Lambeth Council (201910159)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910159

Lambeth Council

24 October 2021

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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of various repair reports in particular:
1. Repairs to her windows.
2. Repairs to her front door.
3. Repairs to remedy poor external drainage and a collapsed kitchen underfloor pipe.
The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of her complaint.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord has advised this Service that its Housing Management Complaints Policy (rebranded March 2016) was in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint, and this states that if a complaint cannot be resolved straight away, it follows a two-stage complaints procedure.
At the Local Resolution stage, the procedure states “our response will normally be provided within 20 working days but, should more time be required, we will explain to the complainant how long we think it will take before we can respond. Where a response is provided by telephone or in person, the outcome will subsequently be confirmed in writing.”
With regards to the Review stage, the procedure states “requests for a review should be made in writing within 20 days of receiving a Local Resolution outcome – if more time is required the complainant should contact us. The Review will not normally address new issues that were not previously raised at the Review stage. The outcome of the Review will represent our final response on the matter and the … will not enter into any further correspondence or discussion on the complaint.”
The timescales in the landlord’s policy do not reflect the timescales in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. However, the landlord operates complaint handling processes which cover a range of services, and has confirmed through its Complaint Handling Code self-assessment that it now aims to respond to housing complaints within its overarching corporate timescales. It is also noted that the Corporate Complaints Procedure differs to the Housing Management Complaints Policy which it has now superseded insofar as it stipulates 25 days for response at the Review stage.

Compensation Policy

The landlord’s Compensation Policy recognises that compensation can provide a remedy to a complaint, stating “the investigating officer may decide that the payment of financial compensation is appropriate to remedy a service failure that has an adverse effect on the complainant.” In “assessing the amount of compensation to be paid”, the policy states the landlord should take into account a range of factors including:
1. “Loss of a non-monetary benefit – In repair cases, the tenant may have been deprived of the full use and enjoyment of his or her home and experienced distress by living in those conditions.”
2. “Service Failure – The investigating officer should consider any anxiety, frustration, worry, uncertainty caused to the complainant as a direct result of the failure. The amount will need to account for all circumstances including the severity of the distress, the length of time involved, the number of people affected and the personal circumstances of those affected.”
3. “Time and trouble in pursuing the complaint – The investigating officer must only consider the complainant’s time and trouble in pursuing the complaint beyond the minor costs routinely incurred when making a complaint.”

Repairs Policy

The landlord’s repair timescales as confirmed by its website and the Repairs Manual in effect at the time of the complaint states:
1. “Emergency repairs – We will attend to make a repair safe within two hours and fix the repair within 24 hours when you report an emergency repair that:
  1. is a risk to residents’ and visitors’ health and safety.
  2. may damage the building or security to your home.

Emergency repairs that are not a risk to health will be repaired within one working day.”

“Urgent repairs – We will attend within three working days, unless otherwise stated.”
“Non-urgent repairs – We will respond to non-urgent repairs within seven working days, unless otherwise stated.”
“Routine repairs – We will respond to a routine repair within 28 working days, unless otherwise stated.”
“Planned repairs – We will respond to a planned repair within 90 working days, unless otherwise stated.”

It is noted that the Repairs Policy provided to this Service (dated 2015) has discrepancies insofar as it states Urgent repairs should be completed within two working days, Non-urgent repairs should be completed within five working days and Routine repairs should be completed within 30 working days. It is further noted that the Repairs Manual 2021 no longer has an Urgent repairs category.

Summary of Events

In establishing the facts of this case, the Ombudsman has largely been reliant on information from the resident who has been specific about dates and her interactions with her landlord. The resident has provided relevant reference numbers to accompany her version of events. These reference numbers have been cited in this report.
The windows in the resident’s property were previously metal framed. The resident has stated that she reported disrepair to window handles during 2018. She made a new appointment for 6 March 2018 after a missed appointment on 12 February 2018 (ref: 214887/1). On 29 October 2018 the resident reported an emergency repair for the landlord to make safe loose window handles in the front room, master bedroom and small bedroom (ref: 2331148/1); however, according to a completed Missed Appointment Claim Form the contractor did not attend. Another completed Missed Appointment Claim Form indicates that the landlord’s contractor was supposed to install a new window handle for the front room window on 28 November 2018; however, the contractor attended without a replacement handle (ref: 2334907/1).
The resident has also advised this Service that she reported disrepair to her front door, in particular a loose front door lock, throughout 2018. She has stated that she made appointments on 6 February 2018 (ref: 2144884/1), 6 March 2018 and 28 March 2018 (ref: 2175533/1). She further states that on 12 July 2018 the landlord raised a job to renew the front door and split panel and that she later raised a complaint on 11 September 2018 (ref:280687) as no further action had been taken. The resident states she raised an emergency repair to her front door on 29 October 2018 (ref: 2363406/1) but the contractor did not attend. She chased up her complaint on 19 November 2018 (ref: 217553) and was advised to wait.
The resident has advised this Service that the landlord called her on 10 December 2018 to make an appointment to inspect her windows and front door although there is no evidence of the outcome or that the inspection took place in the first instance.
The resident has advised that the landlord’s repairs contractor had an appointment to repair her front door on 25 February 2019 (ref: 2363406/1) but did not attend. She further reported her front door being kicked in on 27 May 2019 and the landlord agreed to contact her within 48 hours to make the door more secure; however, it did not do so.
The resident has confirmed that on 21 June 2019 the landlord carried out an inspection of the windows and doors. It advised the resident that the front door was in satisfactory condition but that the windows would need to be replaced. In a letter of complaint to the landlord primarily about her transfer application dated 4 November 2019 the resident noted that the landlord’s major works contractor would be carrying out window and door works to the block and asked that her property be prioritised due to severe draughts.
The resident subsequently contacted this Service in November 2019 and January 2020 stating that that the landlord had informed her verbally a few months previously that her complaint about her windows and door would be escalated to Stage 2 (ref: 2395361/1); however, she had not received a response to her complaint. She also expressed concern that the landlord had originally advised her new windows and doors would be installed at her property in March 2020; however, now the works would be completed at a later date with all the other properties. This Service wrote to the landlord on 7 and 27 January 2020 asking it to respond to the complaint. The landlord logged a new complaint on 13 January 2020 under UF310292.
The landlord has stated that it sent the complaint response to the resident by email in February 2020 although the copy of the response provided to this Service is undated. It advised that an order for window repairs was raised under 2395361/1 and the contractor reported that a full window replacement was required instead of repair; however, “discrepancies” on the amended order prevented works from being completed. A surveyor would now attend the resident’s property on 26 February 2020 to reassess the condition of the windows. The landlord further stated that the surveyor would also review the resident’s concerns about the front door as she was unhappy with the previous repair carried out (ref:2363406/1). The resident did not receive the response (she has stated that the landlord had always communicated with her by post) and the surveyor was not able to gain access on 26 February 2020.
After the resident told this Service she still had not received a complaint response from the landlord, on 24 February 2020 the landlord advised this Service that the response at the Resolution Stage had been sent to the resident on 12 February 2020. The landlord agreed to re-post and email the response in April 2020 after the resident again advised this Service in April 2020 that she had not received it. The resident only saw the response after this Service provided her with a copy in July 2020. The resident has stated that she then requested an escalation of the complaint.
The resident has stated that she reported drainage issues in the interim. On 17 June 2020 she reported a blocked drain (ref:2715975/1). A drainage sub-contractor carried out a CCTV survey on 2 July 2020 and identified no drainage issues. The drainage sub-contractor reattended on 21 September 2020 and a CCTV survey identified a collapsed kitchen stack pipe under the kitchen, which meant that the section filled up with water until it reached the “tipping point”. The contractor recommended the excavation of the kitchen to find the end and start points of the collapsed pipe, and then that the section be renewed. The contractor provided the landlord with a quote for these works on 24 September 2020.
The resident has advised this Service that on 8 October 2020 she reported that her sink was blocked again (ref: 2776073/1) and that she raised a complaint about not being contacted by the contractor about the collapsed pipe (ref: 379468). She has further stated that the contractor unblocked the sink with a snake rod but advised that there would still be drainage problems.
The resident has advised that during October 2020 she contacted the landlord to request a hard copy of the complaint response and to chase up the inspection of her windows and door (refs: 363656, 379499). She was advised the matter had been referred to the Capital Works Team but that the team was unable to assist, nor could the landlord confirm that surveyors were working at that time due to the second lockdown (ref: 2363406/1).
On 2 November 2020 the resident advised this Service that she had not received a response to her escalated complaint in respect of the windows and door. This Service wrote to the landlord on 2 November 2020 asking it to send a response at Stage 2. This Service also notified the landlord that the resident had advised that there was an outstanding repair to a collapsed drainage pipe, but the Repairs Team had not been in contact with her or provided a timeframe for repair. On 9 November 2020, the landlord agreed for the complaint about the windows and door to be escalated to Stage 2 (ref: UF310292). However, it did not escalate the complaint at the time. It also agreed that a new complaint should be logged regarding the drainage issues, but it did not do so.
Between 6 and 8 January 2021 the resident raised emergency repairs as her sink was blocked and water was unable to drain from her washing machine (refs: 2190945/1 then 2631319/1). She has advised that the Repairs Team agreed that the collapsed drain should be attended to as a matter of urgency and that it sent an internal email to expedite this (ref: 393853).
On 28 January 2021 the resident reported a blocked toilet (ref: 2836444/1). She has advised that the toilet was unblocked but she was advised that she needed a new toilet and a further CCTV inspection to establish whether the blockage was related to collapsed pipe under the kitchen floor.
On 29 January 2021 the resident reported that her toilet was blocked on two separate occasions (refs: 2835444/1 and 2837703/1). She has advised that the landlord confirmed that it ordered a new toilet and cistern under the reference 2837206/1 on this date. The resident has further advised this Service that she phoned the landlord in March 2021, and it confirmed the order for a new toilet and cistern, although it provided a new reference 2846327/1.
The landlord’s internal correspondence dated 1 February 2021 indicates that a surveyor should visit all the repair issues raised by the resident although there is no record of an inspection being carried out at this time.
On 8 February 2021, the landlord advised the resident that all residents in the block would get new front door and kitchen windows. It made an appointment for 22 February 2021 for a survey and to take measurements. On 19 April 2021, the resident agreed to be one of the first tenants for the door and front room pilot scheme. She chose her front door colour on 28 April 2021.
On 25 March 2021 the resident advised this Service that she still had not received the Stage 2 response to her complaint. On 26 March 2021 this Service warned the landlord that it may issue a Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) for the delay in the Stage 2 response from July 2020 to March 2021. On 14 April 2021, the landlord stated it was still considering the issues.
On or around 6 April 2021, the landlord logged a formal complaint about its handling of drainage issues (ref: IFN3001153), with a due date of 5 May 2021. On 19 April 2021 the contractor phoned the resident advising that the landlord had sent it the job to replace the drainage on 14 April 2021 and that its drainage sub-contractor would carry out works (ref: 2888873/1).
On 5 May 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint (although it did not advise this Service of this at the time). It noted that the window refurbishments had now been completed, aside from the front kitchen and front entrance door combination. It advised that its Capital Works Team were arranging to put the outstanding work to tender and hoped to be in a position to provide an update shortly.
In terms of the poor drainage, the landlord stated that it had commissioned a CCTV drainage survey, which was completed and reviewed by the Area Surveyor. As a result, an order had been raised to excavate and remove and replace the damaged section of pipe that had been identified. The landlord advised the resident that she had completed its two stage complaint process and could refer her complaint to the Local Government Ombudsman.

After the complaints procedure

On 10 May 2021, the resident phoned this Service stating she had received a response from the landlord, although she was not clear of the status of her complaint within the landlord’s complaints procedure. Subsequently, on 18 June 2021 this Service issued a CHFO as there was no evidence that the landlord had sent the Stage 2 complaint response. This Service noted that the landlord had confirmed the response would be sent by 5 May 2021, and ordered that the landlord now send the response by 25 June 2021 at the latest.
The resident has stated that on 21 June 2021, she contacted the contractor to chase up the toilet replacement (ref: 2911016/1) and the repair to the collapsed drain (ref: 2888873/1). She also pursued a repair to swollen floorboards in a bedroom caused by the toilet blockage overflow (ref: 2871775/1).
On 28 June 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord noting the Ombudsman had ordered that the landlord provide the Stage 2 complaint response by 25 June 2021. However, neither the resident nor this Service had received a copy. On 1 July 2021 the landlord sent this Service a copy of the response of 5 May 2021. It apologised for not sending the response sooner and queried whether the CHFO would stand.
The landlord changed its repair contractor on 12 July 2021 and the landlord’s internal correspondence of 19 July 2021 confirms that it considered asking the new contractor to excavate the kitchen floor to expose the damaged section of pipe as the work was not completed. On 20 July 2021, the works were re-raised (ref: 2944305/1) to the new contractor, although the correspondence indicates that the original drainage sub-contractor was to complete the works.
After delays to the major improvement works due to Covid-19 lockdown restrictions and the need to carry out statutory consultation with leaseholders, the major works contractor wrote to the resident on 7 July 2021 to advise that it would be commencing works at her property on 10 July 2021. On 12 July 2021 the resident confirmed to this Service that the window repairs had been completed under the major improvement works although there were new issues with the completed works, such a frosted window and two windows that did not lock.
On 30 July 2021, this Service wrote to the landlord having reviewed the CHFO. This Service accepted that the landlord had sent the Stage 2 response in line with the requirements the Ombudsman had set out, therefore the CHFO should not stand on the basis that it had delayed in progressing the resident’s complaint through the complaint procedure. However, this Service updated the CHFO to note that there was a delay in providing information to the Ombudsman in line with requests.
On 9 September 2021 the landlord advised this Service that its major works contractor had confirmed that the resident’s window works had been completed, and being a pilot flat was one of the first properties to be completed. The landlord said that its major works contractor had advised that the works to the resident’s door would be completed within the next four weeks; however, the resident has provided a letter from the major works contractor which advised that it would replace her front entrance door sooner, on 9 September 2021. Also, on 9 September 2021 the landlord advised this Service that its previous contractor had failed to carry out drainage works and that it was waiting for its new contractor to complete the works.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to Window

It is clear from the resident’s account that she reported disrepair to various windows from 2018 and that the landlord did not fully resolve the issues. It was reasonable that the landlord decided in December 2018 to carry out an inspection as appropriately qualified staff have the authority to make technical assessments and can then specify which works are necessary; however, there is no evidence that the inspection took place, or if it did, that works to the windows were carried out as a consequence. There is no evidence that the landlord had taken steps to meet its repair obligation to keep the windows in good repair by that stage.
It is not disputed that the landlord decided it needed to replace the windows, and the resident has stated that the landlord inspected on 21 June 2019. Due to the lack of records, it is not possible to confirm exactly what advice the landlord provided to the resident as to the specification and timeframe for the works. However, her contact with the landlord and this Service in November 2019 indicates that she was at some point by then advised that works to replace the windows would take place in March 2020 within a major improvement works programme as opposed works carried out on a responsive basis, but then she was advised the works would be put back. Thereafter, there is no evidence that the landlord provided further updates about the replacement of her windows until February 2021, or otherwise sought to manage her expectations.
After receiving the complaint response, the resident sought to escalate her complaint during the rest of the year, with the assistance of this Service; however, the landlord did not respond, missing the opportunity to update the resident and provide reassurance that her concerns about the condition of her windows would be dealt with. Furthermore, the landlord in the Resolution Stage response of February 2020 committed to carry out another inspection of the windows; however, there is no evidence that inspection took place, or if it did, that the landlord communicated the outcome to the resident.
Ultimately, the windows were replaced in July 2021. It is reasonable for landlords to carry out improvement works such as the replacement of windows as part of a planned programme of works for cost and efficiency reasons. However, by then there had been periods of significant delay since 2018 in the landlord’s handling of window repairs, exacerbated by its failure to communicate effectively with the resident about the action it was taking to resolve the issues reported with the windows. Given the significant delays and failure to manage the resident’s expectations, there was maladministration by the landlord

Repair to front door entrance

The landlord’s failure to maintain repair records extends to its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to her front door. It is clear from the resident’s account that she reported disrepair to her front door at various times during 2018, including an emergency repair, but there is no evidence that the landlord carried out works or otherwise took steps to ensure that the door was in a satisfactory condition. As noted above, it was reasonable that the landlord decided in December 2018 to carry out an inspection as appropriately qualified staff can identify which works are necessary to satisfactorily complete repairs; however, there is no evidence that the inspection took place, or if it did, that works to the door were carried out as a consequence. Nor is there any evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s report of 27 May 2019.
The resident has stated that at the inspection of 21 June 2019, the landlord advised her that her door was in good repair. However, there is no record of the inspection or that the landlord otherwise took appropriate steps to ascertain the condition of the door to inform itself whether the replacement or repair of the door and/or lock was necessary. As with the windows, the resident’s contact with the landlord and this Service in November 2019 indicates that she was at some point by then advised that works to replace the front door would take place in March 2020 within a major improvement works programme, then she was advised the works would be put back. Thereafter, there is no evidence that the landlord provided further updates about the replacement of her door until February 2021 or otherwise sought to manage her expectations.
After the resident received the complaint response, she sought to escalate her complaint during the rest of the year, with the assistance of this Service; however, the landlord did not respond thereby missing the opportunity to update the resident and provide reassurance that her concerns about the condition of the door would be dealt with. Furthermore, as with the window repairs, the landlord in the Resolution Stage response of February 2020 committed to carry out another inspection; however, there is no evidence that inspection of the door took place, or if it did, that the landlord communicated the outcome to the resident.
Ultimately, there is no evidence that the problems with the door reported by the resident was attended to until September 2021, when the major works contractor advised the resident that it would replace the door. By this point, there had been periods of significant delay since 2018 in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the door, exacerbated by its failure to communicate effectively with her about the action it was taking to remedy the issues raised with the door. Given the significant delay and failure to manage the resident’s expectations there was maladministration by the landlord

Repairs to poor external drainage and the collapsed kitchen underfloor pipe.

After the resident reported drainage issues in June 2021 it was appropriate that the landlord agreed for a CCTV inspection of the drains as this enabled it to check hidden parts of the drain to identify necessary repairs. The inspection of 21 September 2020 identified that there was a collapsed kitchen stack pipe which led water to accumulate and cause blockages in the drainage system. The sub-contractor also provided a quote. Therefore the landlord was at that point in a position to carry out the necessary repairs to meet its obligation to ensure that the pipe, and the drainage system in general, were in good repair. However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the recommended works or otherwise took any action to resolve the drainage issues reported at this time.
There is also no evidence that the landlord kept a record of the resident’s further report of a blocked sink on 8 October 2020 although she has stated that a contractor attended on that instance. Similarly, there is no evidence that the landlord kept records of the action taken following the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet and drainage issues in January 2021. The landlord also has no records of the conversations it had with the resident, including discussions about installing a new toilet. However, according to the resident it has delayed in installing a new toilet and cistern, having agreed to do so.
There remains no evidence that the landlord intended to repair the damaged stack pipe under the kitchen until 14 April 2021 when it authorised the contractor to carry out the repair. However, even then the repair was not carried out. This confirms that the landlord did not maintain oversight of the works to satisfy itself the pipe was repaired and the drainage issues at the property were resolved. Moreover, the 90 working day target for planned repairs was not met.
The landlord subsequently changed repairs contractor and the need to raise a new works order added to the delay in the completion of the works. However, again there is a lack of records to confirm the action taken by the landlord at this time. It has most recently confirmed that the works were still outstanding as of September 2021. This is a year since the necessary works were identified, which is considerably over the 90-day target timeframe for planned repairs, and which therefore represents a significant delay with associated inconvenience to the resident. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to expedite or even maintain oversight over the repair.

Complaint Handling

The information asked for by the Ombudsman to assist with this investigation included information on its complaints handling. For example, a request was made for the resident’s original complaint and any other contact notes, correspondence, internal emails or call records relating to the landlord’s handling of the complaint. However, aside from the responses to the complaint at the Local Resolution and Review stages, little else has been provided. As such it is not possible to establish the full chronology of the handling of the resident’s formal complaint.
When first contacting this Service in November 2019 the resident advised that she had been awaiting a Review stage response to her complaint about her windows and door for several months. There is no evidence that a complaint had been registered by the landlord at that point; however, the resident indicated that she had discussed with the landlord that she was unhappy that repairs to the windows and doors had not been completed. As such, the landlord was required to register a complaint so that her concerns could be formally investigated or at the very least explain the circumstances when a formal complaint would be registered. The fact that there are no records of discussions or correspondence about the resident’s dissatisfaction indicates that the landlord did not take these steps.
Moreover, the fact that the resident understood that her complaint was at the Review stage indicates that the landlord failed to manage her expectations about the operation of its complaint process. This finding is supported by the fact that the complaint reference number quoted by the resident to this Service in November 2019, 2395361/1, was actually the reference number for the delayed substantive window repair.
After this Service asked the landlord to respond to the complaint the landlord registered a complaint, and its response of February 2020 was in line with the timeframe for responding to complaints at the Local Resolution stage (although the resident did not receive the response at the time). However, the landlord’s response was brief, focussing on its intention to carry out another inspection on 26 February 2020 and not assessing its previous handling of requests for repairs to the windows and door in any detail. This was unreasonable as an essential part of “putting things right” is demonstrating to the resident that they have been heard and considering to what extent they have been affected by service failures.
The resident has stated that she requested that her complaint be escalated in July 2020 after receiving a copy of the landlord’s response from this Service. While it cannot be established from the evidence provided to this Service that the landlord received a complaint escalation at this time, there are still clear delays in the landlord’s complaints handling. The landlord after being contacted by this Service agreed on 9 November 2020 for the resident’s complaint about the windows and doors to be escalated to Stage 2. However, the Stage 2 response was not sent until six months later, on 5 May 2021. This was an unreasonable delay, and well outside the 25-day timeframe for responding to complaints at the Review stage in the Corporate Complaints Procedure.
Moreover, the landlord agreed to register a complaint at the Local Resolution stage about drainage issues on 9 November 2020, but did not do so until 5 months later, on or around 6 April 2021. It then incorporated the response to the complaint within the Stage 2 response of 5 May 2021. It therefore contravened its complaints procedure, omitting to carry out an investigation at the Local Resolution stage and as a result the resident was not given fair opportunity to appeal its findings within its complaints procedure.
As with the Local Resolution response, the landlord’s Review response was unreasonable insofar as it was brief, focussing on the works it now intended to complete and not assessing its previous handling of works. The landlord’s failure to assess its previous handling of works meant that there was no recognition of its service failures and the adverse impact on the resident, which was cumulative. The landlord did not use its discretion to make a compensation offer. Although compensation is not the only way to resolve a complaint, as reflected within the landlord’s Compensation Policy, a gesture of goodwill, financial or otherwise, can be important in further demonstrating acknowledgment that something went wrong and go towards preserving the landlord-tenant relationship.
With regards to the Review response, the landlord provided incorrect information to the resident about how she could pursue her complaint, referring her to the wrong Ombudsman. It also did not confirm to this Service that it had sent the Review response, even after it received a CHFO; it only provided confirmation after this Service pursued compliance of the order made. Within this period, the resident remained unsure about the status of her complaint, due to the lack of clarity in the response.
Taken altogether, the landlord failed to provide any meaningful redress to the resident which may have put things right and resolved her complaint locally within its complaint procedure. The failings in the landlord’s complaint handling further compounded the detriment caused to the resident by its failures in its handling of the substantive issues.
Outside of this complaint, the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that, since October 2020, it has reviewed its complaint case management. This has included planning a casework system upgrade to monitor compliance and reporting which allows for daily performance management and aggregation of trends. In addition, it communicated its intention to restructure its Housing Complaints Team to improve complaint handling. However, it is not known whether these planned changes have taken place.

Record Keeping

As noted above the landlord has provided limited information on its handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman also asked the landlord to submit repairs information to assist with this investigation. This included
1. Correspondence and telephone contact notes concerning their repair reports.
2. Any records concerning the Landlord’s investigation into their repair reports.
3. Copies of any survey or inspection reports, or feedback from other employees or contractors.
4. Copies of any correspondence or notices sent to the resident concerning the Landlord’s findings.
5. Information related to the repair(s) such as, repair logs, records of dates property attended, an explanation of works completed at each visit, details of any outstanding issues identified.
However, the landlord has provided little information and where information has been provided, this has largely related to more recent events, in 2021, and/or deduced from correspondence. The landlord had provided no evidence of any inspections or surveys aside from the drainage survey of 23 September 2021.
This lack of records is concerning and a serious failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should contractors.
While the resident has not provided evidence that fully supports her version of events, the Ombudsman would not necessarily expect residents to be able to do so. However, as noted above, she has been specific in her information, to her credit.
There is no indication in the complaint responses that the landlord has taken steps to learn from the outcome of the resident’s complaints and ensure that the failings in this case are not repeated. However, the landlord has confirmed outside of this case that it has committed to radically redesign its repair and maintenance services to provide better quality services and, from 12 July 2021, it had ten new contractors and a new in-house communal repairs team. In addition, from September 2021 the repairs section of the housing online portal was launched, enabling residents to raise repairs and view updates on these.
The changes implemented mean that the landlord has improved monitoring capabilities, with the ability to track work and contractors though improved ICT systems. Its Contact Centre will book appointments for all jobs, and residents will receive a series of texts confirming their appointment, with a reminder 24 hours beforehand, an ‘on my way’ text, a text with a link to a tracker showing their operatives location on a map, and a job completion text with a link to a satisfaction survey.
The landlord’s recent service improvements may reduce the risk of some of the failings identified in this report happening again. However, while the improvements set out explicitly address the management of responsive repairs, it is not known whether they address planned works, including improvement works to kitchen and doors. An order relating to this matter has therefore been made to the landlord.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports to repairs to her windows.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its handling of her reports to the front entrance door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her report of poor external drainage and the collapsed kitchen underfloor pipe.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

There were periods of significant delay since 2018 in the landlord’s handling of window repairs, exacerbated by its failure to communicate effectively with the resident about the action it was taking to resolve the issues reported with the windows.
There were periods of significant delay since 2018 by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of disrepair to the door, exacerbated by its failure to communicate effectively with the resident about the action it was taking to remedy the issues raised with the door.
The works to remedy the poor drainage issues reported by the resident, in particular to the collapsed kitchen underfloor pipe, were still outstanding as of September 2021. This is a year since the necessary works were identified, which is considerably over the 90-day target timeframe for planned repairs, and which therefore represents a significant delay. Moreover, there is no evidence that the landlord sought to expedite or even maintain oversight over the repair.
There are clear and cumulative delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. Firstly, the landlord delayed in registering a complaint about the windows and door issues. Compounding this, it did not manage the resident’s expectations about the complaint process, leading to confusion over the reference number for an outstanding repair for a Stage 2 complaint reference. After registering a complaint, it delayed in sending the Stage 2 response, which was sent well outside the 25-day timeframe for responding to complaints at the Review stage in the Corporate Complaints Procedure. It also delayed in logging the complaint about drainage issues then failed to follow its complaints procedure as it incorporated the response within the Stage 2 response, denying the resident the opportunity to appeal its findings within the complaints procedure.
The complaint responses were also unreasonable insofar as they focussed on the works the landlord intended to complete and did not assess its previous handling of works. The landlord did not therefore demonstrate that it had identified what went wrong in its response to the resident’s complaints about repairs and drainage, so missed crucial opportunities to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s failings in the complaint handling compounded the detriment caused to the resident by its poor handling of the substantive issues.
The landlord did not confirm to this Service in a timely manner that the Review response had been sent. Also, it provided the resident with incorrect referral rights to the landlord. During this period the resident remained unsure about the status of her complaint due to the lack of clarity in the response.
The landlord has provided limited information on its handling of the resident’s complaint. It has also provided little information on its handling of repairs. The landlord has therefore failed to keep clear records which is a core function of a repairs service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must pay the resident a total of £900, comprised of:
1. £350 for the time, trouble, inconvenience, and frustration caused by the failings in the handling of the resident’s reports of repair to her windows.
2. £250 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to her front door.
3. £200 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the failures in the handling of the resident’s reports of poor external drainage and a collapsed kitchen underfloor pipe.
4. £250 for the time, trouble and frustration caused by the failures in the handling of the resident’s complaint.
Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Complete the works to excavate the resident’s kitchen to find the end and start points of the collapsed pipe, and then renew the damaged section of pipe, if it has not already done so.
2. Install a new toilet and cistern, if it has not already done so. If it does not think the works are necessary, it should explain why to the resident in writing and provide a copy to this Service. The landlord should also confirm whether it will be carrying out a new CCTV survey in respect of the blocked toilet.
3. Review its record keeping practices, including those resulting from the redesign of its repair and maintenance services, for responsive and planned repairs and maintenance. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of works raised and completed and of resident contact. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome.
4. Review and confirm whether the redesign of its repair and maintenance services will apply to planned works and, if so, how this will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. If the redesign does not address planned works, the landlord should confirm its current policy, procedure and/or approach to monitoring these works as well as what changes will be made to reduce the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. This should include reference to monitoring of and adhering to agreed timescales, completing work to appropriates standards and keeping residents informed. The landlord should report the outcome of this review to its appropriate governing body.
5. Confirm whether the proposed changes to complaint case handling have been implemented and, if so, how this will mitigate the risk of the failings identified in this case happening again. If the changes have not been implemented, the landlord should confirm when these will take place.

Recommendation

Within one month of the date of this report the landlord must confirm its intention in respect of the following recommendation:
1. The landlord reviews its internal policies and procedures on repairs, the information on repairs on its website and customer pamphlets, and the Tenants Handbook / Repairs Manual to ensure that all documents are up to date and provide consistent information on the categorisation of and timeframes for repairs.