Hackney Council (202204992)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204992

Hackney Council

27 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

The complaint is about:
1. The conduct of the landlord’s operatives and missed appointments.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs at the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a tenant of the landlord’s property, a three bedroom house. The resident occupies the property together with her mother, who is also a tenant. They hold a secured tenancy which began in May 1986. Both the resident and her mother have health issues and are vulnerable.
On 19 October 2020, the resident reported a leak from the wet room. It was recorded that the leak was going through the ceiling and affecting the electrics in the living room. The landlord says that it attended the report within a two hour slot. A further job was created on 28 October 2020, to fix the electrics; however, this work was not completed until 19 November 2020.
On 30 March 2021, the resident made a stage one complaint to the landlord and explained that she and her mother were vulnerable, as she is disabled and has a number of health issues. The landlord says it received the complaint on 7 April 2021. Within her complaint, the resident said:
1. They had a wet room fitted in September 2020 but on a Saturday morning, in October, she woke up to find the wet room had flooded and had soaked through to the ceiling of the living room downstairs, through the electrical light fittings.
2. She rang the out of hours service as this was an emergency, at 4:10 am. The resident said the person who answered said somebody would be at the property within four hours. At 9:40 am she rang again as no one had arrived. She says she was told there was no out of hours service and her case had been passed to the day team, and she would have to wait up to another four hours. By 5pm that day, she said no one had arrived and when she called back, she had the phone put down on her.
3. On the Monday, she called the company that had installed the wet room and was told someone would be with her that day; but, no one came. She had also chased the company during the day.
4. The flood led to her carpet, rug and settee smelling and there were water marks on the ceiling.
5. She had to wait over two weeks for the electricity to be made safe, so could not use the living room. Someone was meant to attend on 2 November, then on 10 November and the electrical work was eventually completed on 19 November 2020.
6. She had asked for a surveyor to come and look at the property as the bathroom had cracks around the ceiling and the downstairs wall by the street door was damp.
7. She had also been promised a replacement toilet seat as the existing one was “flimsy” and the shower curtain did not go all round the shower.
8. There had also been a number of appointments where operatives did not attend.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 April 2021, acknowledging the complaint, and asking for further information. However, the landlord has told this Service that the complaint was passed to the Adult Social Care (ASC) team, instead of the Housing team, as it should have been. It asked for the telephone number she called to report the flood, who had made the electric safe at the property, and whether she had reported damp/cracked walls to the Repair Team. The landlord says it sent a job to the contractor that day, entitled, “REMEDIAL WORKS AFTER INSTALLATION OF WET FLOOR SHOWER IN SEPTEMBER 2020”.
The resident responded on 19 April 2021, and provided the telephone number she had called, which was the Repairs Team, that put her through to an out of hours team. She said the landlord had made the electrics safe, although this was not done until 19 November 2020. In terms of damp/cracks, she said roofers were supposed to attend on 28 October 2020 to see if the damp had anything to do with guttering but they did not show up. She added that she spoke with someone on 1 April 2021 who said a surveyor would speak with her on 9 April 2021, and she did show him the cracks and damp. She was told a contractor would contact her within ten days to make an appointment, but she was still waiting. The landlord says it sent a job to the contractor on 26 May 2021, in order to install a step and hand rails in the garden and even out paving.
On 15 July 2021, the resident said someone had been to look at the wet room that day. An issue with the wet room leaking was recorded on 2 August 2021, and although no access was obtained initially, the landlord’s complaints and work log state a repair to the stack pipe was done on 25 August. The landlord states a job was passed to its contactors on 13 August 2021, to fix a leaking wash basin. Another job dated 1 September 2021, was created for a mould wash to be done at the property, the following day.
The resident sent a follow-up email to the landlord on 5 September 2021 to advise that nothing much had changed. She said:
1. There had been a virtual appointment with a surveyor on 9 April 2021 and she was told a contractor could make an appointment within ten days to sort out the cracks but she had not heard from anyone.
2. Other than receiving a new shower curtain, other issues remained unresolved.
3. The last main thing to happen was a broken pipe in the wet room which was leaking down to the passage wall under the stairs. She added that the area was now full of mildew and mould.
4. She had reported the issue in early July 2021 and had been told an emergency repair had been booked. She was told the earliest someone could come to the property was 2 August, which she found unacceptable as two vulnerable people lived at the property.
5. Her mother had to leave the property for a while because the smell that was coming from the wall was affecting her asthma and she had an autoimmune disease.
6. Someone came out, had a look and said they would have to book plumbers. Someone from the landlord’s staff was meant to attend on 6 August 2021 in the morning but no one did. The resident then received a call at 15:00 to reschedule.
7. She was promised a call on 10 August 2021, but nobody called, so she had to follow that up. An appointment was then booked for 18 August, but it was cancelled the day before.
8. An appointment was arranged for the morning of 2 September 2021, to deal with the leak under the stairs, but nobody came.
9. She was unhappy as she was still waiting for the issues to be fixed.
On 8 September 2021 the resident informed the landlord that while the wet room issue was resolved, she was unhappy with how long the painting work was taking. In the complaint log, the landlord noted that the remaining issues were the slow draining wet room, cosmetic work in the living room and a new toilet seat. The landlord noted it would look into this, and call her back on 14 September.
The landlord spoke with the resident on 14 September 2021, and she said no one had contacted her about the damp near the street door. She was also unhappy about the wet room not draining, and she had been told it was now out of warranty; however, it was within warranty when the first issue was reported. In addition, the toilet seat was sliding around and needed replacing.
On 16 September, the landlord spoke with the resident again. She said someone was attending the property on 21 September 2021, to look at the damp wall, toilet seat, the wet room, and the damp patch on the wall which seemed to have since dried. She also said the painter had not finished the work.
The landlord’s records show the painter completed works on 17 September. He noted an area of wall in the hallway which adjoined the neighbouring property, that had signs of water staining and needed further investigation. A repair to the wall under the stairs, following the leak, was completed on 20 September 2021.
The landlord’s records show that a job to trace and remedy a leak, was completed on 5 October 2021. Following this, an extra mould treatment was carried out under the stairs and in the hallway on 12 November 2021, and another job to remedy the wet room, was completed on 25 November 2021.
On or around 13 February 2022, the resident reported that she had no heating, that it was raised as an emergency and she was told it was the emersion that was the issue. Instead of sending a plumber, an electrician was sent, so the heating could not be fixed on that day. The job was raised again as an emergency, but it took a further three weeks, until 7 March 2022 to get fixed. It meant using a water heater daily, which was very expensive, until it was repaired.
In March 2022, the complaint was referred from the ASC team to the Housing team. The landlord then issued a stage one response to the complaint on 11 March 2022; although, the correspondence was dated 10 March 2022.
The landlord said, “On 19th of October 2020 you reported a leak through electrics in multiple areas. The Out of Hours department attended but referred the job to the wet room contractor. Job 19/10/2020 10:13:38 was booked to make the electrics safe on an immediate priority. On 28th of October we raised a job to reinstate your lights on job 28/10/2020 09:05:47 however due to a problem on our side the job had to be re-raised on the 2nd of November 2020 under job reference number 02/11/2020 15:28:44 however it wasn’t attended until the 19th of November due to our electrician self isolating. Following your complaint, you spoke to some of the RCC managers who checked in on the progress of work and also informed you of upcoming works”.
It went on to say it had emailed the resident on 17 and 23 June 2021 to confirm any outstanding issues. It also called the resident on 8 July 2021 to discuss further repairs. It said it updated the survey in relation to cracks in the wall. The resident had confirmed she had a visit about the wet room and leak in the shower. On 2 August 2021, a job was raised for a severe leak, but it was marked as ‘no access’ and rearranged for 17 August. The stack pipe in the corner of the toilet had separated and access was needed via a wall. Follow up work took place on 25 August and it was reported the wall under the stairs needed to be fixed and a mould wash appointment was made for 2 September 2021. The resident had explained that no-one attended on 2 September, instead it was on 6 September and there was not enough time to complete the work; so, a further visit was needed on 13 September, and this was an example of unattended appointments.
The landlord noted the resident said the outstanding work was:
1. Cosmetic work to the living room.
2. Toilet seat that didn’t fit.
3. Slow draining wet-room which took up to two days to drain after use.
The landlord said it spoke with the resident on 14 September 2021 about the repairs as she remained unhappy they were outstanding. It reported the issues to the maintenance company and called the resident back on 16 September 2021. The landlord said the resident confirmed someone in the adaptations team was going to investigate the issues with the wet room and check the toilet seat. Someone was also going to attend for the damp patch on the wall, that seemed to have dried. It noted the painter had not finished the work to cover the mould in a cupboard ceiling and cosmetic damage in the living room. The painter had also mentioned that a party wall was showing signs of water stains.
In relation to the wet room, after it was inspected, it had been suggested that the flooring be removed to look at the gully to see why the water was not clearing. The work had been referred to a new contractor. In addition, the hallway wall was to be inspected on 7 April 2022 and another job had been raised to look at sunken paving.
The landlord said:
1. It wished to apologise for the late response to the resident’s “enquiry”. It added that the reason for the delay was the “after effect of the cyberattack” and that it hoped to have a quicker response time going forward.
2. It understood the resident’s complaint to be about the wet room, which had been fitted in September 2020, flooding one morning in October. The resident was unhappy with how it had responded to her report, and did not feel that the job was taken seriously, especially given both her and her mother’s vulnerability.
3. It noted the resident’s comments that her carpet, rug and settee were left wet and smelling, and that she also had water marks in the ceiling.
4. It understood that the resident was unhappy as she had to wait a few weeks for the electricity to be made safe and reinstated, so she could not use the living room.
5. The resident had requested that a surveyor to visit the property and inspect the bathroom, the ceiling and the downstairs wall by the street door; however, this had yet to be take place.
6. The resident had also advised that the toilet seat needed replacing as did the shower curtain. The resident was unhappy as an appointment had been booked for 23 March 2021 but no one attended, or contacted her. It wished to apologise for the inconvenience the resident experienced during the repairs, adding, “it was not our intention to make you feel discriminated against.” It said it had taken steps to ensure callbacks were carried out and calls were made to the residents before work cancellations. It had also taken steps to deal with the outstanding issues. This included:
  1. Having arranged a painter to address the damage to ceilings, walls and mould.
  2. Organised for someone to assess the wetroom, including the shower rail, pull-cord, drainage, and also the toilet seat. As a toilet seat would not usually be provided to residents, it had to verify it was being provided as a disabled adaptation.
  3. Arranged for an investigation of the party wall in the hallway which had water stains coming from the property next door.
7. The resident could escalate her complaint if she was unhappy with the response it had provided.
On 15 March 2022, the resident emailed the landlord acknowledging its response to the complaint. She said that the issues had been raised the year before, and the majority of works had been completed, apart from:
1. The hallway wall that was damp, but had dried.
2. Sunken paving stones.
3. Water not draining fully in the wet room.
The resident said she was seeking compensation, as there were two vulnerable people living in the property.
On 16 March 2022, the landlord recorded, “inspect the damp wall in the hallway, and the living room following a wet room flooding”. The complaint log records this work was scheduled for 7 April 2022.
On 21 March 2022, the landlord received an email from the Adaptations Manager who had attended the property, to look at the wet room drainage issues. The email said that although water drained while he was there, he looked at the resident’s footage which showed otherwise. He said he wished to remove the flooring and investigate the gully. This work would be outsourced to an adaptation contractor which the Adaption Manager said the resident had been told about.
The landlord responded to the resident’s email of 15 March on 13 April 2022. Within this, it apologised for not responding sooner. It said it had referred the issue with the wet room not draining fully, to a contractor to address, having considered removing the flooring and inspecting the gully. It also said the hallway wall was inspected on 7 April 2022 and another job had been raised to assess sunken paving at the property. The landlord said it could not deal with a compensation request as stage one of the complaint process had been completed, but the resident could escalate the complaint to stage two.
On 17 April 2022, the resident emailed the landlord and said that when she showered in the wet room, it could take two to three days for the water to fully disappear. She said there were several times when she had been let down and work was not completed, including it taking three weeks for the electricity to be reconnected after a flood at the property, and there being a damp smell under the stairs. She said it was causing distress to her 90 year old mother who had asthma. The resident said her complaint should not have been closed at stage one, and she wanted it progressed to stage two.
On 29 April 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident and explained who would be investigating the escalated complaint, and that it would aim to respond within 20 working days, by 23 May 2022. The resident acknowledged this and on 1 May 2022, said she wanted it noting that she had had no hot water from 13 February 2022.
The landlord notified the resident on 17 May 2022, that it was taking longer than anticipated to deal with her complaint, and it could not meet the 23 May deadline. It asked what remedy was sought by the resident, and she responded by saying that she wanted:
1. Help towards the cost of using an emergency water heater for three weeks.
2. Compensation for taking time off work when operatives did not show up for appointments or when they came but were unable to do work.
3. Compensation for time taken off to allow someone to take photos and then not return.
4. General compensation for the distress as she and her 90 year old mother had not been well.
5. Compensating for damaged furnishings, as she had been told to claim from the Council’s insurance for that.
The resident added that jobs that had been completed were to a poor standard.
An internal email from the landlord on 20 May 2022, said it planned to do a complete renovation of the property, but using its new adaptations contractor. On 30 May 2022, an internal email referred to a pre-survey being done the following week, and that someone would contact the resident, to inform her of this. Another internal email referred to agreeing a start date for the work with the resident as 9 June 2022.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord issued its stage two response to the complaint. It said having investigated, it acknowledged the resident had been “put to time and trouble/distress” with regards to the issues that she had raised and the subsequent delays. The landlord said that it wished to apologise to both the resident and her mother, and to offer compensation to reflect the inconvenience they had been caused.
It went on to summarise the resident’s complaint as:
1. The wet room fitted in September 2020, flooded in the early hours in October 2020, and water soaked through the ceiling and affected the light fittings.
2. She telephoned out of hours at 4:10am and was advised that an operative would be with her within 4 hours. By 9:40am she telephoned the service back as she was not contacted by anyone. She was told she had been misinformed and the case was passed to the ‘Day Team’. She was advised to wait a further 4 hours, i.e. 13:40. By 17:00 no one had contacted her.
3. On Monday morning she telephoned the company that fitted the wet room, at 8:00am for help however it did not send an operative to the property.
4. She waited over two weeks for the electrics to be made safe. She had asked for a surveyor to attend and for a new toilet seat to be fitted.
It repeated its stage one findings and noted the resident wanted to be reimbursed for the costs relating to using the emergency water heater for 3 weeks and missed appointments. In addition, she wanted it recognised that wrong operatives had been sent to her property, and to be compensated for the inconvenience of the situation. It also noted the resident claimed operatives had damaged furnishings, carpets etc. The landlord said, “You requested that I check our records regarding missed appointments however due to the cyberattack, this information is not readily available to me. Nevertheless I can offer you £50 to assist with your water heating bill and a further £200 to address the distress that this matter has caused you.”
On 15 June 2022, the landlord records there was a job in progress to, “carry out redecoration to hallway and stairs including papering to walls and painting to ceiling. Living room – right hand side corner make good to leak damaged section of ceiling apply two coats of emulsion to affected area”.
The resident referred her complaint to this Service in June 2022 and between June 2022 and January 2023, the landlord agreed to consider the resident’s concerns further. On 8 December 2022, the landlord said it had written twice to the resident, in order to try and establish more information about her complaint about the attitude of the operatives who attended her home. However, it had not received a response.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 13 January 2023, in response to one received on 2 December 2022. In it, she set out details of the missed appointments at her property. The resident said there were a total of 10 missed appointments between September 2020 and September 2021. Further appointments were either cancelled or rescheduled. The resident also raised concern that on one occasion an operative had advised, incorrectly, that her mother had refused to let him in.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident and said it was sorry about contractors missing appointments, and offered £100 compensation for 10 missed appointments. It also increased its previous compensation offer of £200 to £300. This was in addition to £50 towards her water/heating bill. It said this amounted to £450 compensation.
On 14 February 2023, the resident responded, and complained about the time off work she had taken due to non-attendance of operatives. She also said her mother had been distressed, as she had been made out to have lied, and there was outstanding work needed at the property.
The landlord emailed the resident the same day, 14 February 2023, to confirm compensation was £600 rather than £450. It has explained to this Service that under its Compensation Policy, where an investigation identifies that an appointment was missed, a set sum of £25 compensation will be payable, not £10. It apologised for the error, and explained it could not compensate the resident for taking time off work for appointments. It also said it was sorry if her mother was distressed.
The landlord has since said redecoration works to the living room and hallway were completed on 22 March 2023 and all works have been completed.

The landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The relevant statute

Under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord had a responsibility to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s Repair Policy says:
1. Immediate repairs – Response time two hours, are “for repairs that present immediate danger to people, to avoid flooding or major damage to the property, and to make the property secure. Examples include:
  1. A water leak that cannot be contained and risks flooding the property.
2. We will complete the repair at the time if we can, but in many cases we will make the situation safe and carry out any follow-up works as an urgent or routine repair in normal working hours”.
3. Urgent repairs – response time within five working days, are “for work where the fault or failure does not cause danger to occupants or the public, but needs to be put right to prevent inconvenience to you and keep the property in a reasonable condition.”
4. Normal repairs – response time within 21 working days, are “for work where the fault or failure does not cause major inconvenience or danger to occupants or the public. We may extend the timescale for certain repairs, for example if items like windows or doors need to be manufactured or if we need to erect scaffolding to do the work. Tenants will be informed if this is the case.”
5. “There are a number of ways we can support vulnerable customers. These services are generally for residents who are frail, elderly, or with severe physical health problems or disabilities. This may include giving greater priority for repairs, or carrying out work outside of our usual policy, for example, additional security works for victims of domestic violence.”
The landlord’s Complaints Policy says it aims to respond to stage one complaints within 15 working days, or 10 working days if the complaint is about Housing Services. With Housing complaints, it says,
1. “The investigation will usually take up to an average of 10 working days.
2. Where a complaint is complex and likely to take longer than 10 working days, we will inform you of the need for an extension as soon as we can, usually within 5 working days of logging the complaint.
3. We will discuss the problem with you to understand what solution you are looking for. An appropriate officer from the service area will investigate the complaint fully.
4. The service will reply to your complaint in writing within 10 working days or the amended timeframe we previously discussed with you”.
5. It goes on to say:
6. “If you’re not satisfied with the response you received at stage 1, you can ask for your complaint to be escalated. At this stage the complaint is investigated by a team independent of the service you complained about who form part of the Chief Executive’s Office, or an appointee. We aim to respond at this stage within an average of 20 working days.
If the complainant is not satisfied with the response they have received at stage 1, they can ask for the complaint to be escalated. At this stage the complaint is investigated by a team independent of the service complained about who form part of the Chief Executive’s Office, or an appointee. The landlord says it aims to respond at this stage within an average of 20 working days.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy says under missed appointments, “Where an investigation identifies that an appointment was missed by the Council or its contractor a set sum of £25 compensation will be payable.”

Assessment and findings

The conduct of operatives and missed appointments

The resident raised issues with the landlord about operatives attending the property. She complained about appointments being missed or rescheduled and said there was an incident when her mother had been home to let an operative in, but when he arrived, he said he could not go in unless the resident was there. He then reported back that the resident’s mother would not let him in.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint about the conduct of the operative. While it is noted the passage of time and the cyberattack may have been problematic in terms of locating any records of a visit, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made enquiries with its operatives, to try and ascertain what had happened. It could have also acknowledged the incident and apologised if it was unable to investigate the matter further.
The landlord apologised for missing appointments and initially offered to pay the resident £100 compensation (£10 for each missed appointment) and a further £200 for distress caused. The landlord then informed the resident it had made an error, as it was £25 for each missed appointment. Therefore, it increased the offer for this element of the complaint, from £100 to £250. It later increased the offer of compensation for distress caused by £100, from £200 to £300.
The landlord did not have data/evidence relating to the relevant period. As such, it accepted the resident’s complaint about missed appointments and increased the amount offered in respect of distress and inconvenience. It was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation to recognise where appointments were missed and took a reasonable view to make a general payment to the resident, to recognise that she would have been inconvenienced as a result of the missed appointments. The landlord made an initial error in its calculation of compensation for missed appointments, but did go on to correct itself; therefore, ensuring it made a payment to the resident, in line with its Compensation Policy.
The resident sought additional compensation for taking time off due to non-attendance of operatives. However, the landlord advised that it did not compensate tenants for taking annual leave or time off of work for appointments. The resident did not provide any evidence of having to take time off work/losing out on pay. Even if she had, it is accepted that works will cause residents some inconvenience. The occupancy agreement will require the resident to give access for repairs and it would not be reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for routine appointments. The landlord’s recognition that distress had been caused by the missed appointments, and the £25 offered for each appointment missed, was proportionate.
It is accepted that the resident, and her mother, are likely to have been frustrated at what happened, but the landlord acknowledged its failings and made an offer to put things right. While the remedy offered to recognise the missed appointments was reasonable, a determination of service failure has been made because it did not investigate the concerns about the operative.

The landlord’s handling of reports of repairs at the property.

The resident first reported a flood in the wet room at the property in October 2020. However, the landlord has informed this Service that it could not use its usual system to log repairs from October 2020 to May 2021, due to a cyberattack. As a result, when the resident phoned to report the repair in October 2020, the call was not recorded as all its systems were down and / or inaccessible. It has since provided a log of the jobs created over that period, that it kept separately.
Having reviewed the landlord’s records, while it could not use its usual system from October 2020 to May 2021, it would have been reasonable for further detail to have been included within this log. For example, confirmation of when the Out of Hours team attended and what it did in relation to making the electrics safe, and whether the resident was provided with any advice. Recording this information would have ensured the landlord had oversight of the progress of repairs, and it would have enabled it to provide the resident with a more thorough response about the actions it took when responding to the complaint.
On 30 March 2021 the resident complained about the handling of the wet room repair and that the water had marked the ceiling and made furniture, a rug and carpet wet. She also complained about the landlord’s response to the leak and handling of the associated repairs.
The resident has complained that the landlord delayed in responding to her reports and that she waited for three weeks for the electrics to be made safe. When the landlord responded to the complaint, it advised that on 19 October 2020 the resident reported a leak through electrics in multiple areas. It said the out of hours department attended but referred the matter to the wet room contractor. During the same morning, a job was raised to make the electrics safe on immediate priority. A further job was then raised at the end of October to reinstate the lights, but this was re-raised and not attended until 19 November.
It is not clear what the Out of Hours department did when it attended, or when the wet room contractor attended to remedy the leak. There is little information relating to this, due to the landlord’s cyberattack and loss of data, but also as a result of inadequate record keeping in respect of repairs. However, there is no dispute between the parties that it then took three weeks for the lights to be reinstated. Clearly the leak itself was addressed, and the electrical repair was treated as an urgent repair (response time within five working days) as it was created on 28 October 2021 for completion on 2 November 2021. However, the work was not actually completed until 19 November. Therefore, the landlord’s timescales under its Repairs Policy, were not met.
The resident also complained about her property being damaged by the leak. The landlord informed the resident that she could make a claim via the council’s insurer; which was appropriate, given there was an escape of water that it was responsible for. The resident has since told this Service she did not make a claim, and the only damage was to a corner of her rug.
In terms of damp on the hallway wall, the resident raised this as part of the complaint, but there is no evidence to suggest it was reported prior to that. The landlord noted that a painter had attended the property to repaint on both 6 and 13 September 2021. They reported there was a party wall in the hallway with water stains coming from the neighbouring property, that needed investigating. This was mentioned by the resident in her March 2021 complaint, but only recorded as needing to be looked at by the landlord on 16 March 2022, and someone attended the property on 7 April 2022. This indicates a lack of investigation on the landlord’s part, having been put on notice of the work needed.
The resident has confirmed that this was dealt with, but it is clear it was not addressed promptly. The staining may not have amounted to an urgent repair, but it should have been carried out within 21 working days, according to the landlord’s Repairs Policy, and that did not happen. There is a lack of evidence to show what work was done, and when, and this is a further example of poor record keeping on the landlord’s part.
The resident also complained about having reported cracks in the ceiling of the wet room. She has told this Service that someone did do some work at the property, but this is not specifically mentioned in the job reports. She has said there are still some cracks in the wet room but they are minor and are not causing an issue. However, as the landlord carried out an inspection of that area in June 2021, it would be reasonable for it to have recorded information about this.
The resident has also told this Service that she received a replacement shower curtain and toilet seat; however, it is not clear when these were provided. The resident’s email of 5 September 2021 referred to having received the shower curtain by that date, but she was still waiting for a new toilet seat. Although the evidence does not confirm when a toilet seat was provided, it had been outstanding for four months, when the resident complained in March 2021; so, it clearly took several months. This amounts to an unreasonable delay, particularly so when the resident is disabled and needed a stable toilet seat.
The resident commented to this Service that she had issues with the new toilet seat, the replacement shower curtain and paving slabs. These points did not form part of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure, and the landlord has not therefore had an opportunity to respond to these matters. They cannot therefore, cannot be considered as part of this investigation.
The resident has said that she reported a broken pipe in the wet room in July 2021, and it was leading to damp and mould under the stairs. She included this within her complaint, when she followed up with the landlord on 5 September 2021. The landlord acknowledged this happened; but it recorded that the leak was reported on 2 August 2021. This date was not disputed by the resident in subsequent correspondence; therefore, this Service will regard that as being when the leak was reported.
Although there was no access recorded initially, work took place on 17 and 25 August 2021 and it was reported the wall under the stairs needed to be fixed and a mould wash appointment was made for 2 September 2021. The resident explained to the landlord on 8 September 2021, that no-one attended on 2 September; instead it was on 6 September and there was not enough time to complete the work. Therefore, a further visit was needed on 13 September 2021. The landlord’s records state the work was done on 2 September 2021 which is evidently not correct. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to keep a clear and accurate record of work done. The fact it took the resident to tell it when the work was carried out, again shows poor record keeping on its part.
The resident has said that due to the smell of damp under the stairs, her elderly mother moved out of the property for about four to six weeks, to her other daughter’s house. The dampness dried out, but the landlord’s records show redecoration of the hallway and stairs took place on 15 June 2022. While the leak was evidently dealt with reasonably promptly, it is understood that the after effect of the damp may have caused issues for the residents and there was a delay dealing with the side effect of the incident. There is no evidence of the landlord having been advised of the resident’s mother having moved out of the property, at the time, and it could only act if it was aware of the issue.
During the course of the complaint, the resident also expressed concern that the property was without heating for 3 weeks in February; so the resident had to use a heater for this time, leading to additional costs. The landlord included this issue in its stage two response and offered £50 compensation, in lieu of additional utility costs. While it is positive the landlord acknowledged there had been additional costs, how the compensation had been quantified was not explained. It would have been more reasonable for the landlord to ask the resident for copies of energy bills, in order to ascertain actual additional costs incurred.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident has reported a number of issues with the wet room. It is not clear if all of these have been resolved, and the lack of clarity in that respect, is an example of the landlord’s poor record keeping. In the circumstances, it would be reasonable for the landlord to arrange for the wet room to be inspected. It should then create a schedule of works required within the wet room, to take place.
Overall, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs. While the Ombudsman notes a cyberattack caused issues for the landlord, it evidently still kept records of work done from October 2020, when the incident occurred. However, when the resident complained in March 2021, the landlord asked the resident for details of who she reported the wet room leak to, as it was evidently unable to find reference to it at the time. This, along with other examples where the landlord’s repair records were not accurate, shows poor record keeping.
There were a number of delays in the landlord’s response to reports of repairs, and although appointments were arranged, there were several occasions when no-one attended the property at all, or they did but work could not be completed. While the landlord recognised this by offering to pay the resident £250 due to there being ten instances where that happened, it is also important to consider other factors.
Both residents have health issues. The landlord has said its electronic housing file had no notes regarding the residents’ vulnerabilities. However, it accepts its repairs database notes the residents are vulnerable, with the main resident being elderly. There were a couple of significant leaks at the property, the first leaving the residents unable to use the light in the living room; therefore, limiting its use for three weeks. The second caused damp under the stairs and caused one of the residents to move out, albeit temporarily. This is significant inconvenience.
In addition, the residents had no heating for three weeks in February 2022, which was in winter. While the landlord made an offer of £50 compensation to cover additional heating costs, it didn’t investigate how much the resident’s heating costs had gone up by. Consideration also has to be given to the residents being inconvenienced by not having a warm home for that period, and them being concerned it could potentially affect their health.
When the leaks occurred, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered what options were available in order to assist the residents, knowing they were both vulnerable. Its Repairs Policy sets out the various ways in which the landlord will try to support vulnerable residents where repairs are required. The evidence does not indicate that separate consideration was given to both residents’ health issues or general vulnerability, as would be expected in a case like this.
The overall offer from the landlord was £600; comprised of £250 for missed appointments, £50 for heating and £300 for the distress (£200 was offered at stage two and then a further £100 when the issue of the missed appointments were raised).
Taking all these points in to account, the £300 compensation offered does not adequately reflect the impact the issues complained of had on the resident and her mother, over a substantial period of time. Therefore, as well as the £600 already offered, the landlord should pay the resident a further £400 in compensation. This acknowledges that the resident and her mother were inconvenienced on a number of occasions, in terms of missed appointments, delays, having to move out of the property, and being unable to use the living room light for three weeks.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has told this Service that the complaint made by the resident dated 30 March 2021, was passed to the ASC team to address, when it should have been addressed by the Housing team. The landlord’s Complaints Policy says that stage one complaints should be responded to within 15 working days, or ten working days for housing complaints. In this case, although the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 April 2021, and some work was then carried out at the property, it did not provide a response to the complaint until nearly a year later; on 10 March 2022, 345 days after the complaint was made.
On 17 April 2022, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. This was acknowledged by the landlord on 29 April 2022 and although its Complaints Policy said it aimed to respond within 20 working days, which would have been by 13 May 2022, it did explain that it would looking to respond by 23 May 2022. However, on 17 May, the landlord explained a response would take longer that it had hoped, and it obtained details from the resident about what remedy she was seeking. The landlord issued its stage two response on 30 May 2022; 11 working days longer than its 20 working day target, and 5 working days longer than its original target date. The landlord did address the issues raised but said it could not review the number of missed appointments because the information was not available due to a cyberattack.
There was clearly a delay at both stage one and stage two of the complaints process; most significantly at stage one. As well as not adhering to its own timescales, although the landlord apologised for the delay in responding to the complaint, it failed to acknowledge the impact that delay had on the resident and that she had had to chase for a response.
The landlord also had an issue with its record keeping, as it said it had suffered a cyberattack; however, it did have a record of works done, although it was incomplete.
The landlord did recognise what the resident said had gone wrong, and while it made an offer of compensation to the resident, it did not sufficiently reflect the impact on the resident and it did not make this offer at stage one. While it made an offer of compensation at stage two, it did not include compensation for missed appointments, as per its Compensation Policy. That was not addressed until 2023, which was a significant failing. It does not seem to be in dispute that about ten appointments were missed; so, in line with its Compensation Policy, the landlord should pay the resident £250 (£25 for each of the ten appointments). The landlord should also pay additional compensation for the significant delays in its complaints handling including failing to put forward an offer in line with its Compensation Policy, for nearly two years.
Within the landlord’s complaint response, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to address why it did not follow its complaint procedure, including an explanation for why it was sent to the incorrect team initially, and why it took so long to be transferred and addressed. All the landlord mentioned in its response, was that there had been a cyberattack. In addition, the landlord did recognise some failings relating to outstanding works, but it just said the issues raised were being addressed; it did not provide any timescales. As such, the resident’s expectations could have been managed better had the landlord set out clear dates for when all outstanding work would be completed; especially due to the length of time the resident had already been waiting.
Overall, there were many failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which accumulated over time, and meant the complaints process was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute. The landlord’s delays in dealing with the complaint, added to the resident’s distress and inconvenience and it amounts to severe maladministration. The landlord did respond to the issues raised, but it should have gone further, and set out when it would carry out the remedial work needed. The poor service identified did not have a permanent effect on the residents, but they were vulnerable and the landlord did not do enough to proactively manage the complaint. Therefore, in terms of compensation, the landlord should pay the resident £600 to recognise the significant oversight in its complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the conduct of operatives and missed appointments.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to reports of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

In response to the resident’s concerns about missed appointments, the landlord made an offer of compensation in line with its Compensation Policy; however, the evidence does not indicate the landlord investigated the resident’s comments that its operative had “lied”, or acknowledged how the incident made the residents feel.
There were delays in dealing with repairs. The landlord did not adhere to its Repairs Policy, or act reasonably in the circumstances of the case. This led to the residents being inconvenienced as a result. The compensation offered by the landlord for inconvenience was not proportionate in the circumstances.
The landlord failed to keep detailed and accurate records of all repairs.
The landlord did not deal with the complaint in accordance with its Complaints Policy, or this Service’s Complaints Handling Code and the resident was caused additional inconvenience, time and trouble.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1,600, broken down as follows:
  1. £600 that was offered under its internal complaints procedure, if not already paid.
  2. A further £400 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in carrying out repairs at the property.
  3. £600 compensation for poor complaint handling.
2. Have the wet room inspected to take into consideration any issues the resident may have with it. It should then create a schedule of works required within the wet room to take place.
Within six weeks of the date of determination, the landlord should:
1. Review its approach to:
  1. Ensuring repairs are accurately recorded and actively monitored until fully resolved.
  2. The time taken to respond to complaints.
  3. Ensure all staff dealing with repairs and complaints are trained to identify residents who are vulnerable, so they are offered the appropriate support, as needed.
2. Share the outcome of the above review with this Service. This review should as a minimum include:
1. Any planned changes to its approach, including any staff training, which will reduce the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
2. Any changes already made in its approach, including any staff training which has taken place, which will reduce (or has reduced) the likelihood of similar failings happening again.
1. Analyse a sample of its missed appointments to identify any underlying causes or trends. Following this, the landlord should present a proportionate action plan to its directors to address. The action plan should be shared with this Service, also within 6 weeks.