Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing (MTV) (202123896)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202123896

Metropolitan Thames Valley Housing

23 October 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 the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to a leak into the kitchen.
2. Response to the resident’s request for a transfer and reports of noise from neighbours.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the complaint.
2. Record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of her request for a transfer and her reports of noise from her neighbours. Evidence shows that, through her representative, she raised a complaint/dissatisfaction about these matters with the landlord in March 2022. However, there is no evidence the landlord addressed either of these concerns as a complaint at this time.
In June 2023 the resident received a stage 1 response to her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her noise reports. However, there is no evidence the resident has requested escalation of this complaint or exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. There is no evidence that she has received any response from the landlord to her complaint about its handling of her transfer request.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints made prior to exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure, and the Ombudsman is satisfied the landlord has not taken action within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint in March 2022 has been considered further below. However, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, these complaints are currently outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 1–bedroom flat. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The resident’s tenancy agreement with the landlord says it will maintain the structure and outside of the property, including inside walls and ceilings. It says it will also maintain any installations it has provided for space heating, water heating and sanitation.
The landlord’s repairs guide states:
1. Emergency repairs – those that are required to avoid immediate danger to health and safety or serious damage to the property – should be completed within 24 hours.
2. Routine repairs should be completed within 28 days.
The landlord does not have a specific decant policy. However, it has guidance to staff about making a decision to decant. This says:
1. Decants can be considered for a variety of reasons but are always the last resort.
2. The landlord should decant a resident when a property is not habitable because of repair work the landlord is responsible for.
3. An inspection to identify issues should be done before decanting where possible.
4. An example of a situation when a decant may be considered is a total loss of kitchen or bathroom facilities for more than 24 hours.
The landlord’s complaint’s policy sets out that it will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days. It says it will provide a stage 2 response to the complaint within 20 days.
The landlord’s guidance on compensation award provides a scale of payments dependant on the degree of service failure, and the impact on the resident. It says:
1. Apology – £50 for service failure which has not significantly affected the resident.
2. £51-160 – considerable service failure but no permanent impact on the resident.
3. £161 – £350 – where there has been a severe long-term impact on the resident.
The landlord’s guidance also sets out a separate award of up to £150 that may be considered for poor complaint handling.

Summary of events

The resident said she reported to the landlord a leak into her kitchen affecting the ceiling on 9 December 2021. The landlord’s repair records show it raised an emergency repair on 10 December 2021 to make safe the ceiling in the kitchen. It noted the kitchen plaster was cracking and coming down from a leak. It was given an emergency priority. The landlord attended that day. On 12 December 2021 the resident moved out of the property.
On 16 December 2021 the resident sent an email to the landlord. She said that the landlord’s plumber attended on 10 December 2021 but he was not able to do anything. She said:
1. The plumber mentioned asbestos, which caused her anxiety.
2. She contacted the landlord again on 11 December 2021 and was told that someone would attend that day to look at the ceiling.
3. She contacted the landlord again towards the end of the day and was told the asbestos needed to be checked before anyone attended.
4. Part of the kitchen ceiling had dropped to the floor on 12 December 2021, with the leak dripping rapidly.
5. Her friend contacted the landlord on 12 December 2021, and it said the earliest it could attend was 14 December 2021.
6. She decided to move out of the property as she did not feel safe.
The resident said she contacted the landlord again on 13 December 2021. She said she was told:
1. There was no asbestos at the property.
2. That the repair to the ceiling would take place in mid-January 2021, but that the leak from the above property would be attended to.
The resident said she had spoken to her neighbours above, where the leak was coming from. They told her the landlord had made 2 visits on 13 and 14 December 2021. The landlord has since told this service that it made several attendances in December 2021 regarding the leak from the boiler in this property, which it said were treated as urgent appointments. However, the landlord has not provided further details or contemporaneous evidence of these attendances.
The resident said she was distressed and extremely depressed and that she was seeking support to get transferred to another property. The landlord logged the matter as a complaint. It sent an email to the resident about her complaint on 22 December 2021. It asked if the leak was still present.
The landlord noted on 5 January 2022 that the boiler in the flat above (for which it was also the landlord) had to be fixed before starting repairs to the resident’s property. The landlord sent an email to the resident to advise her of this. It also said it was extending the time to respond to her complaint by 10 days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2022. She said:
1. Water was still leaking into her kitchen from the flat above.
2. The residents above would be unavailable from 7 January 2022 due to travel/going back to work.
3. The situation had made her homeless and was affecting her mental health.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord noted it needed to complete pest control work and boiler repairs to the flat above, before completing work to the resident’s ceiling. It told the resident that pest control had attended the flat above on 12 January 2022. It said it would now see if the contractor due to repair the boiler in the flat above could now attend.
On 16 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that since moving out the property on 12 December 2021 she had stayed at 3 different places. She said this was triggering post–traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) for her. She said she had now requested to be transferred to another property.
On 17 January 2022 the landlord told the resident it was awaiting a part to complete repairs to the flat above. The following day the landlord sent an internal email. It said the resident had sent images of her ceiling and had said it had got worse since the landlord attended. It noted the resident said that she was stressed and going “from place to place” until the issue was resolved.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 20 January 2022. It said its repairs officer could visit on 25 January 2022 to conduct an inspection of the property.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 25 January 2022. She said:
1. She had not received an email or call from the repairs officer.
2. The matter was having a “huge destructive impact” on her life.
3. She was confused about why the pest issue in the flat above needed to be resolved before the leak.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident. It said:
1. It had booked to resolve the leak from the flat above on 31 January 2022.
2. It would be in contact if it needed to complete a further inspection of the property before arranging the repair to the kitchen ceiling.
3. Pest control was needed at the flat above because of mice droppings that needed to be resolved before the contractor could attend to resolve the leak.
4. It was looking to see if any support could be offered to the resident while the repair was outstanding.
Later that day the landlord queried internally support that could be offered to the resident. It also raised an inspection of the collapsed ceiling.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 January 2022. She said she was unhappy about the landlord’s response to repairs. She said she was still returning to empty buckets of the water dripping from the flat above. She said she wanted her complaint to be escalated. In its response, on 31 January 2022, the landlord said it was nearing resolution of the complaint at stage 1. It said the resident could escalate the matter following this if she remained unhappy.
Also, on 31 January 2022 the landlord received from the resident’s solicitor a letter of claim under the protocol for Housing Conditions Claims (the protocol). This raised several defects with the property, including water penetration to the kitchen ceiling and degrading of the kitchen floor due to water ingress.
The following day the landlord noted it tried to call the resident but that it had gone to voicemail. It sent an email to her that day outlining issues it was having contacting her. It said the repairs officer had attended several times to inspect work and there had been no access.
The landlord recorded that the resident made contact on 2 February 2022 stating that the leak from the flat above was still unresolved. The landlord responded that day stating it would check on the position with the repair of the leak.
On 4 February 2022 the landlord told the resident it needed to inspect the property so it could consider a possible decant. It said it had asked the repairs manager to confirm a suitable date and time for this, in line with the resident’s availability, and was waiting to hear back. It also said it had not been able to resolve the leak from the upstairs flat due to access issues. The landlord records do not show when it did gain access to the flat above.
On 14 February 2022 the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident. At this time it said that as the resident had registered a disrepair claim, her complaint could not be kept open. It said its legal team would handle the matter. Repair records note that an initial disrepair survey was completed on the property that day.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord noted an asbestos report had been received. However, the landlord has since told this service that a new asbestos report had not been completed at this time – it said a survey for the property from June 2019 showed no asbestos.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord’s repair records detail that a disrepair schedule of work had been raised. But the records do not provide further information about what was to be completed in relation to this.
On 1 March 2022 the resident contacted this service. She said she was “confused and baffled” about the landlord’s decision to close her complaint. She said the issues at her property had not been resolved since she reported them to the landlord. She said she was still living at a friend’s property. She said she had been left without a home for more than 2 months.
On 14 March 2022 the resident’s representative sent an email to the landlord requesting escalation of the complaint. They said:
1. The landlord’s plumber who attended on 10 December 2022 had said the asbestos in the property was a serious risk preventing him completing work.
2. Mice droppings in the flat above had resulted in unnecessary delays in resolving the leak from this property.
3. The leak from the flat above had continued until mid-February 2022.
4. The landlord had not given advance warning of visits to the resident, resulting in no access. They said the resident did not object to the landlord using its own key.
5. The resident had requested an escalation of her complaint because the landlord delayed in providing a stage 1 response.
6. The resident was paying rent to live elsewhere.
On 16 March 2022, in an internal email, the landlord stated that notes from the visit to the property on 10 December 2021 set out that:
1. It was not an emergency – there was a small area of plaster coming away from the ceiling.
2. A plasterer was required to attend to make good.
3. The ceiling required testing.
Also on 16 March 2022 the landlord recorded:
1. The contractor who completed repairs in the property above said it could not gain access on several occasions due to parking issues and no access from the resident of that flat.
2. It had attended the resident’s flat on 15 March 2022 to make safe the ceiling but she was not available as the appointment was not communicated to her in advance.
3. The job to make safe the ceiling was marked as completed even though there had been no access to the property.
The landlord recorded on 21 March 2022 that the resident was happy to provide her keys for access to complete repair work. It said a key safe was to be installed outside the property.
The resident’s representative sent a letter by email to the landlord’s chief executive on 28 March 2022. In this he requested a response to resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request. On 29 March 2022 the resident’s representative sent a further email to the landlord’s service improvement team referring to the transfer complaint sent the previous day. He said the resident also had noise nuisance reports that had not been adequately addressed. The landlord has since told this service that it has no record of a complaint being raised at this time about its handling of a transfer request or noise reports.
The landlord considered that work within the property had been completed on 4 April 2022.
The landlord provided a stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 8 April 2022 about the time taken to resolve the leak from the property above. The landlord acknowledged delays in completing the necessary repairs and said:
1. There had been a number of no access appointments to the property above.
2. The operative who attended on 10 December 2021 did not believe he had mentioned asbestos to the resident. However, it apologised if any confusion was caused during this conversation.
3. Its contractor would not attend the property above to complete repairs while pests were present. It said that this was for health and safety reasons and it did not consider it to be a failing.
4. The pest control contractor had attempted to gain access to the property above but had also encountered difficulties.
5. It apologised if appointments were made without the resident’s knowledge. It said it had experienced issues contacting the resident so it was possible appointments were made that were not successfully communicated to the resident.
6. It could not use a key to access the resident’s property as it did not hold one.
7. Its surveyor who had recently inspected the property had said the repair required would not have needed a decant. The landlord said it would not be reimbursing the resident’s rent for this period.
The landlord said it had also investigated the resident’s concerns about the way her stage 1 complaint was handled. It acknowledged that her complaint, made in December 2021, remained unresolved for some time. However, it said it had tried to maintain contact with the resident throughout to reach a resolution. The landlord awarded £30 to the resident for poor complaint handling.
The landlord said it was pleased its disrepair team had completed the required work to the property. It said that redress for any service failing would be awarded by its disrepair team.
On 21 April 2022 the landlord completed a post inspection of work and noted the resident had reported there was new leak from the property above causing staining to the walls.
On 26 April 2022 the landlord paid the resident £272 in respect of her disrepair claim. Records provided by the landlord do not outline how this payment was calculated or what it was intended to cover. The same day the landlord raised a repair to assess further work needed in respect of new staining to the resident’s wall and that the resident had reported blocked sink and a fault with her boiler.
The resident subsequently sent an letter to the Regulator of Social Housing on 6 May 2022. She said the repairs were not completed to an acceptable standard. She said she was now waiting for a surveyor for the landlord to inspect these.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord noted it attended to inspect further work that had been identified. It subsequently identified, on 11 July 2022, a leaking overflow from the flat above and repairs to the resident’s wall were booked.
On 9 November 2022 the landlord completed a post completion sign-off of work completed to the property in respect of the disrepair claim.

Assessment and findings

Scope

During the post inspection of work completed following the leak of December 2021 the resident reported new issues including staining to her wall. This was later identified to be caused by a leaking overflow from the flat above. As this was a new leak, separate to the leak reported in December 2021, this service has not assessed the handling of the repairs in respect of this leak. However, this detail has been included for context.
It is acknowledged that the resident said on 6 May 2022 that repairs completed were not of an acceptable standard. However, records of the post inspection on 21 April 2022 indicate the additional work that needed to be completed was because of the new leak causing stains to the walls and therefore fall outside the scope of this investigation.

Handling of repairs to a leak into the kitchen

The resident reported a leak into her kitchen on 9 December 2021. The landlord recorded this was an emergency and its attendance the following day was in line with timescales set out in its repairs policy. However, the leak, which was coming from the boiler in the property above, remained unresolved. Consequently, repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling remained outstanding. While the landlord’s operative who attended on 10 December 2021 had recorded the issue was not an emergency, in line with the repairs guidance the resident might reasonably have expected the work to be completed within 28 days.
According to the resident’s statements, the landlord gave her mixed messages when she made contact on 11 and 13 December 2021 that asbestos testing to her ceiling was needed. This would have contributed towards lack of clarity from the landlord about steps that were needed to resolve the matter. It would have been reasonable, and in line with its responsibilities to manage a resident’s expectations, that the landlord set out clearly from the outset what steps it needed to take to resolve the matter, with timeframes. That might have helped to avoid the frustration and confusion the resident expressed in her complaint email of 16 December 2021.
Upon receipt of that email, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to provide swift clarification of what was happening to progress the repair. The landlord did not do so until 5 January 2022. That was poor. It is apparent the resident was already aware of issues that needed to be resolved in the property above. But it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain what other actions were needed. This service acknowledges that issues such as the need to complete pest control work to the property above could not have been foreseen by the landlord from the outset. However, when a repair cannot be completed it is vital that landlords provide clear and timely communications with residents about what steps are to be taken to complete work.
The resident said that she contacted the landlord after a section of the kitchen ceiling fell to the floor. The landlord’s records do not detail the resident’s calls about this on 12 and 13 December 2021. However, it is apparent the resident had reiterated her concern about part of the ceiling falling down in her email of 16 December 2021. The resident indicated the leak was dripping rapidly and that the ceiling had started to collapse, which was potentially dangerous. It was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in assessing the situation and considering whether there was a health and safety issue at the property. Instead it emailed the resident to ask her to confirm if the leak was still present. At this time it also missed the opportunity to let the resident know what it was doing to address the leak from above.
The landlord’s records do not show when the leak from the flat above was resolved. While it noted that it had not been able to complete repairs on 31 January 2022 due to access issues, its records do not show when was able to gain access. It should have done so as it is important for landlords to keep an audit trail of actions taken to resolve a complaint, not least because it needed to be aware of outstanding repairs that were necessary. As repairs were being carried out within another property, the relevant note may have been added against that property on the landlord’s system. But as the leak was affecting the resident’s property, it would have been reasonable for a corresponding note to have been made on records for this property too. However, the resident later said the leak continued until mid-February 2021.
The landlord told the resident that a pest control issue in the flat above needed to be resolved before the leak. It said in its complaint response that this was required for health and safety reasons and that it did not consider this to be a failing. It is clear the resident was confused about why pest control work was needed first. The landlord did not make this clear to her until its stage 2 response in April 2022. This would have added to her frustration that the landlord was not dealing with the leak. There is also no evidence that the landlord updated the resident about problems, outlined in its stage 2 response, the pest control team had accessing the flat above. It would have been reasonable for it to have done so given this would impact on when repairs could be completed to the resident’s own property.
It is understandable that the landlord did not ask the contractor to attend prior to completing pest control work given the potential health and safety risks to contractors. But it should have balanced this with an assessment of the level of risk to the resident from the leak/ceiling repairs needed. To do so, it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to arrange a timely reinspection after the resident reported the worsening of the damage in her property.
The landlord could not know without reinspection how severely the leak was affecting the resident’s property. It is difficult to see how the landlord could make an informed decision about whether other action should be taken to address the leak into the property, or carry out temporary repairs, in advance of pest control’s attendance. The absence of the landlord’s consideration of this was a further failing.
The landlord took steps from 20 January 2022 to arrange to inspect the property. But that was over a month after the resident had notified the landlord of the collapse of part of the ceiling. Even then, its attempts to arrange this visit were poorly organised. While the landlord set out some issues it had contacting the resident around this time, it is apparent it was in frequent email contact with her. It is unclear, therefore, why it did not progress arranging the inspection date and time with the resident by email. Instead, it said it made repeated attempts to attend the property. Given the resident had said she was not staying there, it should have been clear to the landlord that an unscheduled visit would have limited success.
The resident said she moved out of the property as did not feel she could safely remain. In response the landlord said, in its stage 2 response, that its surveyor who inspected the property did not consider a decant was necessary. The landlord’s guidance in respect of decants states this option should be used as a last resort. It says a decant is appropriate if the property is not habitable.
It is noted that the landlord spoke to its surveyor about this matter on 5 April 2022, who said the damage in the property was limited to a section of the ceiling in the kitchen. The landlord’s consideration of whether a decant was necessary, although belated, was reasonable and in line with its decant guidance. However, this service acknowledges that the landlord should have taken earlier steps to inspect the property following the resident’s report of the collapse of part of the ceiling. It could then have provided some reassurance to the resident about the safety of the property, and considered whether any temporary repairs were appropriate. The landlord did not show empathy to the fact that the resident had felt she had to leave her property because of safety concerns.
The resident said that she was also concerned as the operative who attended on 10 December 2021 mentioned asbestos. While not recorded in its repair records, the landlord subsequently noted the operative who attended on 10 December 2021 had recorded that the ceiling required testing. It is not clear exactly what the resident was told by the operative at this time. On 22 March 2022 the landlord noted it had spoken to the operative who attended the resident’s property on 10 December 2021, who said he had not had a conversation with the resident about asbestos.
In her email of 16 December 2021 the resident mentioned that asbestos had been discussed with the attending operative, and this was soon after the attendance. While the resident said the landlord subsequently told her, on 13 December 2021, that there was no asbestos at the property, it is unclear how it reached this conclusion. The resident was evidently concerned about the discussion that had taken place around testing the ceiling. The landlord should reasonably have taken proportionate action at this time to allay her concerns.
In its stage 2 response the landlord apologised if any confusion was caused during the conversation the resident had with the operative at this time. This service considers this to be a reasonable response by the landlord. However, it is noted that the record the operative made of his attendance was not set out in the landlord’s repair records. That is a failing in record keeping. Accurate recording of information helps the landlord keep track of actions needed towards a repair. It could also have helped to ensure clear and consistent information could be relayed to the resident about what was found during the attendance, and what steps were to be taken.
The repair records do not set out exactly when work was completed to repair the damage to the kitchen ceiling caused by the leak, which is a further failing in record keeping. However, the landlord said that by 4 April 2022 repair work had been completed to the resident’s property and a post inspect of work was to be booked. That was nearly 4 months after the resident had first reported the leak.
It is clear access issues with the upstairs property, and the need to complete pest control work added to the time it took to complete work on the leak, eventually resolved in mid-February 2022. However, it is also evident that poor communication increased the delay before repairs were completed in the resident’s property. The landlord attempted to visit to begin repairs in the resident’s property on 15 March 2022 without giving her adequate notice of this appointment. That was a further failing which would have delayed work and added to the resident’s frustration about the length of time the repair was taking.
While its initial attendance at the report of a leak was timely, it failed to arrange an appropriate reinspection of the resident’s property after she reported worsening damage. This meant the landlord also failed to consider whether steps should be taken to arrange more urgent or temporary repairs to the resident property or to the flat above. It also resulted in the landlord failing to provide reassurance to the resident about the safety of a property she felt was potentially dangerous. In addition, there was poor communication by the landlord about steps necessary before completing repairs, and about an appointment to start repairs to the resident’s property. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling repairs of the leak into the resident’s kitchen.
So far, the landlord has awarded the resident £272 following her disrepair claim, which the landlord said was to provide redress to address failings. It is not clear precisely how the landlord calculated this amount. However, this service does not consider it provides an adequate remedy for the impact of the failings identified in this report. This service has found the landlord’s consideration of whether a decant was necessary was reasonable, but delayed. However, the landlord’s failure to arrange a timely inspection of the new damage she had reported meant the resident was caused unnecessary additional distress and inconvenience and that temporary repairs to her property were not considered. This was compounded by the landlord failure to communicate adequately with the resident, leaving her frustrated about the progress made. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered to recognise the impact these failings.

Handling of the complaint

On 14 February 2022 the landlord closed the resident’s complaint at stage 1 on the basis that she had submitted a disrepair claim. At the time it told the resident the matter would instead be handled by its legal team.
This service published new guidance to landlords about the handling of disrepair claims and the complaint process on 3 November 2021. This set out the Ombudsman’s view that the matter does not become “legal” until proceedings have been issued. It also says that a landlord should be clear with the resident about how it is handling correspondence – under the internal complaints process (ICP), under the protocol or both. It says that landlords should make use of the full effect of its ICP wherever possible and not close complaints because of existing unrelated issues.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord on 16 December 2021 set out her dissatisfaction with the length of time taken to resolve the leak she was experiencing. While she subsequently raised a disrepair claim, this focused on legal points that would not answer all the concerns she had raised in her complaint. In line with the Ombudsman’s guidance, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide a stage 1 response to the complaint that the resident had already waited more than 8 weeks for. The landlord’s decision to close the complaint clearly caused the resident confusion and distress. She said the issues she had reported were still unresolved.
The landlord subsequently provided a stage 2 response after the resident’s representative requested the complaint be escalated. But this meant the resident did not receive a substantial response to her complaint until nearly 4 months after her initial complaint. In addition, she was denied the opportunity to have the substance of her complaint considered at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaints process. The resident should not have had to wait for so long, and spend further time and trouble before getting a response to her complaint. This would undoubtedly have added to the frustration the resident had experienced because of the delay in resolving repairs. The landlord has offered £25 in respect of this delay in complaint handling. This amount inadequately recognised the frustration, time and trouble and confusion caused to the resident by the landlord’s poor handling of her complaint.
In addition, the landlord failed to identify failings to reinspect the resident’s property following the ceiling collapse, and the impact of that failing. The landlord missed an opportunity to put things right for the resident.
The resident’s representative communicated with the landlord in March 2022 about the resident’s dissatisfaction with its handling of the resident’s housing transfer request and noise reports. Yet, there is no evidence the landlord took steps to consider these issues under its complaints procedure. If the landlord was unsure about the resident’s concerns, it could reasonably have sought clarification from her or her representative at the time. It has meant that the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of her housing transfer request remains without a response. It is acknowledged, however, that there is no evidence the resident or her representative tried to raise these concerns again.
The resident raised her complaint about the handling of her noise reports again in May 2023. As explained earlier, this complaint and the complaint about the housing transfer request are currently outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they have not yet exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. However, it is apparent that the landlord’s lack of response to address these the issues as a complaint in March 2022 was a complaint handling failing. Landlords should address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The landlord’s failure to provide a response to the resident’s concerns would undoubtedly have caused frustration, and further detriment.
With consideration to the Ombudsman’s guidance, and circumstances of the case, a further award in respect of the impact of the complaint handling failing identified has been ordered. This is aimed at putting things right for the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs of the leak into the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of her transfer request and noise reports is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Reasons

The landlord attended the initial report of a leak appropriately, but failed to arrange a timely reinspection after the resident reported a worsening of the situation. It also failed to keep and provide clear and timely information about steps that would be taken to resolve repair issues. Further, it poorly communicated with the resident about access to her property and an appointment to start repairs.
The landlord delayed in responding to the resident’s complaint far beyond its published timeframes. It further delayed providing a complaint response when it failed to follow relevant Ombudsman’s guidance and closed the complaint at stage 1 after the resident made a disrepair claim. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and address failings in its handling of the repair.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 1 week of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident about her outstanding concerns about its handling of her transfer request and noise reports. Any concerns raised by the resident should be handled by the landlord in line with the timescales set out in its complaints policy.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1,197 compensation, comprised of:
  1. £272 already awarded by the landlord’s disrepair team.
  2. £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failings identified in its handling of the repairs of the leak into the kitchen.
  3. £425 for the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused by the failings identified in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Considering the failings identified in this case, within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. Undertake a review training and guidance to staff in respect of arranging appropriate re-inspections of repairs when further issues are reported. This is with the aim of ensuring that the failings identified in this report are not repeated.
2. Review the complaint handling failings identified in this case with the aim of ensuring that failings identified. In particular the landlord should:
  1. Ensure complaint handling staff are appropriately aware of the Ombudsman’s guidance of November 2021 about the handling of disrepair claims and the complaint process.
  2. Review processes to ensure complaints raised are appropriately addressed through the complaints process.
3. Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should review its repair recording keeping processes to ensure that details of attendances, and actions to be taken, are accurately recorded.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks the of the date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to ensure any vulnerabilities she has have been appropriately recorded.