Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202102777)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202102777

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

12 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s windows, the insulation of the loft and kitchen repairs.
2. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident had been a joint secure tenant of the landlord, with his wife, since 13 November 1999. On 30 September 2022, this Service was advised that the resident had passed away. Following contact with the late resident’s wife, and joint tenant, she confirmed that she would still like the complaint, originally brought to this Service by her late husband, to be investigated.
The property is a three-bedroom town house. In an internal email the landlord said that it was unaware of any vulnerabilities the resident may have had.
The resident had a previous case with this Service regarding how the landlord handled repairs reported at the property between April 2019 and 8 October 2020. That case was determined on 30 March 2021 under this Service’s reference 202005977, and a finding of reasonable redress made. In its final response of 8 October 2020, the landlord offered the resident £1,500 compensation and:
1. Said that the repairs were now progressing with management oversight, its operations manager continuing to be the resident’s point of contact until all the remainder of the repairs had been completed. The landlord referred to a program of works that had been provided to the resident on 18 September 2020, which included window repairs, the installation of loft insulation and the replacement of the kitchen sink and unit.
2. Said that it that the broader lessons arising out of the resident’s complaint, the need for better communication and liaison with contractors would be taken forward.

Scope of investigation

Whilst the resident’s previous complaint referred to above provides a contextual background to the current complaint, this investigation will only assess the landlord’s response to the matters raised in his new formal complaint of 11 November 2020.
The reason for this is twofold. Firstly, under the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon. That said, the landlord’s actions will be assessed in respect of repairs it agreed to carry out in its final response to the previous complaint, where the landlord’s subsequent handling of those repairs form part of the complaint made by the resident on 11 November 2020. The landlord’s actions will also be considered in light of the assurances it gave in its final response to the previous complaint in respect of the learning it had taken from that complaint.
Secondly, this Service can only investigate matters which have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure. Whilst this Service recognises that during the complaints process other repairs were either raised by the resident or identified by the landlord during its inspections, as these did not form part of the complaint made by the resident on 11 November 2020 the landlord’s response to these will not be assessed in this report. These repairs include but are not limited to asbestos, a faulty wash hand basin, plastering of walls in the hallway, repairs to the toilet and front door, garage, roof, and heating pipes and radiators.
Further, whilst the formal complaint made to the landlord on 11 November 2020 was about the repairs to the resident’s windows, loft, kitchen, bathroom door, front wall and bannisters, as the front wall, bathroom door and bannisters were not bought to this Service by the resident to be investigated, these issues will also not be considered in this report.

Summary of events

The resident logged a formal complaint with the landlord about the repairs to his windows, loft insulation and kitchen on 11 November 2020. The resident said that he was very upset as he felt he was being neglected and that the situation was extremely stressful for him. The resident said that his windows still did not lock and needed sealing as the wind came through them, his loft still needed insulating, the bottom of the kitchen units needed sealing and the kitchen door did not close properly.
An appointment was made for 1 December 2020, for outstanding works to take place. These works included filling a gap to the window frame and repair to window hinges, easing the kitchen door and sealing the kitchen floor.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 2 December 2020 and provided what it described as its final list of snagging works following its surveyor’s and contractor’s post inspection of the resident’s property on 20 November 2020. The landlord noted that the resident had been in regular contact with the operations manager and acknowledged that a number of repairs still needed to be completed, including:

Replacing gaskets and repairing hinges to tilt and turn windows in both bedrooms, filling gap to frame.
Sealing the perimeter of the kitchen flooring, replacing handle to a kitchen drawer so that another drawer could open freely and to ease and adjust the kitchen door.

The landlord said that it was sorry that the resident had had to contact it about the delays and snagging works, that it realised the resident had been waiting for these works to start for a long time, that it had previously needed several surveyor inspections, and that the resident had made several earlier complaints about the delay and difficulty in getting the repairs started. The landlord also said that it accepts that it should have carried out the post inspection of the works earlier than it did. Had this happened, it could have completed the work sooner. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused by the extended period needed to complete the repairs and said that it hoped that the resident was now happy with the completed works. The landlord ended by asking that the resident reconsider the £1,500 it had offered in response to his previous complaint for the earlier history of delay in starting the works, and how this had impacted him.
On 16 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord to say that he was extremely unhappy and disappointed at the landlord’s stage one response. The resident said that he had been in regular contact with the operations manager, however, this was mostly the result of him chasing them to make sure something happened. The landlord had made all the decisions about what was going to happen without informing or notifying him, and ‘‘had no interest in the emotion stress that it had caused to his physical health and mental health’’. The resident confirmed that kitchen works were completed on 3 December 2020, but he had been left with kitchen drawers that did not open. The resident also said that the window works, and loft insulation had still not been done.
This was confirmed by the resident’s housing officer on 5 February 2021, who reported that the windows in the bedroom needed sealing and repair, and that there were ‘‘loft gaps’’ and lots of draft coming in. The landlord’s records note that the works were reported as complete on 11 February 2021, but then go on to state that the window seal was not repaired until 31 March 2021. The landlord’s repair records also note that a job was raised for a heat loss calculation to be carried out.
Between 5 February and 31 March 2021:
1. The resident escalated his complaint on 23 February 2021, stating that his property was meant to have insulation and to be warm but there was a lack of insulation on the property, his house was cold and that his window was still letting in cold air due to the sealant not being replaced. The resident said that the landlord should be ashamed of itself for its lack of care and that it was clear that it did not care about him, he had had no communication from either the landlord or its contractors and that the works were still incomplete.
2. On 11 March 2021, the resident again had reported that his windows were not locking, were old and did not close tightly, they required sealant to stop the wind from coming in and that the property got very cold. The resident said that the house needed insulation as it was very cold, and that he had been spending a lot of money to keep the property heated. The resident also said that the bottom of the kitchen units needed sealing and where the operatives installed the flooring in the kitchen had not sealed around the edge and so it looked unfinished.
3. On 12 March 2021, the landlord raised a works order for a number of repairs, including easing and adjusting the kitchen door and the sealing the perimeter of the flooring in the kitchen, easing and adjusting windows in the property, installing draught excluders to windows and laying loft insulation to entire loft area. The landlord also noted that an EPC was required.
4. In correspondence with the resident’s MP on 17 March 2021, the landlord said that it would shortly be carrying out another inspection before carrying out any further works needed, which would include a check of the windows. The landlord said that it had recommended a review of the loft insulation however, this did not take place due to difficulties accessing the loft space. Given the amount of work that was taking place at the resident’s property the previous autumn, the landlord said that it had been decided to revisit the loft access issue at a later date, which it said it now intended to do. The landlord also explained that it was currently investigating Stage two complaint which included the windows not locking, the bottom of the kitchen units needing sealing and the kitchen drawers not fully closing.
5. A further inspection took place on 26 March 2021, following which the landlord sent the resident what it called its ‘interim response to stage two’ on 30 March 2021. The landlord noted that its stage two complaint response was due on 23 March 2021 and apologised for the delay in responding to his complaint. The landlord explained that it did not want to fully close the case until satisfied that all the repairs have been completed. The landlord referred to a number of repairs it had identified during the inspection and, with regards to the repairs that formed part of the resident’s complaint, confirmed that:
  1. The new kitchen flooring was bubbling by rear door and needed to be re-secured, extra/excess flooring cut and made good, the cracks to the back door reveals also needed to be patch painted.
  2. The rear right hand side bedroom window needed a new draught excluder to the top frame.
  3. An Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) was to be produced to identify heat efficiency of property and loft insulation was to be installed.
On 8 April 2021, the operations manager sent an internal email advising that the works were all scheduled for completion that day, with the exception of the loft insulation, which they said was proving problematic. The operations manager said that they had requested that an EPC be undertaken to demonstrate the energy efficiency of the property and following the results they would then consider next steps.
In an internal email to the operations manager of 15 April 2021, the landlord noted that the resident had called and was ‘‘very distressed’’. In its email the landlord asked for an update as to when the works would be completed so it could call the resident back that day and let him know. There is evidence in its records that the landlord did try and call the resident that day but was unsuccessful.
On 23 April 2021, a works order was raised from an Energy Performance Assessment to be carried out and for an EPCto be provided.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord’s project surveyor noted that they had carried out another inspection the previous day and that most of the outstanding works had been successfully completed, and that the resident was satisfied. They also noted that there were a number of outstanding repairs including a draught excluder to the bedroom window and the decoration of a small section of the kitchen door reveal.
An internal email of 23 June 2021, the landlord said that the draught excluders had been fitted.
On 6 May 2021, the landlord raised a job to overhaul the kickboard to the kitchen base unit. The job was given a target date of 30 July 2021. The landlord’s records note that the operative marked the job as no access and that when the resident was called, he said he would do it.
The resident chased the landlord for its stage two response on 11 May 2021, stating that the repairs had not been carried out. On 2 June 2021, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was still awaiting a date for the insulation to be completed.
On 15 June 2021, the resident contacted the landlord about his window repairs. The resident was very upset and distressed about the contractors who had been in and out of his property. The resident said that he felt like nothing was being done, or they arrive and do nothing. On the same day, the landlord confirmed in an internal email that the loft hatch had been installed that day and the contractors had advised that the loft was adequately insulated.
On 22 June 2021, the resident called the landlord for an update following a recent visit to his property. The resident said that someone was going to get back to him.
On 23 June 2021, in an internal email, the landlord said that its project surveyor had carried out an inspection the previous week and all works on the snagging list had been successfully carried out. This included the decoration to the kitchen door reveal, that a draught excluder had been fitted to the bedroom windows. The email also referred to a completed EPC and asked whether the loft insulation would be upgraded.
On 19 July 2021, the resident again contacted the landlord chasing its stage two response.
The landlord noted in an internal email of 28 July 2021, that the resident had called to say that the loft insulation had not been completed and that the rubber at the bottom of the kitchen door was not stopping water coming in and was hanging off. The landlord noted that the insulation was fully resolved.
On 9 August 2021, following contact from the resident, this service contacted the landlord chasing its stage two response.
On 31 August 2021, the landlord issued its stage two and final response. The landlord’s response referred to its letter sent on 30 March 2021 and made reference to kitchen repairs, specifically that some of those repairs had ‘‘since failed and needed to be corrected’’, and that the replacement of the weatherboard to the kitchen back door had been raised with an alternative contractor. The landlord made no reference to the loft insulation nor windows in its response. The landlord said that it very sorry for the delays in getting the repairs completed, and that it would take the resident’s feedback on board to ensure this did not happen again. The landlord offered the resident £488 compensation for this which it linked to reimbursement for the loss of his flooring, which appears to relate to one of the recommendations made in this Service’s determination on the resident’s previous complaint, in relation to damage caused by a flood from his shower, although this is unclear.

Matters that occurred following the landlord’s final response.

On 28 September 2021, the landlord raised a job to seal perimeter of flooring in bathroom and kitchen, ease and adjust windows in the property, install draught excluders to windows and to lay loft insulation to entire loft area. The job record also noted that an EPC was required. The job was given a target date of 5 October 2021.
When the resident referred his complaint to this Service on 9 October 2021, he advised that there remained a number of outstanding repairs, and specifically in relation to his complaint that the bedroom window was still not fixed and was letting in cold and the loft still needed to be insulated as the cold weather was approaching.
On 15 October 2021, the landlord raised a job for loft insulation to be added to the resident’s property, noting that there was currently none in place. The landlord’s works order noted that on 26 October 2021 the job was still open, and that the landlord had referred the job to a subcontractor who would contact the resident by the following week.
In an internal email on 12 November 2021, the landlord said that the loft was complete, but the resident was saying that nothing had been done and so a new works order had been raised.
Following his passing, the landlord met with the late resident’s wife and son at the property on 16 February 2023.
On 20 February 2023, the landlord’s head of property engagement emailed the late resident’s wife to confirm that they would be their single point of contact until the repair’s issues were resolved. With regards to the compensation offered the head of property engagement said that they had reviewed the £3,188 compensation previously offered, for the two complaints that had been referred to this Service, and had now revised the landlord’s offer to £4,400 made up of:
1. £300 for its failure to respond to complaints within published timescales.
2. £1,500 for the delays to works.
3. £1,350 for the impact on the resident’s use of their home during the delays, which the landlord explained had been taken this from the date the original complaint relating to these matters in November 2020 to date, 20 February 2023, and that it had allowed £50 per month as there have been varying impacts over that period.
4. £1,250 for inconvenience and negative impact.
On 23 May 2023, the landlord wrote to this Service to confirm that the works that remained outstanding included to plaster patch repair and replace skirting behind back kitchen door, making good decorations and the replacement of two double glazed windows. The landlord said that the windows had been measured and quoted for and as soon as it had an installation date from its contractors it would contact the late resident’s wife. On 26 May 2023, the landlord forwarded this service an internal email that confirmed that the landlord would be replacing the tilt and turn mechanisms in the two double glazed units not the whole units.

Assessment and findings.

The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns by adhering to relevant legislation, its policies and procedures, and any agreements with the resident, and that the landlord acted reasonably, taking account of what is fair in all the circumstances of the case.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are: Be fair, put things right and Learn from the outcomes. This Service will apply these principles when considering whether the landlord responded appropriately and whether any redress offered by the landlord was appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.

Tenancy terms and landlord policies

The landlord is obliged under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs and to do so within a reasonable time of being given notice of the same. Once a landlord is informed of some damage or deterioration in a property, it is ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. What is a reasonable time will depend on all the circumstances of a case.
This obligation is confirmed in the terms of the tenancy agreement, which states that the landlord’s repair obligations include:
1. Keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
2. Carrying out repairs for which it is responsible within a reasonable time, giving priority to urgent repairs.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Handbook states that it aims to carry out emergency repairs within two to 24 hours depending on the seriousness of the problem. It aims to complete urgent repairs within three to five working days. It aims to complete routine repairs within 20 working days.
The landlord has two stage formal complaints process which states that complaints should be acknowledged within three working days, and a full written reply sent within 15 working days. Complaints escalated to stage two should also be acknowledged within three working days, with a full written reply being sent within 20 working days.

Repairs to the windows, the insulation of the loft and kitchen repairs.

The landlord said in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 8 October 2020, that it would address the outstanding repairs to the resident’s windows and the installation of loft insulation. As such, the landlord would have been expected to complete these repairs within a reasonable period of time, in this case as a routine repair and in accordance with the timeframes set out in its Repairs and Maintenance Handbook, this should have been done within 20 working days, by 5 November 2020.
The landlord’s records are unclear as to what if any repairs were completed to the window between 8 October 2020 and 11 November 2020. However, on 11 November 2020, the landlord was put on notice by the resident of outstanding repairs to his windows and that the loft insulation was yet to be installed. An appointment was made for 1 December 2020 to fill a gap in the window frame and repair to window hinges.
The kitchen repair issues raised in the resident’s complaint of 11 November 2020, related to remedial works following the replacement of the kitchen sink and unit that the landlord said it would undertake in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint. As that was the case, these would be new issues in terms of when the landlord would have been put ‘on notice’ to carry out a reasonable inquiry to determine the cause and complete a repair. These remedial works were that the bottom of the kitchen units needed sealing and that the kitchen door did not close properly.
In its stage one response of 2 December 2020 the landlord referred to a post inspection that had been carried out at the property on 20 November 2020. No evidence of either the appointment being attended on 1 December 2020, or the post inspection has been seen by this Service. However, given that in its stage one response the landlord confirmed that both bedroom windows, kitchen and loft insulation works were still outstanding following the resident’s formal complaint of 11 November 2020, it is reasonable to conclude that either the appointment of 1 December 2020 did not go ahead, or if it had it had not resolved the issue.
Despite the landlord stating in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint that it would carry out repairs to the resident’s windows, and despite the carrying out multiple inspections of the property, and being chased by the resident on multiple occasions, to date, and over two and half years later, it remains unclear what if any repairs have been carried out the resident’s windows.
As with the windows, in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint, dated 8 October 2020, the landlord said that it would carry out the installation of loft insulation in the resident’s property. Despite the insulation not being done forming part of the resident formal complaint on 11 November 2020, the landlord failed to refer to this in its stage one response of 2 December 2020 nor did it include the insulation in the list of outstanding works listed in that response.
On 16 December 2020, in his response to the landlord’s stage one response, the resident again raised concerns that the loft insulation had not been done. This was followed up by a report by his housing officer on 5 February 2021, that there were ‘loft gaps and lots of drafts coming in’. The landlord’s repair records indicate that the works were completed on 11 February 2021 and a job raised the same day for a heat loss calculation to be carried out.
However, the resident had to again raise his concerns about the lack of insulation in the property on 23 February 2021, 2 March 2021 and 11 March 2021 and on 12 March 2021, following which the landlord raised a new job to lay loft insulation to the entire loft. Given that the landlord’s repair records noted that all the jobs raised by the resident’s housing officer on 5 February 2021 were completed on 11 February 2021, for the landlord to raise another job for the same works a month later would indicate that either the repair did not go ahead, and therefore the landlord’s repair records were unsound, or that it did but was not completed to a reasonable standard.
The landlord did provide an explanation for the lack of progress with the loft insulation to the resident’s MP on 17 March 2021. however, there is no evidence of the landlord providing the resident with any such explanation. In its response to the MP, the landlord said that it had recommended a review of the loft insulation but that this did not take place due to difficulties accessing the loft space. The explanation the landlord gave the MP was that given the amount of work that had been taking place at the resident’s property the previous autumn, it had decided to revisit the loft access issue at a later date, which it said it now intended to do. This is the first mention in the correspondence seen by this Service of there being an issue with loft access.
Having reviewed the evidence, the explanation given by the landlord to the MP is not a fair reflection of what had taken place. As early as 8 October 2020, the landlord had said that a program of works had been provided to the resident on 18 September 2020, which included the installation of loft insulation. The landlord then raised multiple jobs to install the insulation. The landlord’s records also note that the works raised by its housing officer were completed on 11 February 2021 and yet on 12 March 2021 it raised a new job to lay loft insulation to the entire loft. The landlord was also advised by the resident on multiple occasions that the loft insulation had not been done.
Had it been the case that the landlord had decided to postpone installing the insulation due to difficulties accessing the loft space, this should have been clearly explained to the resident so that his expectations could be managed. That the landlord failed to do so caused the resident considerable and unnecessary distress and inconvenience.
The landlord arranged for a further inspection at the resident’s property on 26 March 2021, following which it advised the resident that it would now arrange for a for an Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) to be produced to identify heat efficiency of property and that the loft insulation was now to be installed. Again, there was no mention of the issues with the loft hatch in the landlord’s correspondence with the resident. It has also been noted that a works order for the EPC was then not raised until 23 April 2021, almost one month later.
The loft hatch was installed on 15 June 2021, and in an internal email the landlord said that the contractors had advised that the loft was adequately insulated and in an internal email on 23 June 2021, the landlord referred to the EPC which it said had been completed. However, this Service has not had sight of the EPC referred to in this email.
On 28 July 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to again raise concerns that the loft insulation had not been completed, following which the landlord noted that it had been fully resolved. No mention was made of the insulation in the landlord’s final response of 31 August 2021. However, by 28 September 2021, the landlord had raised a new job to lay loft insulation to the entire loft and again noted that an EPC was required, despite referring to the EPC being completed in its internal email of 23 June 2021.
This was followed up by a further job being raised on 15 October 2021 for loft insulation to be installed, this time noting that there was none in place, and on 12 November 2021, yet another works order was raised for the insulation to be installed. In this case the landlord said that whilst the loft was complete it had raised a new job because the resident said that nothing had been done. This is not a reasonable argument for the landlord to make. Either the insulation had been installed or it had not. That the landlord was not sufficiently confident that the insulation had been installed raises concerns about the accuracy and robustness of the landlord’s record keeping.
It is unclear if and when the issue of the loft insulation was resolved. However, it is noted that the loft insulation was not included in the list of repairs that were agreed following the landlord’s meeting with the late resident’s wife and son at the property on 16 February 2023.
That said what is clear is that if the works were completed, they were not completed until significantly later than the 20 working days timescales set out in the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance handbook, given the further works order raised on 12 November 2021 for the insulation to be installed. Even if the works had been completed that day it would still have been over a year since the landlord had agreed to do the works, and since the resident had raised his subsequent new formal complaint.
Following the resident’s complaint, an appointment was made for 1 December 2020, to ease the kitchen door and seal the kitchen floor. As with the windows, given that in its stage one response the landlord confirmed that the kitchen floor still needed sealing and that the kitchen door still needed to be eased and adjusted, it is reasonable to conclude that the appointment of 1 December 2020 did not go ahead, or if it had it had not resolved the issue.
The resident confirmed in his correspondence with the landlord on 16 December 2020, that the kitchen had been completed, referring to the only outstanding works being two missing wall shelves and that the kitchen drawers did not open, the need to address the drawers not opening having been acknowledged in the landlord’s stage one response. Following a later conversation with the resident on 11 March 2021, the landlord sought to make arrangements for outstanding works to be completed, which included the sealing of the kitchen flooring at the bottom of the kitchen units.
Despite this, and further inspections of the property on 26 March 2021, 28 April 2021 and 23 June 2021, the sealing of the kitchen floor remained outstanding and a job to address this was not raised again until 28 September 2021. There was no further mention of the kitchen drawers.
It is unclear if and when the issue of the kitchen flooring and drawers was resolved. However, it is noted that these works were not included in the list of repairs that were agreed following the landlord’s meeting with the late resident’s wife and son at the property on 16 February 2023.
That said what is clear is that if the works were completed, they were not completed until significantly later than the 20 working days timescales set out in the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance handbook, given the further works order raised for the perimeter of the kitchen floor on 28 September 2021. Even if the works had been completed that day it would still almost a year since the landlord had agreed to do the works and since the resident had raised his subsequent new formal complaint.
Overall, while it is evident that the landlord had made attempts to address the repairs required on multiple occasions, the excessive length of time over which the repairs had been outstanding, the number of appointments and the repeated inspections which failed to lead to any meaningful progression of the repairs, represents severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of all the repairs considered in this report. The landlord had multiple opportunities to resolve the issues raised but it repeatedly failed to do so, causing considerable, and avoidable, distress and inconvenience to the resident.
As set out in this service’s Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) report, failing to create and record information accurately results in landlord’s not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
Throughout the period considered in this report, there was a lack of clarity and consistency in the landlord’s approach. The landlord failed to evidence that it kept the resident appropriately updated as to the progress of the works and any issues it may have experienced, particularly so in light of the information it provided the MP, which this Service had seen no evidence of the landlord sharing with the resident. The landlord also seems to have be unaware of what the actual position was with regards to the jobs it raised, saying jobs were completed and then subsequently raising further jobs for the same issues, which reasonably leads to questions as to whether the works that it had previous said had been done had been.
As a result of these failures, in addition to being order to apologise and pay additional compensation, the landlord has also been ordered to carry out a senior management review into the case to identify any additional learning and improvement. The senior managers carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case. The review must include its record-keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report. The landlord is then to report back to this Service, and its governing body, to confirm what learning it has taken from its review and what actions it intends to take as a result.

Landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

When considering how a landlord has responded to a complaint, the Ombudsman considers not just what has gone wrong, but also what the landlord has done to put things right in response to a complaint. This includes the steps the landlord has taken to address the shortcoming and prevent a reoccurrence, as well as any compensation offered.
The resident logged his formal complaint on 11 November 2020. In accordance with the timescales set out in the landlord’s complaints policy the resident’s complaint was responded to on 2 December 2020, within 15 working days of the complaint being logged. In its response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged and apologized to the resident for the inconvenience caused by the extended period he had been waiting for the repairs to be completed, and for the delays, multiple inspections and communication failings. However, it failed to mention the loft insulation which had been raised as part of the resident’s complaint. The landlord also sought to encourage the resident to accept the £1,500 compensation it had offered in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint.
As the resident’s complaint had been logged 21 days following the landlord’s final response to the previous complaint, and had the landlord made reference to the loft insulation and taken steps to correct the failing it had identified in its stage one response, progressed the resident’s repairs in a timely manner and ensuring it effectively communicated with him, this would have been viewed as sufficient redress. However, this was not the case, and the repairs complained about by the resident continued to be ongoing and the communication by the landlord with the resident continued to be poor.
Further to its stage one response, the landlord then failed to recognise the resident’s email of 16 December 2020, as an escalation request, despite the resident making it very clear that the purpose of his email was to advise the landlord that he was extremely unhappy and disappointed by its stage one response. As a result of the landlord’s failure to recognise the resident’s email of 16 December 2020 as an escalation request, the complaint was not then escalated until 23 February 2021, over two months later.
In accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage two response within 20 working days, by 23 March 2021. It is acknowledged that the landlord sent what it described as its interim stage two response on 30 March 2021. However, this was sent after the deadline of 23 March 2021 and the landlord’s final response was then not issued until 31 August 2021, five months later. In addition to being excessively late, whilst the landlord did make reference to the remedial kitchen works, it failed to make any reference to either the windows or the loft insulation, both of which had been part of the resident’s initial complaint and escalation request.
In accordance with this Service’s Complaint Handling Code, which was in place at the time the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint, the landlord would have been expected to address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. In its final response the landlord did not do so.
The landlord would also be expected to acknowledge and apologise for any failure identified, give an explanation and, where possible, inform the resident of the changes made or actions taken to prevent the issue from happening again. Again, in its final response the landlord did not do so. The landlord also failed to make any relevant offer of a remedy.
Overall, the extensive failures by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s complaint, represents severe maladministration by the landlord. The landlord failed to identify the resident’s email of 16 December 2020 an escalation request and then failed to provide its stage two response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. There were also multiple failures by the landlord to comply with the requirements of this service’s Complaint Handling Code in its stage two response. Given the extent of these failures it is understandable that the resident felt that the landlord was not taking his concerns seriously and that it ‘‘had no interest in the emotion stress that it had caused to his physical health and mental health’’.
In addition to being ordered to pay additional compensation, the landlord has also been ordered to review the complaint handling failures identified in this report. As with the review of its repairs and record keeping, this review is to be conducted by a senior manager who must have had no previous involvement with this case. The landlord is then to confirm to this service what steps it has taken to ensure that similar failings do not happen in the future, such as staff training and ensuring that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Conclusion

Given the extent of the failures identified in this report a finding of severe maladministration has been made for both the landlord’s handling of the relevant repairs and the resident’s formal complaint.
The complaints process provided the landlord with an opportunity to Be fair, put things right and Learn from the outcomes, however, it completely failed to do so.
The landlord also failed to evidence that it had taken any action with regards to ‘the broader lessons arising out of the resident’s complaint, the need for better communication and liaison with contractors would be taken forward’, referred to in its final response to the resident’s previous complaint.
It is acknowledged that in correspondence with the service in December 2022, the landlord said it had invested in and implemented new ways of working with its contractors and introduced more effective internal processes. However, given that the landlord did not take this position until over a year after its final response to this complaint, whilst welcome, this does not change the Ombudsman position with regards to the level of failures by the landlord in this case.
Further there is also evidence of the landlord’s continued inconsistent approach in the update it gave this Service in May 2023, regarding the windows, when at one point it advised that the windows would be replaced and then within three days this was changed to say that the windows were not being replaced but rather that it would be replacing the tilt and turn mechanisms, which was initially identified in its surveyor’s and contractor’s post inspection of the resident’s property on 20 November 2020, two and half years earlier.
It is also acknowledged that the landlord visited the property with the late resident’s wife and son in February 2023, and agreed a list of outstanding repairs to be completed and increased its offer of compensation for this and the resident’s previous complaint to £4,400 made up of:
1. £300 for its failure to respond to complaints within published timescales.
2. £1,500 for the delays to works.
3. £1,350 for the impact on the resident’s use of their home during the delays, which the landlord explained had been taken this from the date the original complaint relating to these matters in November 2020 to date, 20 February 2023, and that it had allowed £50 per month as there have been varying impacts over that period.
4. £1,250 for inconvenience and negative impact.
However, whilst these developments are welcomed, given that the landlord did not take this position until February 2023, over a year and a half after its final response to this complaint of 31 August 2021, and after the resident had passed away, this does not change the Ombudsman position with regards to the findings of severe maladministration this case.
In addition, the compensation offered is not proportionate to the level of maladministration identified in this case, particularly as the landlord has said that the amount offered covered not only this complaint but the resident’s previous complaint, for which it had already offered £1,500 compensation. As a result, the landlord has been ordered to pay an additional £4,090 compensation, bringing the total payable by the landlord to £8,490. This is made up of:
1. An additional £700 for the landlord’s extensive failures with regards to its approach and the content of its stage two response in this case. Bringing the total payable for its complaint handling failures, including the £300 offered for delays in its response, to £1,000.
2. An additional £1,500 for the delays to the works, given that the landlord had made no offer of compensation for the delays in its response to this complaint, except for reoffering the £1,500 it had offered in its response to the resident’s previous complaint. This brings the total payable for the delays to £3,000.
3. Given that the current weekly rent for the property is in the region of £150, approximately £600 per month, the landlord has also been ordered to pay an additional £70 per month for the impact on the resident’s use of their home. This equates to an additional £1,890, for the period of November 2020 to date, 20 February 2023, a total of 27 months. This brings the total payable for the impact on the resident’s use of their home during the delays to £3,240, equivalent to £120 per month and approximately 20% of the current monthly rent for the property.
4. The £1,250 previously offered by the landlord for inconvenience and negative impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows, the insulation of the loft and kitchen repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord had multiple opportunities to resolve the issues raised but it repeatedly failed to do so, causing considerable, and avoidable, distress and inconvenience to the resident. There were excessive delays in the landlord completing the repairs despite multiple appointments and repeated inspections being carried out. There is no evidence of the resident being provided with the explanation given by the landlord to the MP with regards to the issue with the loft hatch, the explanation the landlord gave the MP was also not a fair reflection of the evidence seen by this service. The landlord also seems to have been unaware of what the actual position was with regards to the jobs it raised, saying jobs were completed and then subsequently raising further jobs for the same issues.
The landlord failed to identify the resident’s email of 16 December 2020 an escalation request and then failed to provide its stage two response within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. There were also multiple failures by the landlord to comply with the requirements of this Service’s Complaint Handling Code in its stage two response. The landlord also failed to acknowledge and apologise for its handling of the windows repairs and loft insulation and to give an explanation for the excessive delays or to consider what changes or actions it might take to prevent the issue from happening again.
Whilst the landlord subsequently acknowledged its failings and offered additional compensation to the late resident’s wife, this was not done until over 18 months after its final response, and after the resident had passed away. As such this does not change the Ombudsman position with regards to the findings of severe maladministration this case.

Orders

That within 28 calendar days of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the late resident’s wife for the failures identified in this report. The apology is to be made by a senior director and the late resident’s wife is to be given the choice as to whether this is verbal or in writing.
2. Pay the late resident’s wife the £4,400 offered to her in February 2023.
3. Pay the resident’s wife an additional £4,090 compensation made up as follows:
  1. An additional £700 for the landlord’s extensive failures with regards to its approach and the content of its stage two response in this case.
  2. An additional £1,500 for the delays to the works.
  3. An additional £1,890, for the period of November 2020 to 20 February 2023 for the impact on the resident’s use of their home during this period.
4. Carry out a review by a senior director into this case to identify any additional learning and improvement. The senior director carrying out the review must have had no previous involvement with this case. The review must include:
  1. The landlord’s record keeping processes and procedures in light of both the findings in this report and the recommendations made in this Service’s KIM report.
  2. The complaint handling failures identified in this report and its obligations under the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
5. Report back to this Service, and its governing body, to confirm what learning it has taken from the above reviews and what actions it intends to take as a result.
6. Confirm to this Service that it has complied with the above orders.