her child has asthma which is impacted by damp conditions.
The landlord has advised this Service that a contracted group were initially instructed to schedule a programme of works for the 2021/22 financial year on 14 April 2021. The works included cavity wall insulation, roof replacements, constructing a retaining wall, renewing downpipes and rainwater goods and replacing the fascias and soffits for the resident’s property and a number of properties in the vicinity. It has advised that the works ran over into the 2022 to 2023 financial year. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to when the works began or were completed. However, it has advised that the completed works were handed over in June 2022.

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the landlord and this Service, the resident has expressed concern that the landlord’s handling of the works impacted her wellbeing and her family’s health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
In her communication with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her property, the length of time the property was without adequate insulation and her increased energy usage as a result. As these issues did not form part of the resident’s formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can adjudicate on at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident to gain a further understanding of her concerns and to address these issues as a separate complaint. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
Under Paragraph 42(j) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaints-handling body. In her communication with this Service, the resident has raised specific concerns about her current banding and request to be moved from the property. The Housing Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which relate to applications for re-housing specifically made to the landlord in its role as a local authority. Complaints about the assessment of such applications, and the award of points or banding, are more likely to be considered by the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO).
As part of her complaint to the landlord, the resident also raised concern about a defective TV aerial and the charges she had paid towards this. She has advised the Ombudsman that this matter has been resolved and that she has been compensated for the charges she had paid. As such, this report will make no reference to the TV aerial and will not consider the landlord’s handling of this matter at the resident’s request.
For completeness, the Ombudsman has considered events following the landlord’s final response to the resident on 31 October 2022 as the substantive issues had not yet been resolved at this point.

Summary of events

Events prior to the resident’s formal complaint

The landlord’s repair records for the property show that a work order was raised on 20 May 2020 as a door for the resident’s external meter cupboard was required. A note from 9 July 2020 stated that a new meter box was needed, not just the door. A work order was raised to refix the meter cupboard to the wall on 29 September 2020. A note from 27 October 2020 suggests that the energy distribution company would be responsible for replacing the meter cupboard and the resident was advised to contact the energy distribution company on 19 March 2021.
The resident reported that the fence between her and her neighbour’s garden was broken on 6 November 2021. She added that her neighbour had removed ivy on their side and that the fence was leaning into her garden. The landlord initially advised that it would not usually repair boundary fences between properties and the resident confirmed that the fence had been installed by it. The landlord asked the resident to provide photos at the time and advised that if this was a boundary fence between properties, it would not replace it. The landlord’s records show that the resident sent photos, although it remains unclear as to what happened following this.
The landlord has not provided evidence detailing relevant communication between itself and the resident in the period before her complaint. However, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that she communicated with the external contract manager overseeing the planned works as well as members of the landlord’s staff regarding the issues she experienced.

The resident’s complaint

The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 24 August 2022 about ongoing planned works at the property. She explained the following:
1. She had not had a good experience since the beginning of the works. The external roofing contractors had been inconsiderate and rude to residents. They had also started work at 7:30am at weekends, had blocked residents’ cars and not tidied up after themselves.
2. The external contractor who oversaw the works had allowed workmen to behave in this way and to complete poor quality work. Despite raising concerns and repair issues to the external contractor, they had not addressed them and constantly told residents that they did not want to be there.
3. She had made the contractor aware of holes in the roof felt caused by the roofers but the contractor had allowed the workers to continue and finish without correcting the work.
4. Her porch had not been raised as agreed and the weight of new tiles were not taken into consideration. Contractors had also failed to replace rotten beams of wood on the inside of the porch which had caused the roof to drop. She also had a qualified roofer attend who said that the porch measured 20mm out over 6ft.
5. Her windows and doors were not fitted properly due to the proximity of the scaffolding to the building, but this had not been addressed. Her back door would not lock and despite multiple conversations with the contractor, she had been unable to lock the door for 6 months and had needed to go on holiday, leaving her property unsecured and her insurance void.
6. The scaffolders had broken a vent on her son’s bedroom window as well as parts of the new guttering and downpipes. They had also advised that some of the drainpipes were not fitted correctly and were running the wrong way. The scaffolding had also ruined her lawn.
7. The work to seal the windows was to a poor quality with large “blobs” of grey sealant around the windows. The contractors had begun to use clear sealant when they ran out of grey. There were also no safety catches on the windows which she believed breached safety regulations.
8. A carpenter had been instructed twice to fix 2 fences at the rear of the property which had not been completed.
9. A communal bin store had been built but bins had not been provided and the refuse collectors had refused to collect rubbish until the correct bins were in place.
10. The car park had a small area of tarmac laid but no further work. There were raised iron works (drains) around the car park that had been left. They did not know when this would be completed or where to park cars in the meantime.
11. She had been promised a new box for her meter cupboard that had been broken but this had not been completed.
12. The circumstances and the works had caused significant stress for her family and other residents. She was dissatisfied with the length of time works had taken, noting that this work was initially supposed to take 2 months but had now taken 9.
13. She felt that the poor quality work had ruined her home and she no longer wished to live in the property. She had initially intended to buy the property, but she no longer had any intention to do so.
14. She said that the landlord and its contractors had ignored her concerns and issues she had reported. It had also failed to communicate about what was happening and there was a lack of commitment from the contractors to rectify poor quality work. She wanted the work to be taken from the external contractors and allocated to appropriate professionals.
15. She highlighted that an operative who attended the previous day really listened to her concerns and had photos of the substandard work.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 25 August 2022 and said that it would respond within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 22 September 2022 and explained the following:
1. Following a visit to the property on 16 September 2022, it was evident that works carried out did not meet the required standard. It apologised for the lack of communication during the works and the sub-standard quality of the work undertaken. It upheld the resident’s complaint.
2. It confirmed that a staff member had been assigned to oversee the works and would be arranging to meet with the contractor to discuss the repairs. Following this, they would contact the resident to discuss the outstanding works and the timeline for the way forward.
3. It appreciated the distress caused to the resident and apologised that the works had yet to be completed.
4. It had discussed the resident’s concerns with its bin contractor to ensure that bins were emptied on a weekly rota until the new store was in place.
5. It acknowledged that there had been a failing in monitoring the planned works on the estate and apologised. It had recommended that, in future, all works were monitored on a regular basis. It also established that communication with residents was paramount to ensure that it understood concerns and issues that its tenants were experiencing.
6. It confirmed that the resident could escalate her complaint to stage 2 should she remain dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 September 2022 and asked that her complaint be escalated to stage 2. She said that she had not been provided with any new information or timelines for the work. The workmen had been allowed to attend and produce poor standards of work and the communication issues needed to be addressed.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 30 September 2022 and confirmed that it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 27 October 2022 and expressed dissatisfaction that she had not yet had a response to her complaint following a previous agreement for the response timeline to be extended.
The landlord responded the following day and apologised that it was unable to respond to the resident’s complaint that day as agreed. It said it had discussed the work with the contractors who had agreed to provide a timeline for the works to be completed. The contractors were due to provide this information on 27 October 2022 but had not done so. This had been chased with the contractors at director level. It confirmed that it would provide its response on 31 October 2022, regardless of the whether it received a response from its contractors.
The resident responded on 28 October 2022 and said that the contractors had turned up unannounced that day and she was dissatisfied that no prior appointment had been made. The landlord apologised that contractors had turned up without an appointment and informed the resident that the external contractor responsible for overseeing the works had left the contracted company and new management was now in place.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 31 October 2022 and explained the following:
1. Its contractor had attended the previous week and said they would provide a timeline for the completion of the works on 28 October 2022. This did not happen.
2. It fully upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised for the lack of communication or action regarding the works. It also apologised for the poor attitude of its contractors.
3. It was due to have a contractual meeting with the contractors on 1 November 2022 where it would discuss their actions on the estate moving forward. Should it not receive satisfactory answers and a timeline for the completion of works, it planned to commission another contractor.
4. It apologised that this would involve additional time and confirmed that it would be in touch to discuss the outcome of the meeting.
5. The landlord said that this was its final response and that the resident may approach a Designated Person or the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident emailed the landlord on 31 October 2022. She remained dissatisfied with the lengthy process of needing to contact and chase staff to do the work and that despite getting to stage 2 of the complaints process, she knew nothing further regarding the works.

Events following the complaint

The landlord has advised this Service that a site visit took place on 8 November 2022 with its own staff and the external contractors. It said that it informed the resident that the porch did not form part of the original scope of works and it had found no issues with the level of the porch during the visit. It confirmed that there were signs of deterioration to the wooden beams but as this did not form part of the external contractor’s scope of works, it would need to be addressed by its repairs service.
On 11 November 2022, the landlord advised the resident that an external contractor would attend on 18 November 2022 to install the window restrictors. The resident advised that no one would be home and the appointment was rearranged to 22 November 2022.
The resident reported damp and black mould in her property as well as a draught in her kitchen on 17 and 22 November 2022. An appointment was arranged for an inspection on 1 December 2022. She advised that her neighbours were also experiencing mould in their properties and that her son had asthma which was impacted by damp and mould.
The landlord contacted the resident on 28 November 2022 and noted her dissatisfaction that she had not yet been provided with a timeline for works, that there was black mould in her bathroom and that she felt ignored by its contractors. It explained that it would visit the resident on 1 December 2022 to inspect the mould. It also attached its previous stage 2 complaint response and confirmed that the resident could approach a Designated Person or the Ombudsman if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident responded on the same day and confirmed that she remained dissatisfied as she had not been told anything about the works. She maintained that her home was in a worse condition than before the works started and she wanted to move. She was dissatisfied that the process had been dragged out and was seeking compensation for her time and trouble and for the stress and upset caused.
The landlord has advised this Service that roofers reattended the property on 2 December 2022 to rectify the reported holes in the roof felt. This was reported as completed.
On 16 December 2022, the landlord and the resident communicated regarding the repair issues:
1. The resident pursued an update as she had not heard anything further and was dissatisfied with the lack of communication.
2. The landlord explained that following a meeting on 2 December 2022, it had sent an email to all concerned regarding the site manager being away and that they would pick up the outstanding works on their return. It confirmed that the site manager had now returned. It had arranged for the external contractors to address leaking gutters and the roof details that were causing issues. These had now been completed.
3. A number of new issues had arisen that neither it nor the contractors had been aware of, such as promises made to tenants. It had no records to help it establish any agreement regarding works residents had said they were promised and it had received reports of condensation, damp and mould, water ingress or some sort of leak in each flat.
4. It had asked for an update on all completed works from its external contractors but recent adverse weather conditions had prevented external works being completed.
5. The resident maintained that no one had attended to the gutters or roof detailing work. She added that her kitchen was freezing despite her radiator being on and that the mould in her bathroom was spreading. She remained dissatisfied at the lack of communication.
6. The landlord confirmed that the contractors had provided a weekly site report and had stated that they had attended to some repairs on the gutters but not managed to complete this. The external contractors were also struggling to arrange roofers to attend regarding insulation. They had apologised for not being able to address the outstanding works. It would push for as much work as possible to be addressed in the next week but would escalate the matter with its external contractors to ensure it received a better service in the new year.
7. It said that the damp and mould in the property and condensation was not due to the windows or the installation but due to the humidity in the flat. It believed that the damp had been diagnosed and it would liaise internally. It apologised that the works had not been resolved.
The resident sent several emails to the landlord on 29 December 2022. She had not heard anything further regarding repairs. She raised concern about new areas of mould and rising damp within her son’s bedroom. She added that her son was becoming poorly as he had asthma. She was concerned as she had been shown photos of a lack of insulation in the cavity of the flat and expressed dissatisfaction that the new insulation was not installed as agreed. She remained unhappy with the landlord’s lack of communication and confirmed that she would be approaching this Service. She said that she was seeking compensation for costs associated with heating the property and wanted the carpet and underlay in her son’s room to be replaced due to the landlord’s delays.
The resident’s local councillor responded and advised that the landlord operated with fewer staff between Christmas and new year. They said that the resident was unlikely to receive a response until 3 January 2023 and confirmed that they would chase works on the resident’s behalf.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 January 2023 as she was distressed at the lack of communication regarding works.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord contacted the resident and confirmed that it had visited the site and sent videos and photos of the gutter leak to its external contractors. It confirmed that its contractors would reattend to carry out repairs and that as the work was external, no appointment would be booked. It had also received a number of reports of condensation, damp and mould in the properties and it was investigating as to whether any cavity wall insulation had been installed by its contractors. It had instructed a separate external company to complete a full survey with the intention to carry out works. It said that appointments may not be required as there was a void property on the scheme.
On 7 January 2023, the resident asked that the insulation of all the properties was checked and not just the property that was currently void as the void property was at one end of the block and she was on the other end. She wanted her flat to be inspected properly.
On 11 January 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the porch was beginning to leak from underneath and the damp was spreading. The evidence suggests that the resident had provided video evidence of the issues. The landlord responded on 12 January 2023 and confirmed that it had passed video evidence to its external contractors to address.
The resident responded on 12 January 2023 to advise that no one from the external contractors had been on site. She suggested that the work needed to be given to another contractor to complete due to the timescales involved.
On the same day, the landlord confirmed that the external contractors were sourcing a subcontractor to correct the issues with the roof, gutters, fence post and bin rail. It noted that the contractors had also agreed to investigate and rectify the porch and that the resident had said that she did not want to have anything to do with the external contractors due to the upset caused. It confirmed that as the works were all external, the resident would not need to engage with the contractor. It added that the works to the rear fence would be accessed through the neighbouring property.
The landlord’s repair records show that work to apply a mould wash treatment in the resident’s bathroom was completed on 12 January 2023.
The landlord contacted the resident on 27 January 2023 and said that it was waiting to hear from the external contractors regarding their proposal to return to the site and complete the cavity insulation works following a recent survey. The resident raised concern about holes that had not been filled during the inspection and the landlord confirmed that it would arrange for these to be rectified.
On 30 January 2023, the landlord informed the resident that contractors would be attending the following day to complete cavity wall insulation works.
The resident initially referred her complaint to this Service in January 2023 as the issues had not been rectified and she had not received a timeline for works. Problems involving the insulation had been identified and she was continuing to experience damp and mould in the property which was impacting her son’s health.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 February 2023 and asked for a timeline for completion on all the works remaining. She expressed dissatisfaction that this formed part of her complaint in August 2022 and had not been resolved.
The landlord responded on 3 February 2023 and attached a list of works that had been completed. The Ombudsman has not seen a copy of this communication. However, the landlord has advised this Service that the completed works included fence posts, handrail fixing, front elevation roof works, gutter snags, and cavity wall insulation works.
On 15 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when her fence would be repaired to an appropriate standard. She said that this was her second email regarding the issue and she had not received a response. The landlord’s contractor responded on the same day and said that they were awaiting on instruction to complete the work. They would then arrange an appointment date.
The resident contacted the landlord on 13 March 2023 to ask when the roof and fence would be completed and corrected. The landlord responded and confirmed that it believed that all the roof and guttering issues had been rectified. Contractors would be attending to carry out pointing works and address the fence post at the same time. These works were waiting for the weather to improve and could now be programmed.
The landlord has advised this Service that work to replace 2 external vent covers to the front wall of the house was completed on 24 March 2023.
On 30 March 2023, the resident asked why workmen had climbed over her fence to access the back of her property. The landlord responded and said that it had informed her that when the weather cleared up its contractors would be reattending to the final works and completing the fence repair. It had attempted to call the resident that day. It had instructed the contractors to complete works at all properties, apart from the balcony above the resident’s property and the fencing (as the only form of access was through the resident’s garden). It expected works to be completed by the end of the week.
On 30 March 2023, the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the work carried out to fill holes following cavity insulation work. She also asked about progress regarding the fence repair. The landlord arranged for the fence to be attended on 6 April 2023.
On 31 March 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that access would be required via her garden on 6 April 2023 to complete works to the balcony above. It confirmed that the work to the resident’s fence would be carried out by its internal contractors. On 6 April 2023, the external contractors emailed the resident to advise that they were unable to attend due to unforeseen circumstances and the appointment would be rearranged. They apologised for any inconvenience caused
On 20 May 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to ask when her front porch would be rectified and the balcony of the flat above would be re-pointed. She said that appointments were cancelled and she had not had any updates. She said that she now had ongoing issues with her back door which was difficult to open.
The contractors messaged the resident on 22 May 2023 to ask if she was available the following day to look at the back door. The resident was unavailable and the contractors asked for her availability. On 23 May 2023, the resident informed the contractors that she would be on holiday for 2 weeks and the issue would need to wait for her return.
The landlord has told this Service that work to the resident’s fence was completed on 31 May 2023 by its internal repairs team.
On 11 June 2023, the resident confirmed to the contractors that she or her partner could be available on Tuesdays and Thursdays and asked for an expected timescale for her back door. An appointment was arranged for 13 June 2023. The landlord has advised this Service that the external contractors had rectified the issues on this visit.
In August 2023, the resident advised this Service that that works remained outstanding and that she was seeking an apology, the work to be completed by a competent contractor, compensation for her time and trouble and the stress caused, to be re-banded so that she was able to move from the property, the guttering to be checked and corrected, her porch to be levelled and the rotten wood to be replaced, and the damp and mould to be rectified. She remained dissatisfied that she was told that the issues would be rectified within 6 months but this had not happened.
On 7 August 2023, a work order was raised to inspect the guttering at the resident’s property. Operatives attended to inspect the guttering on 31 August 2023 and found that the rear guttering and downpipes needed realigning and the guttering was too close to the tiles so was not catching water sufficiently. There was also no extension at the gable end, meaning that water ran off. This work was passed back to the external contractors as a defect.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 September 2023 and expressed dissatisfaction with the ongoing lack of communication. She said that only the back of her property had been looked at whereas the front and her porch remained an issue (with water coming in under the porch roof), the downpipe had not been sorted and the end of the guttering needed extending as per previous recommendations.
The landlord responded on 15 September 2023 and said that the works were completed by its contractors over a year ago, meaning that the issues were defects which needed to be picked up. It had asked its external contractors to provide photos of the gutters at the front to confirm that they fell short. The other issues would fall under its internal repairs service and not the external contractors as they had not been instructed to carry out works to the resident’s porch. On the same day, the landlord advised the resident that the external contractors had addressed the guttering issues on a previous recall to the scheme.
The landlord’s records show that it had been informed that the external contractors had attended the property to inspect the gutters prior to 28 September 2023 and had ordered parts.
In her communication with this Service in October 2023, the resident advised that the repair issues raised in her complaint remained unresolved, including works to her porch, her windows and doors, the provision of bins for the communal bin store and covers for the electrical boxes. She said that the guttering had been replaced but this was ineffective as it was too far away from the building. She added that she had experienced mould and damp in her son’s room which was caused by a lack of cavity wall insulation which was rectified a few months prior.
In its communication to this Service in November 2023, the landlord advised:
1. Works to raise and level the porch did not form part of its external contractors’ scope of works and the issues had not been reported to its internal repairs service.
2. The resident had not reported issues with a vent outside her son’s bedroom, the cover for her external electrical box or damp and mould in her son’s bedroom.
3. The guttering issues had been accepted as completed on 15 September 2023.
4. The resident’s concerns that her windows and doors were not installed correctly had not been reported to the landlord. It had not been advised of further issues since its external contractors attended on 13 June 2023.
5. The bins for the bin store had been ordered but had not yet been delivered. It confirmed that these were due to be delivered by 10 November 2023.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the property. Its website confirms that this includes the roof, walls, floors, gutters and drains, door and window frame furniture.
The landlord’s repairs policy confirms that it is responsible for repairs to external timber elements and porches. The policy provides target completion timescales for repairs:
1. Emergency repairs should be attended to within 24 hours and made safe. A non emergency repair may then be required to complete works at a later date.
2. Non-emergency (routine) repairs should be completed within 28 working days of the issue being reported. The landlord may need to complete an inspection to establish the nature of the work required and this would be completed within 5 working days.
The landlord’s repairs handbook states that:
1. It would carry out a series of planned maintenance programmes each year. Depending on the type of work, it would need access to properties from Monday to Friday between 8am to 5pm. If it needed access outside of these times, it would agree this with residents.
2. It would ensure that works were inspected once they had been completed. Any issues with the quality or standard of work arising from these inspections, or where a tenant has recorded dissatisfaction with the contractor’s procedures and conduct, would be referred to the relevant officer for investigation. It would ensure that any necessary remedial work is carried out within a mutually agreed timescale.
The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints policy. It aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. Its complaints policy states that where a response timescale cannot be met, it would keep the resident informed of the process and updated on when they can expect to receive a response. It states that any further action or lessons learned will be followed through and monitored as part of the service’s performance management arrangements.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider offering compensation to residents for distress caused as a result of repair issues over a considerable timeframe.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s property and planned works

The landlord initially acknowledged that, following a visit to the property on 16 September 2022, the planned works carried out did not meet the required standard. It also acknowledged that there had been a lack of communication during the works and that it had failed to monitor them. It later acknowledged continued poor communication and the poor attitude of its contractors. The landlord acted fairly by apologising to the resident for these failings within its complaint responses but it did not offer suitable redress to her given the extent of the identified failings.
As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide documents, correspondence, and any other evidence relevant to the resident’s complaint. Only some information was received, which did not include significant items such as contemporaneous information regarding the planned works, details of when individual elements of the planned works were completed, inspection or site reports, or communication with the resident prior to her formal complaint in August 2022.
In this case, the Ombudsman has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. In its communication with this Service in November 2023, the landlord advised that it was not able to provide a timeline of the works or the completion dates. It added that it was reliant on the external contractors to offer this information; it said it had asked them to provide this information and would seek to pass this on if it was able. Despite referring to weekly site reports being provided by its external contractors, the landlord has not provided these to this Service for review.
These omissions indicate poor knowledge and information management by the landlord in how it monitors and records planned works where third party contractors are involved. The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs 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, that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures, or how it satisfied itself that works had been completed to an appropriate standard.
The lack of available evidence has limited the Ombudsman’s investigation of the events leading to the resident’s complaint in August 2022, including her concerns about the conduct of external operatives. This will be addressed as part of the landlord’s complaint handling below.
In the resident’s initial complaint in August 2022, she raised specific concerns about holes in the roof felt, her porch, her windows and doors, a broken vent, broken gutters and drainpipes, fencing, the bin store and her meter cupboard box amongst other issues. It is clear that despite raising these issues, not all of her repair concerns were addressed in full and some remain outstanding at the time of this investigation.

Holes in the roof felt

In her complaint of 24 August 2022, the resident raised concern that she had made the external contractors aware of holes in the roof felt but the work had been allowed to continue without the holes being rectified. The landlord has advised this Service that roofers reattended the property on 2 December 2022 to rectify the holes in the felt which was reported as completed.
While the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinions of its contractors when determining whether a repair issue has been resolved, it has not provided records of the findings during the visit or explained the nature of the repairs that were required or undertaken. It therefore remains unclear from the evidence provided as to how the landlord satisfied itself that the work had been completed.
In addition, there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was informed of the outcome or that the work had been completed, despite raising this specifically within her complaint – this was likely to have caused inconvenience and uncertainty to her. It is clear that the resident believes this work remains outstanding. Given the lack of documentary evidence showing that the issues had been rectified, an order has been made below for the landlord to inspect the roofing felt to ensure that this has been resolved.

Windows and doors

The resident reported issues with her windows and doors in her complaint in August 2022. She said that they had not been fitted properly, due to the proximity of the scaffolding during the works, and that the work to the sealant of the windows was of a poor quality. She also advised that there were no safety catches on the windows.
The landlord’s records show that the window restrictors were installed on 22 November 2022, 3 months following the complaint. There is a lack of evidence to suggest that the resident’s reports regarding her windows being fitted incorrectly, or the quality of the work to seal the windows, had been investigated. There is no further evidence that the landlord confirmed whether works were required despite acknowledging in its complaints responses that the works as a whole were to a sub-standard quality.
It is of concern that the landlord advised the Ombudsman in November 2023 that the resident’s concerns that her windows and doors were not installed correctly and were not level had not been reported. While the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident had sought a specific update on her windows and doors following the complaint, she regularly asked the landlord to provide a timeline of works. As she had raised these issues directly with the landlord as part of the complaint, the Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that this issue was monitored through to completion. The landlord’s failure to do so or to confirm its position was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who maintains that the issues remain outstanding.
In relation to the back door, it is noted that the resident raised specific concerns in May 2023 (following the complaint) that this was difficult to open. This was reportedly resolved following an appointment on 13 June 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence to suggest that the resident had reported issues with her back door directly to the landlord following this, and it was reasonable for the landlord to assume that the issue had been resolved. It is noted that the resident has advised that these issues remain outstanding and this has been taken into consideration within the orders made below.

Vent to son’s room

In its communication with the Ombudsman in November 2023, the landlord advised that the resident had not reported an issue with the vent outside her son’s bedroom. However, the resident had reported that scaffolders had broken a vent on her son’s bedroom window within her complaint in August 2022 and there is no further evidence to suggest that this was specifically addressed by the landlord. While some works to replace external vent covers on the front external wall of the property were reportedly completed in March 2023, this work appears to relate to separate concerns the resident had raised regarding her kitchen being cold and damp. It remains unclear as to whether this included the vent to the resident’s son’s bedroom.
The resident has advised this Service that she did not know whether this work had been completed but that the vent cover “flapped” and made noise. She added that she had needed to fill the vent with newspaper to block the noise. It is unclear as to whether this specific issue has been reported to the landlord, but this has been addressed in the orders and recommendations section below in order to progress a resolution.

Fencing

In line with the resident’s tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs handbook, fencing between gardens would usually be the resident’s responsibility to maintain. Despite this, the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s records show that it had accepted responsibility for the repair. As such, the Ombudsman would have expected the issues to have been resolved within a reasonable timeframe.
It is noted that the resident had initially reported a broken fence in November 2021. In her complaint in August 2022, the resident said that a carpenter had been instructed on 2 occasions to fix 2 fences but that they had not completed the work. Following this, the landlord advised that the repairs were completed by its internal repairs service on 31 May 2023.
The delay in completing the fencing repairs was significant. The landlord’s internal records suggest that it had experienced difficulty accessing the resident’s property as she did not want the external contractors to complete the work (due to her overall experience). The landlord has not provided evidence of the attempts it had made to complete the work and the Ombudsman is unable to conclude that the delay was reasonable and outside of its control.
Ultimately, once it accepted responsibility, this work should have been completed in line with the landlord’s routine repair timescale of 28 working days. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to why the work was passed to its external contractors given that this did not form part of the list of planned works provided. The overall delay was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who spent additional time and trouble pursuing the repair.

Bin store

As part of her complaint, the resident raised concern that a communal bin store had been built but that bins had not been provided and the refuse collectors had refused to collect rubbish until the correct bins were in place. The landlord acted reasonably within its stage 1 complaint response by confirming that it had instructed its refuse contractor to empty bins on a weekly rota until the new bins were in place.
The evidence provided shows that the bins had not yet been delivered as of 1 November 2023. While the landlord has advised this Service that it expected the bins to be delivered by 10 November 2023, this was an extensive and unreasonable delay of over a year and demonstrates that the landlord had failed to act on the concerns raised by the resident in her complaint.
The resident has advised this Service that she needed to pay for a wheelie bin to be delivered to her property in order to store rubbish as a result of the landlord failing to provide adequate refuse storage; this was likely to have exacerbated the inconvenience caused to her by the failings with the wider planned works.

Meter cupboard boxing

The resident had initially raised concerns about a damaged meter cupboard box in May 2020. It was established that a new meter box was required and the resident was told to contact the energy distribution company on 19 March 2021. In her communication with this Service, the resident has said that she had contacted the energy distribution company but they advised that this would be the landlord’s responsibility to repair.
Within her complaint, the resident raised concern that she had been promised a new box for her meter cupboard (which had been broken) as part of the planned works but this had not been completed. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident was promised this. However, the landlord’s communication with the resident on 16 December 2022 noted that it did not have records to help it establish any agreement regarding works that residents had said they were promised.
The Ombudsman would have expected to see evidence that the landlord had confirmed its position to the resident regarding her request for a repair or replacement but it failed to do so. It is of concern that that the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the resident had not reported issues with the cover for her external electrical box despite clear evidence to show that this issue had been raised with it through the complaints process.

Porch

The landlord has advised that the resident’s porch did not form part of the external contractors’ planned programme of works. However, the resident had reported that new tiles were placed on the porch roof as part of the planned works. In any case, under the terms of the tenancy agreement and repairs handbook, the landlord would be responsible for carrying out repairs to external porches where required.
In her complaint of August 2022, the resident advised that her porch had not been raised as agreed, the weight of the newly placed tiles had not been taken into consideration and the rotten beams had not been replaced (which had led to the roof dropping). She also had a qualified roofer attend who confirmed that there were problems with the porch.
The landlord acted appropriately by arranging a site visit on 8 November 2022 following the resident’s reports. It has advised the Ombudsman that it found no issues with the level of the porch during the visit but identified that the wooden beams had deteriorated. It further advised that this did not form part of the external contractors’ scope of works but would need to be addressed by its repairs service. It is inappropriate that there is no evidence to suggest that the landlord had raised the repair with its internal repairs service at this time.
Following the complaint, the resident advised the landlord on 11 January 2023 that her porch was beginning to leak and damp was spreading. The landlord advised that it had forwarded the issues to the external contractor to address. It remains unclear as to why the work was passed to the external contractor if the porch did not form part of the scope of works that they were responsible for. This suggests that the landlord’s staff did not have a clear understanding of which works fell under its internal repairs service responsibility and which fell under the responsibility of the external contractors. Ultimately, the landlord confirmed to the resident that the external contractors had agreed to investigate and rectify the porch issues on 12 January 2023. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence detailing what happened following this, although it is evident that works did not progress.
The resident continued to spend time and trouble pursuing an update on 20 May 2023 and 14 September 2023 as the issue remained unresolved. The landlord responded on 15 September 2023 to confirm again that the porch did not form part of its external contractors’ scope of works but would fall under its internal repairs service’s responsibility. There is no evidence to suggest that works were raised or that the landlord had sought to resolve the issues internally despite members of the landlord’s staff being included in the email.
The landlord was asked by the Ombudsman in October 2023 to provide its position regarding the works required to resolve the reported porch issues. It responded to advise that, despite informing the resident that the issues did not form part of its external contractors’ scope of works and that this needed to be reported to its internal repairs team, the resident had never reported the issue to the latter.
This response was inadequate and showed a lack of ownership of the repair issues the landlord was responsible for resolving. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the resident was told she would need to report this separately to the landlord’s repairs team. The resident would understandably have considered that the landlord was on notice of the required repairs by reporting them to staff members within a department that was responsible for asset management. It was unreasonable of the landlord to place so much onus on the resident to repeat her reports to colleagues within its organisation.
The landlord made no attempt to use internal communications to log the resident’s repairs reports. This meant that the landlord missed opportunities to progress the porch repairs, leading to an unreasonable delay of approximately 15 months and significant time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns.

Guttering

The resident raised concern in August 2022 that scaffolders had broken parts of the new guttering and downpipes and that the drainpipes were not fitted correctly. The landlord acted appropriately by acknowledging that works were to a substandard quality in its response to her.
The landlord informed the resident on 16 December 2022 that it had asked the external contractors to address the issues with the leaking gutters and roof and that the works had been completed. This was ultimately not the case and it explained on the same day that the external contractors had carried out some works but had not been able to complete these. This indicates that there was some internal confusion about what works had been completed and what works remained outstanding.
It is noted that external repairs to a property can be weather dependent as works to a roof and guttering would not be safe to complete during periods of rain or high wind. This would be outside the control of the landlord and its contractors. However, the Ombudsman would have expected to see clear evidence that the landlord communicated target completion dates to the resident in order to manage her expectations. The lack of communication was likely to have caused uncertainty to her.
The landlord advised the resident on 3 February 2023 that multiple works, including the roof and guttering, had been completed. It is evident that this was not the case and the resident continued to spend time and trouble pursuing a repair. While the landlord said that it believed the work had been completed, it remains unclear as to what evidence it relied upon when reaching this conclusion. Given that it had previously identified poor quality works, the Ombudsman would have expected to see clear records that the landlord had checked the further works to confirm that these had been completed to a suitable standard. Its failure to provide information to suggest it did so indicates that it did not adequately monitor the repairs at this stage.
In addition, despite the resident asking when the repairs would be completed, the landlord maintained that it had been told the works were resolved and failed to evidence that it had visited the property in March 2023 to check this was the case. The guttering was not inspected until August 2023 when the landlord found that the rear guttering and downpipes needed realigning and the guttering was too close to the tiles so was not catching water sufficiently. There was also no extension at the gable end, meaning that water ran off.
It is noted that the work was passed back to the external contractors as a defect, which was appropriate, but there is again a lack of evidence to confirm whether these issues were rectified. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 15 September 2023 that this was resolved as part of a previous recall to the property. However, it has not provided the evidence it relied upon when asserting this such as the specific works that were carried out and the date of these works.
In its communication with this Service in November 2023, the landlord advised that the guttering was signed off as completed on 15 September 2023. However, it also provided internal records showing that it had been informed that the external contractors had attended the property prior to 28 September 2023 and ordered parts. It remains unclear as to when the visit took place and whether, or when, works were carried out. The resident maintains that the issues identified on 31 August 2023 remain outstanding.
While many of these events occurred following the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, it is clear that the works to the guttering were reported at the time of the complaint and not effectively monitored through to completion. The landlord advised that it had been told works had been completed on a number of occasions, but there is a lack of evidence to confirm how it satisfied itself that this was the case. This led to unreasonable delays and additional time and trouble being spent by the resident in pursuing her concerns.

Communication

It is evident from the records provided that the resident spent significant time and trouble pursuing information regarding the repair issues. She had asked the landlord to provide information about the expected completion dates for works on a number of occasions. While the landlord evidently informed the resident when repairs had been reported as completed by its contractors, on a number of occasions this was found to be incorrect and further works were found to be required.
Third party contractors directly appointed by landlords to discharge their duties are considered by the Ombudsman to be an extension of the landlord itself, and as such we would expect landlords to monitor performance and take appropriate action to address poor performance as if the service was ‘in house’. The landlord acted fairly by acknowledging that it had not monitored the works satisfactorily and apologising to the resident for its poor communication.
The landlord also acted reasonably by asking its contractors to provide relevant information regarding the works, chasing its contractors for a response and then escalating the matter with its external contractors in November 2022, confirming the actions it would take if it did not receive satisfactory answers. While it is noted that the landlord confirmed that the management of the contract had changed in October 2022, there is no evidence following this to confirm that a scope of the outstanding works or completion dates were provided to the resident as requested. This was likely to have caused further uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident.
It is evident that there were delays in progressing repairs and faults in the monitoring of works due to a lack of response from the landlord’s external contractors. The landlord was unable to answer straightforward questions about what had happened during the works, both to the resident through the complaints process, and to the Ombudsman on request. It is apparent that this is because relevant information sat with the external contractors and not within the landlord’s own records. Without robust internal records of the events that had taken place, it is unclear how the landlord satisfied itself that works had been completed to the quality it expected, despite its prior acknowledgements that the works were not to a suitable standard.

Summary of findings

In summary, it is evident that many of the repair issues listed by the resident in her complaint of August 2022 remain outstanding at the time of this report. While the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint at both stages, it failed to offer suitable redress to her for the distress and inconvenience or time and trouble she spent pursuing these matters during, or after, the complaints process. The landlord continued to fail to communicate effectively or pro-actively monitor the works through to completion, despite identifying these as points of learning from her earlier complaint. This demonstrates that the landlord did not take sufficient steps to successfully implement learning.
The Ombudsman has found severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property. There have been a series of cumulative failings which had a significant impact on the resident for a prolonged period of time. There were several unreasonable and unexplained delays and missed opportunities for the landlord to put things right following the complaint. The landlord’s inadequate information sharing with its contractor and its incomplete repair records led to avoidable inconvenience, distress, and time and trouble being experienced by the resident.
There were also failings with the landlord’s internal handling of some repairs; despite the resident raising specific repair concerns, the landlord advised that it did not have records of these being reported. This caused delays and additional time and trouble being spent by the resident. In view of this, several orders have been made below for the landlord to compensate the resident in recognition of the impact on her and for it to inspect the property and complete any outstanding repairs.
Paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) allows for the Ombudsman to make wider orders with effect from 1 October 2023. We will make such orders where our investigation establishes that more than one resident may be affected by a matter and/or that matter may affect other properties, if the related policy or practice may give rise to further complaints.
The Ombudsman has seen other complaints involving the landlord where similar issues in relation to knowledge and information management, and major works involving third party contractors, have been identified. In other cases, the Ombudsman has seen that the landlord intended to review its procedures and protocols for major works, particularly with regard to communication with tenants and monitoring of contractors. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to support that it has done so.
We have therefore decided to issue a wider order under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its practice in relation to the service failures identified in this determination, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter. The scope of the review is set out below to support the landlord in improving its services for residents in the future.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

The resident initially raised her complaint on 24 August 2022. The landlord acknowledged the complaint and said it would respond within 10 working days. However, it did not issue its stage 1 complaint response until 22 September 2022, which was outside of its complaints policy timescales. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to suggest that the landlord informed her of the delay, explained the reason for the delay or apologised for this within its complaint responses.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 27 September 2022. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 31 October 2022, which was outside of its policy by approximately 4 working days. This delay was not significant and the landlord acted appropriately by informing the resident that it would not be able to respond within its timescales due to waiting for information from its contractors. Ultimately, it acted reasonably by managing the resident’s expectations on when she would receive a response.
In line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, the landlord would be expected to address each aspect of a resident’s complaint within its responses. In this case, the landlord failed to investigate or respond to the resident’s reports about:
1. The behaviours of the external contractors, including that they had been inconsiderate, rude, had started work at 7:30am on weekends, had blocked residents in and had not tidied up after themselves.
2. The extended timeframe of the works and her concern that works were meant to take 2 months but had taken 9 at the point of her initial complaint in August 2022.
3. Her report that she had been unable to lock her back door for a significant period and that she had needed to leave the property unsecured.
4. Contractors causing damage to her lawn.
5. No longer wishing to live in the property.
6. Her concern that the work should be passed to a new contractor to complete.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged and investigated these concerns in order to provide a satisfactory response to the resident. At a minimum, it should have explained what it would do to investigate her complaint about the conduct of the external contractors and confirm its findings. The landlord should have held clear records detailing the progress of the work and been able to explain the reasons that the work was delayed as part of its complaint responses. It would also have been appropriate for the landlord to specifically address the resident’s concern that she had been unable to lock her door given that this was a serious security risk.
The landlord’s failure to fully address the resident’s concerns or acknowledge the delayed response at stage 1 was likely to have caused inconvenience to her. The Ombudsman has also identified missed opportunities by the landlord to identify and differentiate between repairs that fell under its internal responsibility and those that formed part of the planned programme of works by its external contractors. While the landlord said it would discuss the works with the external contractors, it failed to raise internal repairs for other issues reported which led to delays in these being addressed (as detailed above).
While the landlord took reasonable steps to identify points of learning from the resident’s complaint at stage one, notably the need to monitor works and communicate with residents, these points of learning were not implemented and the monitoring of the work along with communication with the resident remained an ongoing issue well beyond the end of the complaints process.
In view of the above, there has been maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord failed to put things right and did not address each of the resident’s concerns or demonstrate that it had implemented points of learning it had identified to be necessary.

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 planned works and repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

There were a number of repeated failings over a significant period which had a cumulative impact on the resident. Despite acknowledging failings, the landlord failed to adequately demonstrate that it had put things right for the resident. Many of the repair issues raised in August 2022 remain outstanding due to the landlord’s poor monitoring of its contractor’s works and it has failed to communicate effectively with the resident. The landlord’s records prior to, during, and after the complaints process were incomplete and limited its ability to put things right.
While the landlord identified points of learning from the resident’s initial complaint, it failed to demonstrate that it had adequately implemented these to improve its service. The landlord did not fully acknowledge delays in its complaint handling or offer redress to the resident. It also failed to address each aspect of her complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report. The apology should be written and sent by the landlord’s Chief Executive.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1400, comprised of:
1. £1000 in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused to her by the failings in its handling of repairs and planned works.
2. £400 in recognition of its poor complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to complete an inspection of the property. The landlord should give the resident the opportunity to raise any additional repair issues during the visit and inspect these. The inspection should include (but is not limited to):
1. The resident’s porch.
2. Holes in the roof felt.
3. Windows and doors.
4. Quality of sealant around windows.
5. Guttering.
6. The electric meter box cover.
Within 2 weeks of the inspection, the landlord should write to the resident to confirm its intentions in respect of each specific repair issue she has raised. It should confirm whether repairs are required, what needs to be done to resolve the repair issue, confirm that it has raised the repair with the relevant contractor (either external contractors or its internal repairs service) and provide a schedule of works with target completion dates for each repair. It should also assign a staff member to oversee the repairs through to completion and to act as a point of contact for the resident.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of its practices in relation to knowledge and information management and planned works, particularly with regard to communication with tenants and monitoring of contractors. This must be carried out within 12 weeks, consider the failings identified in this report and include (but not be limited to):
1. A review of its record-keeping practices against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management. It should consider, if has not done so already, implementing a knowledge and information management strategy to ensure appropriate recording of responsive repairs reports, appointments and works completed (including where repairs have been appointed to a contractor).
2. A review of its practices in relation to planned works involving third-party contractors, including consideration of:
  1. Service level agreements with contractors and its approach to escalating performance concerns. It should clearly outline how it has oversight of the quality of planned works and at what point it would consider enforcement of contract terms.
  2. Improving its approach to communications with residents during planned works.
  3. How to ensure it obtains and holds relevant records where planned works have been, or are being, delivered by third party contractors.
3. Identification of all other residents who have been affected by similar issues during planned external works to its properties from January 2021 to date. The landlord should consider how it intends to put things right for other residents who have experienced similarly poor quality works.
4. Assessment of its staff training needs to ensure:
  1. Officers in its responsive repairs and planned works teams have the capacity, and ability, to raise works when repair reports are made.
  2. Its complaints officers respond to complaints appropriately and in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, ensuring that action points following a complaint response are monitored to completion.
Following the review, the landlord should produce a report setting out:
1. The findings and learning from the review.
2. Recommendations on how it intends to prevent similar failings from occurring in the future.
3. The number of other residents who have experienced similar issues and the steps it proposes to take to provide redress at the earliest opportunity to these residents.
The landlord should present a copy of the final report to its Housing Committee and Member Responsible for Complaints and confirm how it will imbed any recommendations into its future service delivery. The landlord should also provide a copy of the report to the Ombudsman.
The landlord should provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord considers the resident’s concerns in relation to its handling of her reports of damp in her son’s room, the period of time without adequate insulation and her request for compensation in view of her increased energy costs under its formal complaints procedure. It should ask the resident to provide further details of her complaint and then respond within its complaint timescales.