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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202303208)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303208

Yorkshire Housing Limited

22 July 2024


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a 1 bed first floor flat.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system.
  3. In November 2022 the resident reported some blown windows in his flat to the landlord. The landlord carried out an inspection in December 2022 and decided no further works were required.
  4. When the resident reported the blown windows again in April 2023, the landlord raised an inspection and booked an appointment for 24 May 2023. The landlord missed the appointment, and the resident made a formal complaint. The landlord had already carried out an external inspection the week before but not told the resident. On 26 May 2023 it raised an order to its contractor to repair 6 double glazed windows. This was later amended to 8 windows.
  5. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 9 June 2023 apologised for missing the appointment, explained why it was missed and offered £100 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
  6. On 21 June 2023 the contractor started the treatment for the blown windows. When the resident returned from work, he did not notice any difference and contacted the landlord, querying what the contractor had done. The landlord contacted the contractor, and they called the resident on the same day. They explained the window treatment process and that there was now a 6-week drying out period so the resident would still see the condensation. Following a misunderstanding about external access to the rear windows the contractor said they would be in touch with a new appointment to treat them.
  7. The landlord’s repair log says that the contractor’s last visit for the treatment of the windows was 5 July 2023.
  8. On 21 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord via social media and said the contractor had started the work in June 2023 and he had no idea when they intended to return. The landlord sent a message internally to ask its repair service how they intended to proceed. The resident did not hear anything from the landlord and contacted the Ombudsman for advice at the beginning of September 2023. On 25 September 2023 he made a complaint to the landlord on social media. The resident wanted the windows to be fixed. The landlord accepted this as a stage 2 escalation to his original complaint.
  9. On 26 September 2023 the landlord raised an order to replace 7 double glazed windows. The contractor could not get hold of the resident and visited without a prior appointment on 4 October 2023. They also attempted to gain access on 9 October 2023, but the resident had already told the landlord he was not available. The landlord thought that the resident would get in touch to rearrange but there was a misunderstanding.
  10. At stage 2 of the complaint process the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the delays and the poor communication. It offered further assistance to help book any future appointments. The landlord told the resident it would attend on 31 October 2023 to replace the double-glazed units and offered £100 compensation for the delays.
  11. The double-glazed units were replaced on either the 24 or 31 October 2023. Neither party has confirmed the definite date the windows were replaced, however it has been confirmed it was completed.
  12. On 20 November 2023 the resident contacted the Ombudsman about a different window repair, which was a gap around the bedroom window.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has approached the Ombudsman about 2 separate window issues, the blown windows and 1 broken window with a gap that lets the warm air out and the cold air in. The blown windows repair complaint has exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process and has been accepted by the Ombudsman for investigation.
  2. The Ombudsman cannot look into the bedroom window repair as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The landlord must be given the opportunity to investigate this complaint at stage 2 of its internal complaints process, using the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The Ombudsman would expect residents to report issues to their landlord in a timely manner. After the landlord visited the property on 21 December 2022 the resident did not contact it again about the windows until April 2023. The landlord was not aware there was still an issue. For this reason, this investigation spans from April 2023 up to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 26 October 2023. It also assesses whether the landlord completed its proposed actions from the complaint response and ultimately if the landlord was fair, put things right and learnt from its mistakes.

Landlord’s handling of window repairs

  1. The resident reported the blown windows on 25 April 2023. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as a routine repair and booked an appointment to inspect them on 24 May 2023. The landlord acted appropriately by accepting its responsibility and making an appointment within 28 calendar days. This is in keeping with its repairs policy timescale for a routine repair.
  2. The landlord, unbeknown to the resident, carried out an external inspection of the windows the week before the scheduled appointment. The landlord acted reasonably by carrying out an external inspection when it was in the area. Had the landlord left a note for the resident or called him to let him know, it would have enabled the resident to cancel the 24 May 2023 appointment and cancel his annual leave if he wished. The landlord acted unreasonably by not communicating with the resident, resulting in a formal complaint when it did not turn up for the booked appointment the week after. It was not customer focused or organised.
  3. The landlord did not attend on 24 May 2023, and the resident was not notified of a cancellation. He had taken the day off work. The landlord’s compensation guidance covered this scenario that compensation would be paid if the landlord missed appointments or did not give at least 24 hours of an appointment being cancelled. The landlord acted inappropriately. The resident made a complaint following the missed appointment.
  4. On 26 May 2023 the landlord raised an order to repair the double-glazed units. The landlord prioritised the repair correctly as planned preventative work under a routine 28-day order. The contractor attended on 21 June 2023, 26 days after the repair was raised. The landlord acted appropriately.
  5. However, had the landlord raised the order on the day or day after it carried out the internal inspection (the week starting 15 May 2023), the appointment may have been scheduled earlier. Unnecessary time was wasted because of this and because the resident waited for an appointment that never happened.
  6. On 21 June 2023 the contractor contacted the resident, following the resident’s expressions of dissatisfaction with the work carried out. The landlord had acted quickly in contacting the contractor on the same day. The contractor took the time to speak to the resident and explained the process of the treatment and that they had to wait 6 weeks for drying time to see if the treatment worked. The phone call enabled the contractor and resident to sort out the misunderstanding with the rear access. The landlord did the right thing by contacting the contractor, as they were the window treatment experts. The landlord acted reasonably. It was quick and it was customer focused.
  7. The resident was not aware of the treatment process before the appointment. The contractor told the landlord that a leaflet explaining the treatment is left with residents but did not confirm if that had happened in this case. The landlord should ensure residents understand the process before it starts and that because of the drying time the repair will take longer than the 28-day timescale. If it cannot amend its system to fit this timescale, clear notes should be left on the order explaining why the repair has not been completed within its documented timescale. The landlord acted unreasonably by not ensuring either it or its contractor explained the treatment to the resident. It was not customer focused nor managed the resident’s expectations. This resulted in dissatisfaction from the resident and time taken by the landlord and contractor to respond, that could have been avoided.
  8. The landlord’s system notes tell us that the last visit for the window treatment order was 5 July 2023. This has not been confirmed by the resident and there are no notes on the landlord’s system to say if this was an external visit only. From the evidence requested as part of this investigation there is nothing to show that the landlord kept the resident updated with the results of the treatment. This meant that on 21 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to find out what was happening. The landlord acted unreasonably by not keeping the resident updated. The resident had to go to time and trouble to chase the landlord. It was not customer focused. The landlord knew the resident was already unhappy that it had missed an appointment and not explained the window treatment timings to him. It should have increased its diligence on the case and engaged proactively with the resident.
  9. The landlord’s complaints policy gives resident’s 8 weeks from the date of its stage 1 complaint response to let the landlord know if they want to escalate to stage 2 of the complaint process. An internal note to the landlord’s repairs service asking what was happening with the repair did not result in any contact to the resident and he contacted the landlord and the Ombudsman in September 2023 to express his continued dissatisfaction. The landlord accepted this as a stage 2 escalation of the resident’s original complaint from May 2023. This escalation was outside of the published 8-week timeframe. As the complaint was about the same issue and expressing the work was still not complete, despite the stage 1 resolution actions, the landlord did the right thing in proceeding to stage 2. The landlord acted reasonably in not expecting the resident to start at stage 1 of the complaint process again. It tried to put things right by exercising flexibility to resolve the situation.
  10. At some point between the 5 July 2023 and 26 September 2023 the contractor sent the landlord a report confirming the treatment for the windows had not worked and new double-glazed units were required for 7 windows. The landlord did not act on this report until 26 September 2023, which is 84 days after its system stated the last visit for the repair was, and the day after the resident contacted the landlord chasing an update. The date the landlord got the report is unknown, therefore the Ombudsman is unable to determine a failing of the landlord on this basis. However, the landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it failed to act on the contractor’s report or keep the resident updated. Therefore, the Ombudsman can conclude the landlord acted unreasonably.
  11. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses both acknowledged and accepted the landlord’s failings in this case. When there are admitted failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether any redress (financial and non-financial) offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It will consider if the failing led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  12. The landlord’s stage 1 response of 9 June 2023 offered the following redress:
    1. £100 compensation for the delays. This was in excess of the landlord’s guidance for a missed appointment but in line with Ombudsman remedies guidance (that the landlord adopts) where the mistake had a small to medium impact. At this point in the repair timeline, it was a fair remedy.
    2. An apology with an explanation of why the appointment was missed. This showed that the landlord had investigated what happened thoroughly and the evidence provided to the Ombudsman as part of this investigation confirms that.
    3. Proposed a resolution that the contractor would be in touch to make an appointment for the repairs. While this was a reasonable response it should have been SMART (Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Timebound). This could have provided reassurance to the resident that something was going to happen, and he could have planned how to manage the appointment around his work.
  13. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 26 October 2023 offered the following redress:
    1. £100 compensation for the delays (in addition to the £100 offered at stage 1).
    2. An apology and explanation for its failings.
    3. An appointment for 31 October 2023 to replace the double-glazed units and a separate flooring repair for the same day, to reduce the days the resident needed to take off work.
    4. Offered its assistance with any further appointments.
  14. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, the landlord’s total offer of compensation was not fair. Even accounting for 3 periods of 28 days (orders for inspection, repair, replace) and the 6-week drying period for the window treatment, the date of the completed work (24 or 31 October 2023) was still 84 or 92 days outside of timescales. In addition to this there was the landlord’s acknowledgement of its poor communication, resulting in time and trouble and inconvenience to the resident. There was scope within the landlord’s compensation policy to offer more for a failure with a moderate impact, when the impact was bigger but not permanent and the issue lasted longer than expected. An order has been made below in recognition of this.
  15. The landlord did apologise, explain and try to put things right. It could have gone further in its resolutions to explain to the resident how it would learn from its mistakes to stop this from happening again. It should have applied learning from the complaint to improve its services for all its residents. It also failed to fully put things right until the 31 October 2023, 5 months after the original complaint.
  16. In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of window repairs. The compensation was not enough for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble the resident went to in trying to get his windows fixed. Had it not been for the landlord’s apology, compensation and attempts to put things right, the failures would have amounted to maladministration. There were opportunities throughout the repair for the landlord to put things right and provide a better customer service. It did not grasp these, and the repair became prolonged and excessively delayed. The Ombudsman makes an order for compensation and action below.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of window repairs.

Orders and recommendation

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident.
  2. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £400, made up of the following:
    1. £200 offered from the landlord’s internal complaints process, if not already paid.
    2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the window repairs.
    3. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any arrears or other amount owing.
  3. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a case review that considers and accounts for the failings in this case, in respect of the handling of the window repairs. A copy of the report must be provided to the Ombudsman. The review report should include and set out:
    1. Why the resident was not kept updated and how the landlord’s repair procedure can ensure residents are kept updated and record the communication.
    2. Why the contractor’s report was not initially acted upon and how the landlord can improve logging and filing contact or documents from contractors and facilitate the actions required from the communication.
    3. Whether the landlord’s procedures and systems adequately flag to the landlord those repairs that are either out of timescales or within timescales but have no current action on them.
    4. The landlord should set out any process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure any change(s) are implemented.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to consider contacting the resident to discuss any outstanding repairs, including the broken window if appropriate and take the relevant actions to resolution. This would include advising the resident on the landlord’s complaints process if applicable.