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

Longhurst Group Limited (202215002)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing font, text, graphics, logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215002

Longhurst Group Limited

31 May 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the lighting in the communal car park.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom flat, with a communal car park.
  2. In October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to report that the external lights in the communal car park were faulty. The landlord completed inspections and in December 2019, identified that a lamppost needed to be replaced as it was beyond repair. On 13 February 2020, an operative repaired one of the lights, but on 18 February 2020, the resident reported that the lights were no longer working. In March 2020, the landlord’s operatives disconnected the electrics for the lamppost.
  3. In August 2020, the resident chased the repair as it had not yet been completed. The contractor apologised for the delay, and reported on 29 September 2020 that the work had been completed. On 1 October 2020, the resident and another tenant in the building reported that the new light had not worked and the landlord raised a new work order to repair the external lighting in December 2020. Between March 2021 and June 2021, operatives attended on several occasions and identified a faulty wire, and lights that needed to be changed. On 17 June 2021, operatives completed works to reset a photocell, and replaced a lamp and starter. Follow-on works were raised to replace a cable in the lamppost and complete necessary groundworks.
  4. On 14 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint. She was dissatisfied with the lighting in the communal car park, which she stated was caused by leaks. She added that contractors informed her that the delay in repairing the lighting was due to a dispute with a utility company over who was responsible for the repair.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 4 August 2021. It stated that the repair needed for the external lighting had been raised again on 6 April 2021, its operatives had attended on 23 April 2021 and a further appointment had been made for 30 July 2021. It committed to monitoring the work with its repairs team going forward.
  6. On 4 October 2021, the resident escalated her complaint. She was dissatisfied that the lighting had not yet been fixed, as the issue had been ongoing for some time. She added that due to the lights not working, she felt unsafe when returning from work at night.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 October 2021. It acknowledged that there had been failings in the way it handled the situation, and that on some occasions its operatives had failed to attend to rectify the problem. It stated that its operatives had attended on 18 October 2021 to replace bulbs in the carpark, which resulted in the lighting working. It added that the lamppost repair had been booked for 2 November 2021, where it would replace cabling.
  8. During November 2021 and December 2021, operatives attended but marked that more time was required to complete the works. The resident subsequently escalated her complaint to this Service. She was dissatisfied with the insufficient lighting in the carpark, and that operatives had failed to attend to complete the works. She sought that the landlord complete the necessary rewiring.
  9. On 12 January 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it had applied for a grant to replace the cabling, but that it was not likely to be completed until March or April 2023. The landlord stated it would review whether there was anything it could do to improve the lighting in the meantime. The works were ultimately completed on 8 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

  1. There are time limits on complaints the Ombudsman can investigate. One of the limits (paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme) requires a complaint to be brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
  2. The resident first reported the lighting issues in 2019. The landlord attended several times, but was unable to fully resolve the issue. The resident continued to chase for a full repair of the lighting until March 2020. The resident then contacted the landlord in September 2020, to say that she had last chased the repair in March, but had not received any further updates. The resident then raised her complaint in July 2021. Therefore, in line with paragraph 42 (c), when considering the gap between March 2020 and September 2020, and that the resident had not raised a complaint with the landlord until July 2021, this investigation centres on the events from September 2020 onwards, which led up to the resident’s complaint. References to matters prior to September 2020 are included for context and clarity only.

Policies and Procedures

  1. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will provide services relating to lighting of communal areas, which the resident will pay a service charge for. It also states that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep common areas, and the electrical lighting in common areas, in reasonable repair and fit for use.
  2. The landlord’s ‘Repair priorities’ information, available on its website, states that routine repairs will be completed within 28 calendar days, and are classified as issues that do not put a resident’s health, safety or security at risk. It includes an example of a routine repair being general electrical repairs. It also states that there may be instances where the complexity of the work or new parts being required means that the repair cannot be completed within the appropriate timescale, but, if this happens, the resident would be kept informed.
  3. The landlord’s compensation policy states that if it fails to give notice for a cancelled appointment it would pay a £10 compensation payment. It also states that it will pay compensation of £50 to £250 where there has been a service failure which had an impact on the resident, such as failing to meet its service standards for actions. It adds that the impact could include; distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, delays and disappointment.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the lighting in the communal car park.

  1. As per the landlord’s obligations listed within the tenancy agreement, it is the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that the lighting in the communal car park is kept in an appropriate state of repair, and fit for use. In addition, based on the repair definition above, general electrical repairs such as the lighting should have been completed within 28 calendar days.
  2. Landlords are required, in accordance with the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to “identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings”. A lack of lighting is one such hazard listed in the HHSRS, and, therefore, the landlord would be expected to take reasonable steps to mitigate any hazard presented by deficient lighting in the communal car park.
  3. The landlord did not dispute that there had been failings in the way its contractors handled the repairs, and acknowledged that, at times, its operatives had not attended which resulted in delays.
  4.  Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In 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.
  5. In this case, the landlord recognised that its service had been inadequate. It attempted to put things right for the resident by apologising, acknowledging its failures and by ultimately completing the repairs to the lighting in the communal car park. In addition, it committed to completing the rewiring works needed to repair the lamppost by 2 November 2021. However, the landlord failed to consider a fair and proportionate level of compensation for the resident, in view of the failings it had identified. Moreover, the landlord’s decision not to provide compensation was unreasonable, especially when considering the resident’s concerns about her safety and security over the significant period that the lights remained faulty
  6. The landlord had raised works to attend to the faulty lighting on 28 August 2020. On 29 September 2020, contractors contacted the landlord to apologise for the delay, and stated that the works had now been completed. This was after a total of 32 calendar days, which was outside of the appropriate timeframe listed within the landlord’s repairs timescales. Although the contractor had apologised to the landlord for the delay, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to contact the resident, explain why the delay had occurred, and apologise. In view of this, the landlord had failed to manage the resident’s expectations.
  7. On 12 October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the new light had never worked. It is not wholly clear why there was a delay, but the landlord did not raise the new work order to attend to the light in the car park until 16 December 2020. The delay exacerbated the distress and inconvenience for the resident, as she was anxious returning to the carpark late at night after work. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensure the work order was raised promptly after the resident’s reports that the lighting issue was still ongoing, in line with its obligation to mitigate hazards posed by inadequate lighting, as mentioned above.
  8. Given the resident’s concerns about the health and safety risks posed by the lack of lighting in the communal car park, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider whether it would be able to provide temporary lighting until it could complete the repairs. Although it is clear that the landlord discussed this internally, there is no evidence to show that temporary lighting was ever provided. This caused further distress and inconvenience for the resident, as it exacerbated her concerns about her safety when she returned to the property late at night.
  9. Throughout 2021, the landlord attended on several occasions to inspect the lighting and complete temporary repairs, such as, on 23 April 2021, when it identified faulty wiring, and 17 June 2021 when it reset a photocell and replaced a lamp and starter. It was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to resolve the lighting issues temporarily, and it showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns about the lighting seriously. It should be noted that it can take more than one attempt to resolve electrical issues as it can be difficult to identify the cause of issue at the outset and in some case different repairs may need to be attempted before the matter is resolved. This would not necessarily constitute a service failure by the landlord, provided it was making reasonable efforts to resolve the repair.
  10. On 18 October 2021, the landlord’s operatives replaced bulbs which resulted in restoring the lighting around the car park, apart from the lamppost which required rewiring. The landlord informed the resident in its stage two complaint response that this would be completed by 2 November 2021, however it was not completed until 8 March 2023. Where delays are likely, the landlord would be expected to contact the resident, provide reasoning for the delay and an expected date on which the works would be completed.
  11. While the delay was not wholly unreasonable, as the landlord had treated the repairs as major works due to the cost being estimated at £29,000, a significant cost when considering the limited budget available to social housing landlords, it is not wholly clear whether the landlord was maintaining an appropriate and effective level of communication with the resident during this time. From the evidence provided, it is clear that the resident spent a considerable amount of time chasing the repairs throughout the entire process, which led to distress and inconvenience for her. In addition, there were several occasions where, despite communication between the resident and the landlord, she was not given appropriate updates. This is evidence of poor communication on the landlord’s part and it is therefore noted below that the landlord considers providing additional staff training relating to the importance of communicating with residents, and managing their expectations surrounding repairs.
  12. Moreover, as mentioned above, the landlord did not dispute that there had been failings in its service as, at times, its operatives failed to attend appointments, which resulted in further delays. It was reasonable for the landlord not to compensate the resident directly for the missed appointments as, in line with its compensation policy, as these were communal repairs and the resident was not required to be in attendance. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to recognise that this had resulted in a further delay which impacted the resident and resulted in further distress and inconvenience.
  13. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider how it could put this right, in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and for it to consider an appropriate level of compensation for the distress and inconvenience experienced by the resident, in line with its compensation policy. It is therefore noted below that the landlord provides further staff training to its complaint handlers, to ensure they are using its compensation policy to determine how it can put things right for residents when failings have been identified.
  14. When considering the above factors, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to consider providing compensation which was proportionate to the failings that had impacted the resident. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it provides compensation of £50 to £250 for cases where there has been a service failure which impacted the resident and resulted in distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, or delays.
  15. Therefore, compensation of £200 should be paid to the resident as adequate redress for the delays experienced by the resident, the resulting distress and inconvenience, and the time and trouble she spent chasing the repairs. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards in this range for cases where there was a failure by the landlord which adversely affected the resident but there may be no permanent impact from the failure.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way the landlord handled the repairs to the lighting in the communal car park.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks, the landlord is ordered to do the following:
    1. Pay the resident £200 compensation, in view of the delays, and the resulting distress and inconvenience caused.
    2. Provide additional staff training relating to the importance of communicating with residents, and managing their expectations surrounding repairs.
    3. Provide further staff training to its complaint handlers, to ensure its compensation policy is being used to determine how it can put things right for resident’s when failings have been identified.