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

Longhurst Group Limited (202125338)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202125338

Longhurst Group Limited

3 July 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:
    1. handling of repairs to the resident’s back door;
    2. complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
  2. The resident first reported that her back door was leaking on 27 October 2020. The landlord attended on 27 November 2020, and advised that the door needed to be replaced. It attended again on 7 January 2021, and 11 January 2021. It concluded that the door was not leaking but damp from condensation. The resident disputed this and asked for the landlord to reconsider replacing the door.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 18 February 2021. She stated an operative had attended on 15 February 2021, but had left to get a part for the repair and had not returned. She complained about the delays to her repairs.
  4. The landlord responded on 4 March 2021. It acknowledged that its repairs had been delayed and apologised. It offered £50 in compensation to the resident, in line with its policies.
  5. On 23 April 2021, the resident advised that several contractors had attended for multiple repairs. She explained that one contractor had advised that the door should be replaced.
  6. The landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend the property on 11 May 2021. The surveyor concluded that a new door should be fitted. The resident chased the landlord for an update from May 2021 to September 2021 without receiving a meaningful response.
  7. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2021. She complained about the delay to her repairs and the lack of an appointment for the door replacement. She stated that the landlord was failing to keep her updated and that the gaps in the door were letting in rain.
  8. The landlord carried out repairs on 5 November 2021. On 19 November 2021, it replaced the door. However, the resident reported that the door was too small for the doorframe and had left gaps around the edge of the door. She later added that the door was also now too narrow to allow her to get her double pushchair in and out of the property.
  9. The landlord sent a surveyor to the property in January 2022, who stated that the door was fit for purpose. However, the resident stated that the surveyor did not remove the revel, which concealed a 45mm gap on the hinge side of the door and a 35mm gap on the other. On 17 January 2022, the landlord raised an order for the door to be replaced.
  10. The landlord sent a door specialist to survey the door on 21 February 2022. On 25 March 2022, the resident reported that the door was still not watertight. The landlord gave approval to the door specialist to proceed with replacing the door on 28 March 2022.
  11. The landlord sent its final response on 8 June 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s repairs had been outstanding since November 2020. The landlord said it had ordered another new door and would continue to monitor the repairs. It offered the resident £450 in compensation in recognition of the delay and inconvenience caused.
  12. On 15 September 2022, the landlord advised that it was currently waiting for approval for her new door. The resident was unhappy as she had been told the door was ordered in June 2022. The landlord ordered the replacement door on 5 October 2022. The landlord attended on 24 November 2022 to replace the door; however, it was too big for the aperture. The landlord re-ordered the door and attended on 2 February 2022, completing the works.
  13. In her complaint to this service, the resident explained that she is dissatisfied with the delays to her door renewal. She would like the landlord to assess its practices and ensure that it does not repeat the same mistakes. She would also like to be further compensated.

Assessment

Door

  1. Based on the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property and to keep it in repair and working order. The landlord’s repair policy clarifies that the landlord is responsible for external doors, including frames, hinges, thresholds, seals, handles, and door jambs. It states that this would be classed as a ‘routine repair’, which should be completed within 28 days.
  2. The repairs policy also describes major repairs as works that are carried out when building components have reached the end of their life. Components include doors replacements. It may be necessary from time to time to replace components where they have failed or are beyond economic repair. The landlord will consider the condition on the component, the cost of repairing verses replacement, and how long the repair is expected to last.
  3. The resident reported her door on 27 October 2020. The landlord attended just outside of its 28 day timescale on 27 November 2020. Although it initially reported that the door needed to be replaced, it attended again on 7 and 11 January 2021, and concluded that the door was not leaking but had an issue with condensation.
  4. The landlord has a responsibility to manage its funds effectively, and where a repair can be made instead of a full replacement, it is reasonable for it to consider this. Given that its operatives upon further inspection determined the cause of the water was condensation, it was reasonable for the landlord to seek to resolve this issue rather than pursue a replacement.
  5. Given that the resident disputed this assessment, the landlord appropriately carried out further inspections. While this caused a delay to the works being completed, it was reasonable to ensure the correct approach was being taken.
  6. The landlord has explained that during this time it replaced the door’s gasket, but found that this repair did not last and needed to be repeated. The part required was no longer manufactured and so its contractors recommended replacing the doors. This was an appropriate resolution to the issue, especially given the length of time that had now passes..
  7. A door replacement is characterised by the landlord’s repairs policy as major works. Such works are not expected to be completed within the same timescales as responsive repairs, but would be expected to be managed proactively and fitted at the earliest opportunity. In line with general customer service standards, the landlord would also be expected to keep the resident updated and to continue to manage her expectations.
  8. The landlord informed the resident in May 2021, that her door would be replaced. However, it did not measure the doors for replacement until 5 November 2021, replacing the door on 19 November 2021. This was six months after stating it would replace the doors, and over a year after the resident reported that they were leaking. The evidence shows that although the landlord did raise the renewal initially with its contractors, it failed to follow up on the works. It re-raised the order on 5 November 2021. This was an unreasonable length of time, particularly as the landlord had told the resident that the doors would only take six to eight weeks to manufacture. Additionally, the resident can be seen to have chased her repairs on numerous occasions, without gaining a meaningful response from the landlord. The delay in raising the renewal and the landlord’s lack of communication amount to failings in this case.
  9. It is not disputed that the new door initially fitted was too small for the existing aperture. While frustrating for the resident, it is not evident this was a deliberate act by the landlord. When alerted to this issue by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to initially arrange for its surveyor to assess the door. Based on this and the further information provided by the resident, the landlord appropriately raised works for the door to be replaced again. Given the previous issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to work with a door specialist.
  10. It is evident, however, that the landlord failed to appropriately communicate between its teams, leading to an extended delay to the further replacement of the door. There was also confusion caused by the landlord’s communication about whether it had committed to replacing the door, which would have caused frustration for the resident.
  11. The landlord stated in its stage two response that the door had been ordered and would take about six to eight weeks to arrive. The resident began chasing the renewal after two months. The landlord informed her on 15 September 2022 that it was still waiting approval to install the larger door. This was contrary to its earlier advice that it had already ordered the door, which would have caused further frustration.
  12. It finally ordered the door on 5 October 2022, and arranged to install it on 24 November 2022. This was a year after it had fitted the incorrect door, and nine months after agreeing to replace it. The landlord attended with a door that was too large for the aperture. It again re-ordered the door, completing the works on 2 February 2023. Throughout this period, the landlord’s communication with the resident was below what would be expected given the amount of delays and errors.
  13. In its formal responses, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the delays and its service delivery had caused inconvenience for the resident. As such, it ultimately offered £450 compensation in recognition of the impacts these issues caused. It also appropriately apologised.
  14. Its formal responses did not, however, offer an explanation for the delays and issues, or show that the landlord had learnt from the errors that caused the delays, which would have been helpful in the circumstances.
  15. While it was a positive step by the landlord to offer compensation in its formal responses, given that there was a significant continued delay after this time, with limited communication, the landlord’s overall poor service deliver amounted to maladministration in the circumstances, for which further compensation is appropriate. An amount of £800 in compensation has been ordered to recognise the length of time this issue went on for, and the impact this and the landlord’s poor communication had on the resident. This amount replaces the landlord’s earlier offer.

Complaints handling

  1. Under the landlord’s complaint policy, the landlord should respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied, they can escalate to stage two of the landlord’s complaint procedure. The landlord should then respond within 20 working days.
  2. The resident made a stage one complaint on 18 February 2021. The landlord responded within the timescales laid out above on 4 March 2021. However, after the resident escalated her complaint on 4 October 2021, the landlord did not respond until eight months later on 8 June 2022. Although delays are not always considered a service failure, in this case the resident continued to chase the landlord for a response, including asking for this service to intervene. It was not a requirement that the landlord fully complete the works prior to a formal complaint response, therefore this delay was unreasonable. Given that the landlord has not provided a reason for the large gap in responding, the delay amounted to maladministration in the circumstances.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord its handling of repairs to the resident’s back door.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord its complaints handling.

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Pay the resident £800 in recognition of the further failings identified in the handling of her door renewal.
    2. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of the failings identified in its complaint handling.

27. This amount replaces any previous offers made by the landlord. Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review this case and identify why the delays occurred.
  2. It should review its procedures, in order to ensure that its inter-departmental communication is effective, to ensure that there is not a repeat of the failings identified.