Lambeth Council (202223841)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202223841

Lambeth Council

28 July 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the bathroom.
2. An infestation of ants.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, a local authority. His tenancy commenced on 26 October 2020.
The property is a 2 bedroom, ground floor flat. The resident has 2 young children. During email exchanges with the landlord the resident confirmed that he suffers from a number of health conditions, including chronic fatigue.
The resident has advised that the bathroom ceiling was in a poor state of repair when he moved into the property. He says that he brought this to the landlord’s attention soon after the tenancy began, but that it failed to take appropriate action in response.

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that it is responsible for repairing:
1. Sanitary goods.
2. Floors and wall tiles.
3. Ceilings
The tenant’s handbook states that residents are responsible for dealing with pests in their own property.
The landlord’s complaints policy is comprised of 2 stages. The first stage is referred to as a ‘local resolution’ and the second as ‘final review’. The landlord aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 20 working days. If there is a delay the landlord will tell the resident the reason why and when they can expect a full response. Stage 2 complaints will be acknowledged within 2 working days and a response issued within 25 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that:
1. Financial compensation may be paid to remedy a service failure that has had an adverse effect on the complainant.
2. Compensation of £20 can be paid if a contractor misses a booked appointment.
3. The investigating officer should consider the vulnerability of the affected household when calculating the level of compensation.
4. The investigating officer should also offer a full apology and explanation of what action is being taken to prevent a recurrence of the problem.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out:
1. At section 6.4, factors that could be considered in formulating a remedy including, but not limited to, the:
  1. Length of time that a situation has been ongoing.
  2. Number of different failures.
  3. Cumulative impact on the resident.
At section 6.5, 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.
At section 7.1, that “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. The Ombudsman encourages landlords to use complaints as a source of intelligence to identify issues and introduce positive changes in service delivery.”

Summary of events

In October 2020 the resident reported problems with the wall tiles in the bathroom. He was informed that the landlord had a 28 day response time. However, no appointment was scheduled, and no repairs took place at that time. It is unclear whether the resident chased the matter.
An appointment was arranged for 15 April 2020, which was subsequently rearranged for 20 April and then 21 April. It is unclear what work was carried on 21 April; however, the resident complained that the quality of the work was poor.
Plastering works were carried out to the bathroom ceiling in May 2021 because the lining paper was sagging. When the paper was removed rubble fell into the bath. The landlord subsequently “patched up” the ceiling.
The resident contacted the landlord on several occasions between 2 August to 23 September 2021 about the matter. A contractor attended the property on 23 September 2021 however, as he was early for the appointment the resident was out taking his children to school. He managed to speak to the contractor who agreed to return. The contractor inspected the property and took photographs.
A housing officer attended on 6 October 2021 and said he would follow up the repairs but there is no evidence that a further update was provided.
Having then contacted an area manager, the resident emailed the landlord’s repairs team to request a surveyor visit the property to inspect. He then phoned the landlord on 5 January 2022 and was told there was no record of the repairs on the system.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 January 2022 to make a complaint and was told he would receive a response within 10 working days. The resident phoned the landlord on 7 March 2022 for an update and was informed that the early resolution process was closed. The resident asked for a complaint to be opened as he had not received any communication about the repair or the “early resolution”.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 8 March 2022. He sent a further email on the same day which provided a comprehensive background to his complaint, including that the wall was cracked and tiles were loose from October 2020. The resident said he was concerned that the poor tiling work carried out could cause damp and mould. He also said that:
1. Issues with the ceiling had followed in May 2021.
2. He had been calling the landlord since 2021 to have repairs completed.
3. The installation of his new bathroom was carried out to a “poor standard.”
4. Works at the property remained outstanding despite “numerous contacts” with the landlord.
5. An early resolution was raised and not upheld, but the landlord had not contacted the resident to tell him the outcome.
6. The landlord had attended to carry out some works, but the quality was poor.
The landlord emailed the resident to acknowledge his complaint on 8 March 2022. It said it aimed to issue a response by 4 April and if there were any delays in providing a response it would let him know.
The resident emailed the landlord to chase the complaint response on 11, 25 and 27 April 2022. The resident emailed the landlord again on 4, 11 and 16 May and 6 June because he had tried to contact it by phone but found that the number was not working.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 June 2022 to report that there were ants entering the bathroom. The resident explained that there was a hole around the toilet pipework, and this appeared to be the entry point. The resident added that he had tried to block the hole himself, but had been unable to block it fully.
The resident emailed his MP on 13 and 16 June 2022 to ask for assistance in progressing his complaint as he had not received a response from the landlord. On the same day, the landlord raised a works order for the bathroom and toilet.
The resident has told this service that an inspection took place on 21 June 2022 and the landlord confirmed that a full bathroom upgrade would take place. The works were to include plasterworks and bonding to be followed by full redecoration. Work was also to be carried out to the toilet to fix a hole in the wall where plaster/bonding was needed.
The resident emailed the landlord on 6 July 2022 about works which had begun at the property. He was concerned that bare plaster on the bathroom ceiling was covered with filler and not sealed, and this was over the shower where there were high moisture levels. The landlord advised it would be using bathroom paint and “did not see a reason for this to peal if the ventilation was adequate and used accordingly.”
The resident emailed the landlord on 11 July 2022. He confirmed that the works were complete; however, he wished to complain about the quality of works. This included cracking and peeling paint, a failure to seal the plaster, and damaged boarding being used. He also said the bathroom door was damaged during the works and areas had been missed during the painting. The resident also said that nothing had been done to check the extent of the infestation or to treat the infestation.
The landlord replied on the same day to apologise. It said the contractor would contact the resident to arrange to complete the works which would then be inspected.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2022. It said:
1. A works order was raised and issued to its previous contractor on 26 October 2020 to renew defective tiles. The repairs were delayed due to the Covid-19 (covid) pandemic. Its records showed the resident was told about this on 7 April 2021. The contract with the contractor then ended before works commenced in July 2021.
2. A works order was raised with the new contractor on 5 August 2021 to renew the tiles, and an appointment was scheduled for 23 September 2021. Its records showed an operative attended but was unable to gain access into the property.
3. A works order was raised on 16 June 2022 to repair a large crack in the bathroom wall associated with infestation of insects. Given the resident’s concerns, a surveyor inspection was raised and the property was subsequently inspected by one of the contractor’s supervisors.
4. Following the property inspection, the resident was advised that a full bathroom replacement was required. This work was authorised, along with additional work to the adjoining toilet. Works took place between 4 and 8 July 2022.
5. In response to specific queries raised by the resident, it said that:
  1. It could not explain why he had been informed that a surveyor’s inspection had been raised. However, supervisors at the contractor were qualified to undertaken inspections if surveyors were unavailable.
  2. The call centre was looking at ways to improve the early resolution process, as a number of issues similar to those experienced by the resident had recently been identified.
  3. It had phoned the resident on 22 June 2022 to apologise for the delay in providing a complaint response, explaining it had a large backlog of cases.
6. The complaint was upheld and it apologised for any frustration, inconvenience and upset experienced during the repair request.
7. It awarded £740 as a “gesture of goodwill” for the delays in service and time and trouble caused to the resident by chasing the complaint.
The landlord’s contractor inspected the property on 13 July 2022. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day, after the visit had taken place. He said he had raised concerns at the visit about the quality of the workmanship and that the contractor had replied, “this is a council property, it does not need to be perfect.”. The landlord replied that it would inspect the property the following day and would take “necessary steps” to rectify any issues. The resident has told this service that when the property was inspected on 14 July the landlord said that it would not carry out further works to the ceiling. However, it said it would arrange to remedy some of the other outstanding issues.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 July 2022 to provide him with a BACS form to complete to receive his compensation payment. It said that due to a backlog in the finance team it was unable to tell him when the payment would be received into his bank account.
The landlord arranged for its contractors to attend the property again on 18 and 19 July. Foam was placed in a large crack in the bathroom wall and it corrected some grout and sealant work.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 October 2022 to enquire if he had any concerns about the repairs carried out in July. The resident replied on the same day to provide a detailed list of his concerns, including cracks in the ceiling plaster and grout. He also reported issues with the sealant applied to the sink and floor. He said that the hole in the toilet was not repaired correctly and ants had started to come through again.
On 9 October 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to postpone an appointment for the repairs made for 10 October, because both he and his daughter had contracted covid. He emailed the landlord on 19 October to confirm the inspection could now go ahead. He also said that his 3 year old daughter was in the bath “the other night” when paint and filler fell into the bath. He acknowledged that this was unlikely to cause serious injury but said it caused distress.
A further property inspection was carried out on 21 October 2022 which the resident followed up by email on the same day. He said:
1. He did want further work to be carried out at the property.
2. The landlord said it would consider fitting a new ceiling by boarding it which the resident felt was more work than was necessary.
3. It was agreed that a contractor would attend on 24 October.
4. The contractors scraped all the defective paint and filler off the ceiling and removed plaster that was covering a void. One of the contractors then explained that this damage was being caused by a leak upstairs. The resident said when he put his hand in the hole in the ceiling it was completely dry. The contractor explained that the ceiling was wet, but the resident’s view was that this was because of the poor work carried out to it, not because of a leak.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 October 2022 to say that it had identified a bathroom leak which had been fixed. It said that once the ceiling had been left to dry for a few days, it would arrange for it to be plastered.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2022 in which he disputed that a leak was responsible for damage to the bathroom ceiling, and said that the ceiling was dry. He asked the landlord to contact him as soon as possible, to arrange for the plasterboard to be replaced as promised. In a further email of the same day, the resident said he had spoken to his upstairs neighbour who knew nothing about a leak. He felt the landlord was not being honest about the cause of the damp.
The resident made a stage 2 complaint on 31 October 2022, as follows:
1. Debris from the ceiling had fallen onto his 3 year old daughter while she was in the bath.
2. The resident felt that the only reason the landlord contacted him on 5 October 2022 was because he had contacted his MP on 9 August. He said that at that point the ceiling above the shower was starting to absorb moisture and was bubbling, cracking and coming away.
3. On 24 October 2022, the landlord informed the resident that the original contractor had used standard plasterboard instead of moisture resistant plasterboard. It said it would replace the plasterboard and replaster the ceiling.
4. The resident said there was no evidence of a leak coming from upstairs. The resident contacted the landlord to seek an update but did not hear back from them.
On 2 November 2022 the landlord raised a works order to carry out an inspection at the property on 8 November.
The resident said to this service that at the inspection, the landlord said that the bathroom would be fully redecorated, the works carried out to the ceiling were poor, and the sealant around the bath and sink should be redone using moisture resistant anti mould sealant. The resident has also said he asked for details of all the proposed bathroom works and the landlord agreed to email it to him.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord raised a works order with a target date of 21 December to:
1. Renew a section of the ceiling with plasterboard.
2. Re-skim the bathroom ceiling (seal with bonding).
3. Decorate with anti-mould paint.
4. Renew the overflow cap for the wash hand basin.
5. Re-seal wash basin, bath and floor with anti-mould sealant.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 November 2022 to say how stressful and frustrating the situation was becoming for him. He said he had 2 young children and suffered from “numerous” health conditions. The resident reiterated the concerns that he had expressed in his email of 8 March. He said he was concerned that despite numerous interactions with the landlord the matter was yet to be resolved. He set out details of a further 20 contacts with the landlord in relation to the ongoing repair between March 2022 to November 2022.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 30 November 2022, in which it said:
1. It noted that there was a history of reports relating to the bathroom, and these were addressed in its Local Resolution (stage 1) complaint response. £750 compensation was awarded for the delay in service prior to the July 2022 works, and time the resident had spent in chasing the complaint.
2. Following the stage 1 response, works orders had been raised to renew defective tiles and to repair a crack in the bathroom wall. These were completed on 8 July 2022.
3. The resident was unhappy with the standard of the works, and its contractors attended the property on 18 and 19 July to try to make good the repairs. The resident remained unhappy with the standard of works and notified a named member of staff accordingly.
4. After this email unfortunately there was a pause in communication and the works were not inspected by the landlord until 21 October 2022.
5. On 24 October 2022 contractors attended the property to begin working on the ceiling. This included removing the filler and paint that had been applied. A works order was then raised to renew the section of the ceiling with plasterboard, re-skim and decorate. A job to re-seal the wash hand basin, bath and floor was also raised.
6. An appointment for these works was scheduled for 28 November, but the contractor was unable to attend on that date. The landlord apologised for this and for any inconvenience caused.
7. A supervisor from the contractor had attempted to make contact with the resident on 29 November to reschedule the missed appointment. It proposed 5 December 2022 and awaited confirmation from the resident.
8. Having considered the complaint, it said it had identified “a pause in the progress of works” between 19 July and 22 October 2022. It recognised that this fell below the service standard it would expect and as a result awarded a “goodwill gesture” of £75 with an additional £20 for the missed appointment on 28 November 2022.
9. It noted the resident’s comments regarding the level of customer service provided by the contractors and comments made in respect of the standard of works carried out. This fell below the standard it would expect and was raised for review as part of service improvement work being carried out within the service.
10. It also noted the resident’s report of 11 November 2022 regarding debris falling on his daughter while using the bathroom and apologised for any upset or distress caused. It signposted the resident to make a liability claim against the council.
The resident emailed the landlord on 2 December 2022 to express his dissatisfaction with its stage 2 complaint response. The resident said he could not provide access on 5 December, as he had a prior engagement that day. He said that he had previously cancelled plans to facilitate access but nobody came, and therefore he was not prepared to do so again.
The landlord’s reply of 20 December acknowledged that the resident’s attempts to have the matter resolved had caused considerable upset and frustration. It apologised for the level of service he had received but said it had provided a “suitable and proportionate” remedy for the considerable effort the resident had to go to have his dissatisfaction addressed in a timely manner. In order to try to bring the matter to a close an appointment was scheduled for 29 December.
The resident emailed the landlord on 21 December 2022 to say he had not received any communication regarding an appointment for 29 December. He also said that he did not feel that the compensation offered reflected the poor quality of repairs. He said that events over the past 5 months had seriously affected his mental health and caused a relapse. It had also caused stress and anxiety and inconvenience to his family.
The resident has told this service that he did not receive any contact from the landlord in response to his email of 21 December. He said he supplied details of his availability but did not receive a response. He said that on 29 December, the contractor phoned to say the operative was sick and would not be attending; and he was told there were no appointments until the end of January 2023.
On 4 January 2023 the resident contacted this service to ask that we investigate his complaint about the length of time taken by the landlord to complete repairs at his property which remained outstanding. He was also dissatisfied with the quality of the repairs that had been carried out.

Events post internal complaints process

The resident emailed his MP on 11, 19 and 23 January 2023 to seek assistance with his complaint. He said that the outstanding repairs were impacting on their daily lives. Dust and debris continued to fall from the gaps around the timber placed over the void which he said was particularly concerning because he had young children.
The resident sent a further email to his MP on 2 February 2023, asking for assistance to get the landlord to provide him with details of the outstanding works. He also asked for confirmation of when they would be completed and that they would be post inspected. He expressed his ongoing frustration with the situation.
The resident said that following repeated calls to the landlord, the ceiling was plastered on 2 February 2023. The plaster dried within a week but there was no further communication on when the follow on works would be carried out.
The resident emailed a number of parties on 4 April 2023, including his MP. The landlord replied to the MP on the same day. It confirmed that minor repairs were required after a leak from the property above affected the ceiling, and that decoration and silicone was still to be done. The contractor was booking an appointment after the 17 April 2023 “as per tenant availability.”
The landlord inspected the property on 18 April 2023. The resident emailed on 20 April to confirm the works that had been agreed.
On 3 May 2023 the landlord raised a works order to carry out bathroom repairs by 13 June 2023. Its records show that it tried to contact the resident on 4, 12 and 15 May to arrange to progress works however, there was no answer and no option to leave a message. The landlord emailed the resident on 18 May 2023 to arrange to book in works. The resident replied to ask for a list of repairs to be carried out in the bathroom. The landlord and resident continued to exchange correspondence in June 2023, and the resident repeated his request for a full outline of the proposed works in writing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2023 to broadly set out what works need to be carried out, as follows:
1. Paint the bathroom ceiling.
2. Relay the tiles by the bath to prevent water runoff.
3. Reseal the boxing under the sink.
4. Fix the sink which was too far forward and required raising.
5. Apply sealant between the flooring and skirting at corner.
6. Trunk in wires for the main light.
It provided information regarding its availability to carry out the works and asked the resident to confirm a suitable date.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 July 2023 to which the resident replied, reiterating his request, originally made in April, to be provided with a full list of repairs and associated job numbers before providing access. The resident’s view is that the bathroom upgrade was not finished. He says he has not denied access to the landlord to carry out the works, and that it had been agreed that a list of works would be supplied before dates for completion were discussed.

Assessment and findings

Bathroom repairs

The resident said that he first reported issues with the wall tiles in October 2020 and was told the landlord would respond within 28 days. An appointment was made for 15 and 20 April 2021 however, the contractor failed to attend. The job was attended on 21 April. The landlord has not disputed that the issue was initially reported in October 2020. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord said the delays were due to covid-19 restrictions and that the resident was advised of this on 7 April.
A national lockdown was in place from 31 October to 2 December 2020. A further lockdown for South East England commenced on 21 December, prior to a national lockdown on 6 January 2021. Restrictions began to ease in March 2021. Given the restrictions that were in place during the period in question it is not unreasonable that the repair works were delayed due to covid-19 measures.
It was appropriate for the landlord to address the reasons for the delay; however, the evidence provided to this service does not demonstrate that the resident was informed around the time of his report that repairs could not take place owing to covid restrictions. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to explain this, and provide the resident with reassurance that the matter would be investigated once restrictions had been lifted.
The resident was unhappy with the standard of the work that had been carried out and contacted the landlord so that the matter could be resolved. The evidence provided to this service shows that between August and September 2021, the resident made contact with the landlord on 7 occasions.
In its stage 1 complaint the landlord said it tried to gain access on 23 September but was not successful. However, the resident says the contractor did gain access and took photographs. The resident said the contractor arrived at an inconvenient time but returned shortly after, by agreement with the resident. Given the significant gaps in the information recorded on the repairs logs it is reasonable to conclude that the discrepancy was the result of a record keeping issue. The resident then tried to escalate the matter through his housing officer on 6 October 2021, and later an area manager but they did not respond. This was unreasonable. Later, when the resident tried to seek an update from the landlord on 5 January 2022 he was told there was no record of the repair. This again indicates poor record keeping.
Following the inspection in June 2022, the landlord agreed a full bathroom upgrade. Works took place soon after, between 4 and 8 July. It was appropriate that the works commenced soon after the inspection in order to prevent further delay.
The resident emailed the landlord after the completion of the works to express his dissatisfaction with the works generally. The landlord acted appropriately by issuing an apology and arranging for its contractor to post inspect the works.
The resident said that when the contractor attended to inspect the works on 13 July 2022, he was told that “it was a council property, it did not need to be perfect.” Having brought this to the attention of the landlord that day, it acted appropriately and swiftly by agreeing to inspect itself the following day. However, there is no evidence that it spoke to the contractor about the incident which would have been reasonable in the days immediately after. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response recognised the detrimental impact this had on the resident. It appropriately confirmed that it was taking the matter forward as part of its review.
Despite the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction, the landlord did not contact him again until 5 October 2022. In its stage 2 complaint response it acknowledged and apologised for the 3 month delay in communication between July and October. Although this was appropriate, it failed to give any reason for this delay.
The resident reported that in the days before 19 October 2022 paint and filler fell while his 3 year old daughter was in the bath, causing distress to her and the resident’s partner. The landlord provided the resident with details of how to claim on its liability insurance which was appropriate. However, there is no evidence that it considered whether there was an ongoing health and safety risk posed to the resident and his family. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have prioritised an immediate inspection to check that the area was safe.
The landlord attended the property on 24 October 2022. It said there was evidence of a leak which had caused the damage to the ceiling, which the resident disputed. The landlord acted appropriately by raising a further inspection of the property, which took place on 8 November, to explore the issue further.
It then followed up in a timely fashion by raising a works order to carry out various bathroom works, including to the ceiling. However, works were scheduled for 28 November 2022 but the landlord did not attend on that date. An appointment for 5 December was not mutually convenient. The landlord said it had made the resident an appointment for 29 December however, the resident said he knew nothing about this. In any event, on the day the contractor said it could not attend due to sickness. Poor customer service prolonged the time taken to progress the ongoing repair issues which increased the resident’s frustration. Furthermore, there is no evidence that the landlord compensated the resident for each missed appointment which is unreasonable and not in line with its compensation policy.
Following repeated efforts made by the resident to resolve matters by contacting the landlord and his MP, the ceiling was plastered on 2 February 2023. He did not receive any further communication from the landlord as to when follow on works would take place. On 4 April the landlord emailed the resident’s MP to confirm that a number of works were outstanding. The landlord was aware that follow on works were required; and had previously advised that these would take place once the plaster had dried. In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that it was proactively managing the repair and to ensure that the matter was not delayed further.
Having raised a works order on 3 May 2023, the landlord made 4 attempts to book an appointment during May. The resident replied to an email on 18 May to request the works be confirmed in writing. He repeated his request in his emails to the landlord dated 15, 20 and 21 June and 5 July. The resident made it clear that he wanted these details prior to works commencing however, there is no evidence that the landlord provided this information to him.
The landlord provided an outline of the works on 21 June 2023. However, the resident had requested a detailed scope of works, including job numbers. Given the length of time taken to remedy the issues with the ceiling and the bathroom upgrade, the resident’s request was not unreasonable. It is not clear why the landlord has not provided this to him in the interest of resolving the ongoing issues, and in the context of previous delays. The resident said he was happy for works to proceed once he had this information.
This investigation has requested the landlord’s repair logs for 2021. The document that has been provided lists 6 ‘coded’ entries which relate to works raised on 12 and 29 July 2021. The landlord has not provided any detail of what the codes refer to or of any actions recorded against them. The repair logs for 2022 and 2023 also do not adequately capture all the events relating to the repairs. For example, there are no contemporaneous records of any visits made to the property by contractors or surveyors. There are no records of missed appointments.
Poor record keeping meant the landlord was unable to manage the repair issue effectively. This affected the resident because:
1. It failed to resolve the repair issues within a reasonable time frame.
2. Poor communication caused the resident considerable time, trouble and inconvenience. He repeatedly had to chase the repair and allow access for numerous appointments, including 5 missed appointments by contractors between 15 April 2021 and 29 December 2022.
3. It led to a further erosion of trust between the resident and the landlord.
4. It caused further distress because it prolonged resolution over a substantial period of time.
The repair logs provided by the landlord do not fully evidence the landlord’s response to repairs. For example, property inspections, attendance by contractors to carry out works and resulting outcomes have not been recorded.
Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the service when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property. It enables outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents.
The resident first raised concerns about the condition of the bathroom when he moved in during October 2020. Issues relating to works of June 2022 have not been resolved 13 months later. This has caused the resident considerable frustration, time, trouble and inconvenience. The resident reports that the ongoing situation has caused him stress and anxiety and he and his family have lived amongst dust and debris for a significant period of time.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that the landlord will consider paying compensation if it “finds that a service failure has occurred that has had an adverse effect on the complainant.” Compensation is paid as a means of trying to ‘put things right’ in the event of service failure which has been appropriately acknowledged by the landlord. Reference to the payment as a “gesture of goodwill” is inappropriate because it does not reflect the landlord’s failures in its response.
The landlord made a payment for compensation at stage 1 of the complaints process, for failures in relation to repairs and complaint handling. The landlord did not set out how it apportioned the compensation to each failure.
The reasons for the offer of compensation were in line with the landlord’s compensation policy. There are no guidelines within the policy as to how much compensation can be offered and in what circumstances. The landlord cited the delay in the stage 1 complaint response as its reason for paying compensation therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that the majority of the payment was for the delays in the bathroom repairs. On this basis the amount was reasonable but the landlord should have gone further to explain how it arrived at the figure of £740.
At the time the compensation was paid the substantive issue remained unresolved. In its stage 2 complaint the landlord made a further payment of £75 in recognition of the delay between 19 July and 22 October 2022. The works were not progressed following the stage 1 complaint response and the landlord failed to keep in contact with the resident to provide him with updates.
The resident still did not know when the situation would be fully resolved, which created uncertainty and distress. He also experienced further inconvenience by having to allow access for multiple appointments and having to make significant efforts to chase the landlord, and later this service, to try to resolve the situation. Therefore, level of compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaints process did not adequately reflect the cumulative impact of the ongoing repair failures which were not resolved through the complaints process.
At stage 2 of the complaints process, the landlord also offered compensation for a missed appointment on 28 November 2022. There were 5 missed appointments by contractors between 15 April 2021 and 29 December 2022, with several having occurred after the stage 1 complaint response. There is no evidence that the landlord considered compensation for all the missed appointments which was not reasonable and was not in line with its compensation policy.
Therefore, an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £500. This order reflects time, trouble, inconvenience and distress caused by the ongoing failures in relation to repairs and the record keeping failures.

Infestation of ants

The tenant handbook states that residents are responsible for dealing with pests in their own property. However, pests can be a hazard and the landlord is responsible for dealing with pest problems if a repair which it is responsible for is needed to stop them getting in.
The resident raised his concerns with the landlord twice in June and again in October 2022. Works to repair the hole in the toilet wall were not included in the list of works outlined in the landlord’s email dated 21 June 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord resolved the repair and/or infestation, which was inappropriate.
The resident was dissatisfied that he had to purchase and apply his own ant treatment. The evidence also shows that the resident had tried to block the hole himself using filler.
The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to resolve the repair required to stop the ant infestation, which was a failure amounting to maladministration. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £150. This is because the failures caused distress, inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident by having to chase the repair and carry out works himself. The resident also incurred some additional expense in trying to resolve the issue.

Complaint Handling

In response to this service’s information request, the landlord has provided a complaints policy dated 2010. This is not its most recent policy, and the evidence does not suggest that this was applied/followed when dealing with the resident’s complaint.
The resident says he contacted the landlord on 6 January 2022 to open an “early resolution” and was told he would receive a response within 10 working days. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord addressed its failures in relation to its handling of the early resolution stage, which was appropriate. However, there is no reference to an “early resolution” stage in either the landlord’s 2010 complaints policy or the current procedure published on its website, and inclusion of this stage when responding to the complaint was inappropriate. In any event the additional stage was handled poorly and was of little value to the resident in terms of resolving his complaint. This was because the complaint was closed without any communication with the resident as to its findings, and this extra stage led to a protracted process.
The resident subsequently made a formal complaint on 8 March 2022, and was advised that the landlord would respond by 4 April 2022. The resident chased the complaint response 9 times between April and June 2022. As he still did not receive a response, he emailed his MP on 13 and 16 June 2022 to ask for assistance.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 12 July 2022, 72 working days after the response was due. The landlord did not phone the resident to apologise for the delay until 22 June 2022, over 2 months after the response was due. This was not appropriate, becoming an apology for not having done something rather than a proactive notification of upcoming delay.
Section 5 of the Code says that in the event of a delay, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. If an extension beyond 20 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.
The landlord did not comply with its complaint procedure or the Code because it did not tell the resident of the upcoming delay and when he could expect a response. It further failed to comply with the Code because the lengthy extension was not agreed by both parties.
The stage 1 complaint was upheld and a payment of £740 made as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ to reflect the delays in repair and time trouble experienced in chasing the complaint. The response said the complaint would help the landlord to “identify areas of our service in need of improvement.” However, it would have been reasonable for it to specifically set out the lessons it had learnt from the complaint and what improvements it would make to prevent a recurrence in the future, for example in relation to the back log which caused the delayed complaint response. This is set out in section 7.1 of the Code and the landlord’s compensation policy.
The landlord emailed the resident on 14 July 2022 to provide him with a BACS form to complete in order to receive his compensation payment, but due to a backlog in the finance team it was unable to tell him when the payment would be received into his bank account. This was inappropriate because the payment was compensation for the failures identified by the landlord, as means of trying to ‘put things right’. It should have been doing all it could to manage the complaint effectively from that point, including managing the resident’s expectations around when he could expect the payment to be made as a resolution to his complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to monitor progress to ensure that payment was made in a timely fashion.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response identified the pause in the progress of works between 19 July 2022 and 22 October 2022. It recognised that this fell below the standard it would expect and awarded a goodwill gesture of £75 along with £20 for the missed appointment on 28 November 2022, a total £95.
It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failings and make a payment to the resident accordingly. However, it failed to offer any explanation as to why there had been no progress for 3 months which was inappropriate. Again, it demonstrated a limited approach to learning and service improvement. Furthermore, there is no evidence that it took into account the overall cumulative distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing issues over a significant period of time.
The stage 2 complaint response said it had arranged an appointment for 29 December 2022 for the contractor to attend to try to resolve the outstanding repairs. However, the resident said he knew nothing about the appointment and when he raised it with the landlord, he did not receive a reply. Given that the appointment was raised as action to resolve the ongoing repairs, and therefore complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have made every effort to ensure the appointment went ahead as planned. That it failed to do so was inappropriate.
The landlord’s failures in relation to complaint handling amount to maladministration. The compensation paid following the stage 1 complaint response for complaint handling failures reflected the poor response to the resident’s early resolution request and to the delay in issuing the stage 1 complaint response. It did not take into account the other complaint handling failures identified in this report. Therefore, an order for additional compensation of £100 has been made for further inconvenience and distress caused by the ongoing failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the bathroom repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of an infestation of ants from the toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

The resident expressed concern about the standard of work carried out by the landlord, and this was not disputed. The landlord’s response to resolving the issues raised by the resident both before and during the bathroom upgrade was significantly delayed. It has failed to provide the resident with the details he had requested in order for works to be concluded.
The landlord failed to resolve the repair and/or the infestation leading to the resident incurring expense, time and trouble in trying to remedy the problem himself.
The landlord included an ‘early resolution’ stage in its complaint response which was not part of its complaint procedure, and which protracted the process. It’s stage 1 complaint response was significantly out of time. The landlord did not demonstrate a commitment to learning from its mistakes, informing service improvements going forwards.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £845, comprising:
  1. £500 for the adverse effect caused by the failings in its response to the bathroom repairs.
  2. £150 for the adverse effect caused by failings in the response to the infestation of ants.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  4. The £95 compensation offered at stage 2 of the complaints procedure. If this has already been paid, it should be deducted from the above total.
Provide the resident with a full list of outstanding works including a timeline of when they will be completed and post inspected. The post inspection should be carried out by a surveyor to ensure that they meet the relevant standards.