One Manchester Limited (202208677)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208677

One Manchester Limited

23 June 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 at the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a house.
3. In December 2020 the resident raised concerns that there were cracks appearing in the walls of her property. The cracks were repaired in February 2021. In February 2022 the resident reported that the cracks had reappeared and requested a surveyor inspect the property. The resident contacted the landlord again in May 2022 as no appointment had been arranged. The survey was arranged for 24 June 2022 However this was then rearranged at short notice and a further appointment was not attended at the agreed time. The resident raised a complaint on 28 June 2022 about the delay in a surveyor attending after her request in February 2022 and the landlord’s subsequent failure to attend the agreed appointments.
4. In its stage one complaint response on 29 July the landlord confirmed that the surveyor had attended on 30 June 2022 and jobs had been raised for the repairs they had identified during the survey, which included plastering and a loft hatch repair. The landlord offered £100 for its late response to the resident’s complaint. It also apologised for the delay in arranging the surveyor to visit and for the missed appointments.
5. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August as she felt the landlord had not acknowledged the stress and anxiety its failings had caused her, or the fact that the initial repairs had not worked or that the repairs had not been carried out within a reasonable time. The resident also reported that the surveyor had made inappropriate comments about her expectations as a social housing tenant. The landlord arranged a home visit as requested by the resident to discuss her escalation request in September 2022. It also arranged a visit at its office and provided an update on 12 October 2022 to confirm that it would, as agreed with the resident, provide its stage two complaint response once the repairs were complete, unless she preferred it to respond sooner. It explained that its surveyor could not recall making the comments the resident referred to, but it had put another surveyor in charge of the work.
6. Following contact from the resident, this Service advised the landlord on 28 October 2022 that the resident wanted it to issue its stage two complaint before the repairs were complete. In its stage two complaint response on 11 November 2022, the landlord awarded a further £300 compensation. It also agreed to carry out repairs to the roof as the resident had raised concerns about it. In December 2022, following discussions with the resident, the landlord increased the compensation to £1550.
7. The resident contacted this Service as she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and with the level of compensation. She also had concerns that the kitchen ceiling was bowing and that the loft hatch was still not in full working order. The resident also raised another complaint with the landlord as she said that the landlord had agreed to replace some internal doors at the property as part of the original complaint. Although there was no record of the landlord having agreed to replace the doors in the original complaint, the landlord agreed it would replace them.

Assessment and findings

Investigation scope

8. The resident raised an additional complaint after the internal complaint process, as she said the landlord had agreed to replace some internal doors in the property as part. There is no record of this being agreed in the original complaint responses and this second complaint has not been assessed as part of this investigation. That is because the Ombudsman can only investigate complaints which have exhausted a landlord’s complaints process. Accordingly, if this issue remains of concern to the resident, she should raise a formal complaint with the landlord, and can then return to the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied after the landlord has investigated her complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the property

9. The resident asked that a surveyor inspect her property in February 2022. The did not arrange an appointment until 24 June, after the resident contacted it in May to chase the issue. The delay in arranging the survey was not reasonable by any standards, and significantly outside the landlord’s 20 day repair response time frame.
10. Once the appointment was arranged there were further failings when appointments were not attended at the agreed times. The landlord then took appropriate steps to arrange an appointment time to suit the resident on 30 June 2022. Once the surveyor inspected the property the landlord took appropriate steps to raise work orders for the repairs that were identified.
11. In its stage one complaint response the landlord also took appropriate steps to apologise for the delay in the surveyor visiting, the missed appointments and that its service had fallen below expected levels. It also demonstrated appropriate learning from the complaint and said that it would now ensure that all inspection requests are provided with an appointment during the initial conversation. That appointments are correctly communicated and attended as arranged and that complaint responses were provided within expected timescales, and customers updated with a revised response date where this is not possible.
12. In line with its complaints policy the landlord should have issued its stage one complaint response within ten working days, and it failed to do so. However, the landlord appropriately apologised for this delay and awarded £100 compensation. This was reasonable and in line with both its own compensation policy for failure to follow the complaints policy, and also in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) for service failure that may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident but might include delays in getting matters resolved.
13. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will issue its stage two complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated and it failed to do so. However, it had taken reasonable steps during this time to arrange a face-to-face meeting with the resident as requested, as well as another meeting at its office, and had sent an update on 12 October 2022 confirming that even though she had agreed to wait until the repairs were complete, it could issue its stage two complaint response before then if she preferred. It also took appropriate steps to replace the surveyor, due to concerns the resident raised about alleged comments he had made.
14. Once this Service advised the landlord on 28 October 2022 that the resident would rather receive the stage two response ahead of the repairs completion date, and that repairs should not delay a response, the landlord issued the stage two response. Therefore, although there was a delay in issuing the stage two complaint response the landlord was taking reasonable steps to keep the resident updated and to explain the delay, and issued a response once it became clear that that is what the resident would prefer. It also acted appropriately by agreeing to carry out repairs to the roof that the resident raised concerns about.
15. The resident’s escalation request explained that although the landlord had apologised for its failings she did not feel it had taken into account the stress and anxiety it had caused to her, the fact that previous repairs had not resolved the problem, and that the agreed repairs would take place outside of its 20 working day timeframe for appointable repairs. In response, the landlord revised its previous compensation up to £300. That amount was in line with both the landlord’s compensation policy for failings that have caused moderate disruption, and with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of service failure and an adverse effect on the resident. By acknowledging the resident’s full range of concerns, apologising, and increasing the compensation by a reasonable amount the landlord provided a reasonable resolution to the complaint, and to its failings.
16. Following the completion of the landlord’s complaints process, the resident raised further concerns about the quality and timeframe of the repair work that was carried out and in December 2022, the landlord used its discretion to increase the compensation to £1550 and agreed to complete any outstanding repairs to the resident’s satisfaction. The landlord also investigated the resident’ concerns that the kitchen ceiling was bowing and considered carrying out repairs. However, a survey carried out by the landlord in April 2023 has confirmed that no additional repairs were required to the kitchen ceiling.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress in respect of its handling of repairs at the property prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.