Hyde Housing Association Limited (202109988)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202109988

Hyde Housing Association Limited

18 May 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 handling of roof repairs.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The tenant holds a tenancy with the landlord who is a Housing Association. This service has not seen a copy of the tenancy agreement however, the landlord/tenant relationship is not disputed by either party.
The property is a second floor, two bedroom flat. The resident lives in the property with her two children.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy has an informal complaint stage where the resident can choose for the complaint to addressed informally or formally. Stage one complaints should be acknowledged within two working days, with a full response provided within 10 working days. Responses to stage two complaints will be made within 20 working days. At both stages, if an extension is required the landlord will explain this to the customer and give a date for response. This will be no later than a further 10 working days. The landlord will offer the customer an opportunity to comment on the findings through discussion with the complaints officer prior to be the response being issued.
The complaints and compensation policy states that insurance claims will be dealt with under its insurance policy. The landlord will “advise the customer of their rights to make a claim and how to progress this.” Compensation payments may be paid at the discretion of the investigating manager to reflect the circumstances of each case.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes. The landlord must complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s website says that it aims to attend within four hours in the case of an emergency repair. It says it may take up to 24 hours to carry out the ‘make safe’ repair.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard. According to the Standard, for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must:
1. Meet the current statutory minimum standard for housing.
2. Be in a reasonable state of repair.
3. Have reasonably modern facilities and services.
4. Provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord’s website lists one of its core principles as ensuring “homes are safe, decent and energy efficient.” It says it will achieve this by “striving to be best in class in being customer driven, ensuring safe homes, creating greener homes and working in partnership with others.”
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out good practice that member landlords should follow in order to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. Some elements of the Code are prescriptive to ensure clear and consistent practice by all landlords. Section 6 sets out expectations around landlords ‘putting things right’. This states “Where something has gone wrong a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.” Section 7 relates to continuous learning and improvement. This states “A positive complaint handling culture is integral to the effectiveness with which landlords resolve disputes, the quality of the service provided, the ability to learn and improve, and the relationship with their residents.”

Summary of events

The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident reported water ingress into the living room on 14 December 2020. The target date for the inspection was 9 January 2021, and the landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 11 January 2021.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 18 May 2021 its contractor made it aware that the resident was seeking updates because the landlord had not responded to her. The contractor confirmed it inspected the property on 11 January 2021 in response to the resident’s first report. A subsequent works order was raised to investigate the guttering and down pipe in relation to water ingress into the living room. The outcome of that investigation was that three storey scaffolding was required to carry out a further inspection of the brickwork and roof. The contractor advised that when it inspected on 11 January 2021 there was evidence of damage to the front room. The resident was concerned this had now spread further into the property over time.
The landlord raised a works order on 11 March 2021 to action the recommendations made from the inspection on 11 January. A duplicate works order was also raised on 14 April 2021.
Following the works order raised on 11 March 2021, and duplicated on 14 April, the landlord carried out a detailed property inspection on 23 April 2021. The inspection noted the following:
1. Damp was evident throughout the whole property.
2. There was major damage throughout the box gutter including visible splits and hole. This had caused water to penetrate which was rotting the boards.
3. The felt underneath the slates had holes beyond repair.
4. The roof should be removed so that breathable felt could be installed.
5. The box gutter should be taken out back to the boards and renewed in three layer felt.
6. The leadwork around the entire roof was outdated and should be renewed while the work was carried out on the rest of the roof.
The landlord’s records show that these works were approved, and a works order raised on 27 April 2021. The target date for completion was 31 March 2022. On 26 May 2021 the landlord chased the contractor for a start date.
The landlord’s file notes show that the resident contacted the landlord to seek an update following the detailed survey which took place mid-April. Following a telephone call with the resident on 26 May 2021 the landlord raised a stage one complaint that same day. A written acknowledgement was also sent, with a target date for the stage one complaint response given as 10 June 2021.
On 28 May 2021 the landlord chased the contractor again for a date to start works. It replied to confirm that it was intending to erect scaffolding that same day. The landlord’s internal records show that it tried to confirm timescales. It also tried to determine what further works would be required inside the property once the roofing works were completed, including a possible drying out period.
In its stage one complaint response, issued on 10 June 2021, the landlord said:
1. It acknowledged that works could have been quicker and apologised for the delay to fix the roof. It said it had experienced difficulties with the logistics of planning the work and that the ongoing impact of Covid-19 had also caused delays.
2. It apologised for the delay in acknowledging the stage one complaint.
3. It said it had arranged for the contractor to fix the roof and once this had taken place it would carry out the required remedial works inside the home.
4. It upheld the complaint and offered £350 compensation.
5. It confirmed scaffolding was erected on 28 May 2021 and went on to detail the works that would now take place. It said that an inspection would be carried out to see the extent of the damage inside after the roofing works had been completed. It said that a drying out period would be required before any internal remedials works were carried out. It was not able to provide any timescales and said it would be in touch once it had more information about dates.
6. It confirmed that the complaint would be reviewed by relevant contract managers, ensuring it learnt from the situation to enhance the service offered to residents.
7. It provided details of a single point of contact going forward.
On 28 July 2021 the resident reported that rain water was entering the hallway via a light fixture. The repairs log shows a 24 hour works order was raised to make safe the ceiling in the hallway. It noted that roofing works were in progress and that the roof had been removed. Rainwater was leaking through and the ceiling was starting to cave in.
In a call to this Service on 29 July 2021 the resident said that her carpets were soaked through.
The resident also telephoned the landlord on 29 July 2021 to report a number of concerns:
1. The roof had been exposed in two places while works were underway. She said that she had told the roofing contractors that the roof was not covered but it had not been rectified. The roofers had not arrived at the property that morning.
2. An electrician had been out earlier that day and turned her electric off. The electrician confirmed that the light fittings were soaked and she should not use them until they dried out.
3. The lounge ceiling was bowed.
4. She said she had been up all night switching buckets around to catch the water coming in because it had rained again. She told the landlord that she was living in a home which she did not feel comfortable or safe in.
5. She said that the compensation of £350 did not reflect her dissatisfaction in relation to the time taken to fix the roof, the lack of communication and the inconvenience caused to her and her children. She expressed concern about the current condition of her home and about who would be responsible for internal damage.
In an email to the resident on 29 July 2021 the landlord acknowledged ongoing failings and escalated her complaint to stage two of its complaints procedure. It said it would respond to the complaint within 10 working days, so 12 August 2021. It said it would take steps to quickly resolve the issue and reduce further detriment to the resident and her family. The resident replied to the email on the same day to say that the roofing contractor had attended but told her that he had been assigned to another job. The landlord emailed the contractor to ask it to secure the roof that day, and to confirm that the lights were now safe and secure. It also requested a date for completion of the works to the roof.
The investigating officer for the stage two complaint emailed the resident on 2 August 2021 to introduce himself. He said he would assess what needed to be done to fix things “quickly and properly.” The resident replied by email to set out her ongoing dissatisfaction. She said she had received a call from the landlord about a possible decant but it did not follow this up. She said her property had been damaged by the leaks which she believed the landlord was responsible for, and she was concerned for her children’s safety. The landlord replied to reiterate its commitment to completing works as quickly as possible, in addition to making a plan of works to manage the resident’s expectations. It said that once this was in hand it would then consider the impact this has had on the resident and her family.
The repairs log shows a works order was raised on 3 August 2021 to reinstate all lighting to the property that same day.
The landlord’s internal records show that a team of roofers attended the property during the week beginning 2 August 2021 with the aim of completing works by 16 August. Email communications between the resident and landlord show that the roofing works had been completed and post inspected by 27 August 2021. The landlord subsequently requested a quote for internal works. This information was shared with the resident that day with an apology and explanation for the delay in issuing the stage two complaint response.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 September 2021 to chase the stage two response which it went on to issue that same day. The response was as follows:
1. The landlord acknowledged its service failures.
2. The offer of compensation was increased to £1000. Half was for the delay in resolving the repairs and half for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
3. The landlord was unable to offer timescales for further works but said it would contact the resident again once it received confirmation of works and timescales.
The resident replied by email on 22 September 2021 to accept the revised offer of compensation. The landlord’s internal records noted the need to monitor progress closely to be able to accurately log complaint commitments on the case.

Events after the complaint procedure

The landlord’s records show that the resident phoned on 13 October 2021 for an update as there had been no recent communication about the remedial works. The landlord’s internal records also note that it contacted the resident on 15 October to discuss plans for the works. A works order was raised on 18 October 2021 for various internal works relating to the ceilings and walls in the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 November 2021 as she had not received any communication on the internal works and was seeking a start date. She contacted this Service on 3 December 2021 to raise her continued dissatisfaction because the landlord had not completed any of the internal works.
In a phone call with this Service on 30 March 2023 the resident said that she had replaced a number of personal items that had been damaged as a result of the roof leak. These items included the carpet in her front room, light fittings, a chest of drawers and various items which belonged to her children. She said that the landlord had told her to claim on her contents insurance, but she had replaced them at her own cost. The resident confirmed that internal works had now been carried out at the property but she still remained dissatisfied at the length of time it took for the landlord to resolve all the issues. The landlord has failed to respond to requests from this Service to provide details of the internal works.

Assessment and findings

Handling of roof repairs

The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep the property in a good state of repair. The resident first reported the leaking roof in December 2020. Despite April 2021’s survey revealing the extent of repairs needed to the roof, works did not commence until early July 2021. Works were completed week beginning 16 August 2021, eight months after the leak was originally reported. The delay in fixing the roof was unreasonable.
The resident reported that the damage caused by the leak had worsened and was spreading throughout the property. This was confirmed during the inspection in April which noted “damp was evident throughout the whole property”. The impact of the leaking roof was made worse by contractors removing the roof without providing adequate cover to keep it watertight. The resident told the landlord that she had asked the contractor to ensure the roof was covered but it failed to do so. This caused further distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The resident experienced further water ingress when rain came in through the holes and through the electrical light fixture in the hallway several days in a row at the end of July 2021. In an email to the landlord the resident confirmed that an emergency electrician had removed the light sockets and disconnected the lights in order to ‘make safe’. The resident was told they would need time to dry out and she was left in darkness. The landlord’s stage two complaint response states that it took three days to reinstate the electric to the lighting. While the landlord’s response to situation was in line with its emergency repairs policy, it did not seek to alleviate the risk caused to the family of living in a home without lighting. There is no evidence that it considered offering any temporary lighting to the resident for use until the sockets had dried out and were safe to be reinstated. This was inappropriate and demonstrates that it did not sufficiently consider the safety and welfare of the resident and her two children.
Through ongoing emails the resident expressed her distress at the situation to the landlord. In her email dated 2 August 2021 she said she had not received updates from the landlord and was concerned for her children’s safety. In the same email she said “what seemed like a process turned out being a nightmare for myself and has drained me mentally, emotionally and physically.” This was evidence that the landlord’s inaction in failing to cover the roof compounded the distress the resident was already experiencing as a result of the outstanding roof repair.
The outcome of the April 2021 inspection and the rain water ingress in July 2021 meant the landlord was aware that the property had been subject to significant damp and water penetration. It would therefore have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered carrying out a detailed internal property inspection in April and/or July. This investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord did so. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to take steps to carry out remedial works in order to protect its own interests in the property and importantly, to assess whether the property was fit for habitation.
Had the landlord inspected, it would have been reasonable for it to have considered whether the property was free from any hazards as defined by the HHSRS. It would have also been appropriate for the landlord to consider if it met its obligations under The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’. The landlord failed to consider the suitability of the property even after the resident emailed to say she received a call about a possible decant but never heard anything further. The landlord did not go far enough in considering the welfare of resident and her children in terms of whether the home was ‘safe and decent’.
The landlord’s repairs logs are sparse and do not adequately capture all the events relating to the roof repair. Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations, including the management and monitoring of outstanding repairs. This investigation recommends that the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping.
The landlord’s records show that the works order raised on 27 April 2021 for roof and gutter works was given a target date of 31 March 2022. Given the poor condition of the roof, the current detriment to the resident, and the damp noted throughout of the property this was unreasonably lengthy. This investigation acknowledges evidence that the landlord chased the contractor for a start date three times in May and again in June. In an email to the landlord the resident said she had been told by the contractor that it had been asked to start works on the roof but was then tasked to work elsewhere. In an email to the resident on 4 August, the landlord referred to waiting for availability of roofers.
In its stage one complaint response the landlord cited logistics with planning works due to Covid-19 as a factor in the delays the resident experienced. However, it accepted it should have provided a quicker resolution and should have made more of an effort to provide updates. The evidence therefore suggests that once works were ordered, the delays in completing the roofing works were a result of issues relating to the availability of a contractor to complete the works.
The landlord has responsibility for ensuring that it meets its repair obligations. If the landlord was experiencing difficulties securing a contractor it would have been appropriate for it to have considered sourcing alternative resources to ensure the works were completed in a timely manner. This was particularly relevant given the scale of the works and the ongoing detriment to the resident. Alternatively, if efforts to procure an alternative contractor were unsuccessful, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered a decant from the property.
The landlord’s records show that the resident reported that the contractor erected scaffolding without telling her that it was going up. Whilst this investigation has not seen contemporaneous evidence from the landlord saying the same, it is noted that the landlord was not aware that the scaffolding was being erected until it received an email from the contractor saying it would be erected that same day. This would make it impossible for the landlord to give adequate notice to the resident. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to notify the resident about the scaffolding. Its presence in the absence of any work or update from the landlord was inappropriate, causing further uncertainty for the resident.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response recognised that a drying out period would be required after the roof works were complete. It said it would inspect and raise any orders for internal remedial works. In its email to the resident on 4 August 2021 the landlord stated that once the roof was repaired it would focus on “putting things right inside.” The landlord’s internal records state that it had requested a quote for internal works and was waiting for information on timescales.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response apologised for not keeping the promises outlined in the stage one response. It confirmed again that internal works were required but at that point it didn’t know what was required or when they might be carried out. It said it would keep the resident updated, but then failed to do so. Throughout the internal complaints process the landlord recognised that it had not updated the resident as it should have done. It recognised the distress and inconvenience this had caused but went on to repeat the same mistakes when it failed to progress the internal works and failed to communicate with the resident on this issue. This was inappropriate and demonstrated a lack of insight and learning by the landlord.
The landlord’s records show that a works order for internal works was raised on 18 October 2021 after the internal complaints procedure was exhausted. However, when the resident contacted this service on 3 December 2021 she said she had not received any communication from the landlord on these works. Despite assurances from the landlord that it would remedy the internal damage once the roof was repaired, the situation remained unresolved three months after the external roof repairs were completed. Almost one year on from the original report of a roof leak, the resident was still unclear about what works would be carried out, and when, in order to fully resolve the substantive issues inside the property. This was a failing on the part of the landlord to manage the works appropriately. The resident had already expressed how the roof leak and resulting issues had impacted on her and her children’s quality of life. The landlord missed an opportunity to use the internal complaints procedure to ‘put things right’ and instead compounded the resident’s dissatisfaction with additional delays.
The landlord offered the resident compensation in its stage one complaint response. In recognition of its ongoing service failures it subsequently increased the offer to £1000 in its stage two complaint response. £500 was awarded for the delay in resolving the roof repairs and £500 for the distress and inconvenience the resident suffered.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation procedure sets out that compensation payments may be offered where:
1. It has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint.
3. In recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.
Therefore, the reasons for the offer of compensation were in line with the landlord’s complaints and compensation procedure. There are no guidelines within the policy as to how much compensation can be offered and in what circumstances. Given that the failure had such a significant detrimental impact on the resident the amount offered was consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.
The offer of compensation was made as part of the stage two, and final, response which was made before the substantive issue was fully resolved. At the time of the compensation offer the internal works, arising as a direct consequence of the roof leak, remained outstanding. The resident accepted the offer having taken the landlord at its word that it would complete the internal works once the roof had been repaired. Given that it was repaired in August 2021 it would have been reasonable to expect that internal remedial works would follow shortly after.
Part 6.4 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that factors to consider in formulating a remedy can include, but are not limited to, the:
1. Length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
2. Frequency with which something has occurred.
3. Severity of any service failure or omission.
4. Number of different failures.
5. Cumulative impact on the resident.
6. Resident’s particular circumstances or vulnerabilities.
Part 6.5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
The internal works were not progressed and the landlord failed to keep in contact with the resident to provide her with updates. She still did not know when the situation would be fully resolved, creating uncertainty and distress. She also experienced further inconvenience by having to chase the landlord, and later this Service, to try to resolve the situation. An order for additional compensation of £500 for time, trouble, inconvenience and distress has therefore been made.
This investigation has seen evidence that the resident experienced damage to her own possessions which she has stated was a result of the water ingress. On 29 July 2021 she emailed the landlord to say she was concerned about the current condition of the property and about the damage caused internally. She described water running down the walls and through the ceiling and was unclear about who would be responsible for the damage. In a phone call to this Service on that same day the resident said that her carpets were soaked. In a further email to her landlord, dated 2 August 2021, she said her property had been damaged by the leaks and that she held the landlord responsible for this.
The landlord advised the resident that she should replace damaged items by submitting a claim through her own contents insurance. Its complaints and compensation policy states that insurance claims will be dealt with under its insurance policy, and that the landlord will “advise the customer of their rights to make a claim and how to progress this.” In order to comply with its policy the landlord should have provided this information to the resident so she could be assessed for financial redress, and not doing so was inappropriate. Given the circumstances it would also have been reasonable for the landlord to have facilitated a claim on its own insurance policy for any damaged belongings. This is because it did not contest that it was responsible for the leak, and was aware of the severity of the leak, the delay in repair and the likelihood of possessions being damaged. There is no evidence that the landlord considered compensating the resident for the damage to her property which was not reasonable or fair in the circumstances. The landlord failed to advise the resident appropriately and should therefore contact the resident to discuss financial redress for the damaged items she has replaced at her own cost.

Complaint Handling

The resident contacted the landlord’s contractor to make her complaint because she was not getting a response from the landlord. It took the landlord six working days to act on this information and contact the resident to acknowledge her complaint. This was not in line with the response times outlined in the complaints and compensation policy. However, this was subsequently acknowledged by the landlord when it apologised for the delay in its stage one complaint response.
The landlord’s complaint response at stage one was appropriate and complied with its response times as set out in its complaints and compensation policy. The landlord said it would reply to the stage two complaint within 10 working days, despite its complaints and compensation policy stating it will respond within 20 working days. It is not known why the landlord provided an inaccurate response time, but this did not effectively manage the resident’s expectations.
As the landlord told the resident it was aiming to respond within 10 working days, the stage two complaint response was 36 days late. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 August to apologise for the delay in issuing the response. Contrary to its complaints and compensation policy this happened 15 days after the resident was expecting a response and she was not provided with a new response date. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident an opportunity to comment on the findings of its investigation with the complaints officer prior to be the response being issued, as set out in the complaints and compensation policy. The resident was adversely affected by the landlord not setting out clear timescales in respect of when she was to receive a response, and by not being kept updated. The resident was caused distress and inconvenience by the delay and unnecessary time and trouble in chasing a response.
Section 6 of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code says that throughout the complaints process a landlord “must carefully manage the expectations of residents and not promise anything that cannot be delivered.” The landlord was open and transparent with the resident by acknowledging the seriousness of its failings. It tried to put this right by making a commitment to the resident that it would provide updates and timescales on further works. It said it would carry out the work as quickly as possible, however it failed to do so.
The stage one complaint response said it had arranged for the contractor to fix the roof. It said once this had taken place it would carry out the required remedial works inside the home but there was no progress. The stage two complaint response acknowledged that it failed to deliver on the promises made in the stage one complaint response. In an email with the resident about her stage two complaint, the landlord reiterated its commitment to completing works as quickly as possible. It said it would make a plan of works to manage the resident’s expectations. This did not happen, the resident did not received a timeline of works and was not contacted in order to progress the internal works. By December 2021, a year after the original roof repair was reported, the substantive issue had not been resolved with the resident still residing in the property with what she told this Service a “great deal of works outstanding.”
Section 7 of the Code states that the Ombudsman “encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.” The landlord’s stage one complaint response said that the complaint would be reviewed by relevant contract managers to ensure it learnt lessons to enhance the service it offers to residents. This investigation has not seen evidence of this review but the ongoing delays and lack of communication regarding the internal works suggest that if a review did take place it did not produce effective outcomes.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of roof repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

This investigation has taken into account the redress, by way of compensation, offered to the resident in respect of the repairs to the roof itself. However, the landlord did not identify all of its failings which then limited its assessment of the detrimental impact caused to the resident and its ability to learn from the complaint. Significantly, there were also ongoing delays regarding the internal works, which repeated the pattern of mistakes with the roof repair, warranting a further offer of compensation.
The landlord did not adhere to its complaint and compensation policy in respect of its complaint handling. It did not use the internal complaints process as an opportunity to ‘put things right’ for the tenant and continued to make mistakes as it progressed through the process. This pattern of complaint handling continued beyond the landlord’s final response.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £500 for the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing delays in resolving the substantive issue. This is to be paid in addition to the £1000 already offered to the resident.
2. Pay the resident £200 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failing to consider the claim for damaged items appropriately.
3. Obtain information from the resident about the damage to her possessions. This should include all available evidence such as photographs of damage and receipts for replacement items (if available given the passage of time). The landlord should then consider the residents claim for damaged items. If the landlord decides not to progress a claim to insurers, or a claim is referred but unsuccessful, the landlord should consider compensating the resident.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with the outcome of its decision on this matter, also within four weeks.

Within six weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Revisit the commitment it made in its stage one response to review the complaint with relevant contract managers. It should consider the ongoing failings beyond the stage one complaint response by carrying out a review to highlight the importance of managing expectations. It should ensure it learns from the experience to enhance the service offered to residents. The landlord should confirm the date and outcomes of the review to the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.
2. Carry out staff training to ensure that complaints are handled in line with part nine of its complaints and compensation policy statement, and parts of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code which have been set out in this report. The landlord should confirm the date and content of the training to the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.

Recommendations

Review the method used to log repairs to ensure it captures all relevant information relating to property repairs. As a minimum, it is recommended that this should include:
1. The date the repair was reported.
2. Details relating to the nature of the repair.
3. The classification of the repair and corresponding response time.
4. The response – who attended when, and what works are completed until the repair is resolved.
Carry out staff training to ensure that the landlord’s core principle to ensure “homes are safe, decent and energy efficient” is embedded into the culture of its customer service.