Longhurst Group Limited (202118895)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118895

Longhurst Group Limited

31 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 response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the beginning of her tenancy.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant in a three bedroom house and moved into the property with her family in February 2021.
During a telephone conversation with this Service, the resident confirmed that, in May 2021, she had raised a number of outstanding repair issues that were present when she moved into the property. This included cracks to internal walls that the resident said were getting progressively larger, including a very large crack in one of the bedroom walls.

Legal and Policy Framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord of Tenant Act 1985, the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the home, and installations in the home for the supply of water, gas, electricity, sanitation, space heating and heating water. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency.
The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that responsive repairs can be reported by a resident, member of staff or identified during an inspection. Repairs are categorised according to their urgency, with a set response target time for each category including voids. Responsive repairs are split into two main categories. These are emergency repairs, which the landlord attends to and makes safe within either two or 24 hours. Appointed repairs are completed within 21 days. Emergency repairs are defects or faults that put the health, safety or security of a resident at immediate risk or cause harm to the structure of the property. According to the policy, appointed repairs are repairs that residents can reasonably live with for a period of time.
With regard to the landlord’s re-let standard, the Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that, on the first working day of the void, the Repairs and Voids Team will specify the void works required to ensure the property meets the lettable standard. This specification will be issued to the repairs contractor by way of a void order.
The landlord has a compensation procedure for when it has identified service failures. This pays between £50 and £250 for service failures that have had an impact on the complainant but were of short duration, and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome. Compensation amounts of £250 to £700 are given in cases where the landlord has found considerable service failure or maladministration, but where there is no permanent impact on the resident. The landlord will pay over £700 in recognition of maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the resident, including physical or emotional impact. The landlord may also offer a percentage of the rent where, as a result of service failure, residents lose the use of part of their home, and it greatly affects their normal daily living arrangements, for example, when the landlord needs to re-plaster a room.

Summary of events

The landlord completed some internal plasterwork to the property on 7 April 2021, and external plastering on 27 May 2021. The landlord noted that a roofer was needed to investigate some broken tiles on a bedroom windowsill.
On 14 June 2021, the resident raised a stage one complaint about the outstanding repairs and said that these should have been addressed before she moved into the property.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 29 June 2021, which stated the following:

It said that it had looked at the information from when the property was empty and confirmed it was in a poor state when the previous residents left.
The landlord explained that a surveyor had looked at the property but then went on maternity leave. It was handed to a different surveyor but there was no information on the landlord’s system to evidence the visit or what repairs were needed. As he was no longer an employee, the landlord was unable to discuss the visit with him.
It upheld the resident’s complaint, apologised for the inconvenience caused and offered £50 compensation.
The landlord said it would monitor the repairs the resident had reported to ensure they were completed and would contact her at the end of July 2021 to check on progress.

The resident wrote back to the landlord on 10 August 2021 and stated the following:

A surveyor had attended the property and left with a list of things that needed to be fixed.

The resident was not happy with the offer of £50 compensation and wanted her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the complaints procedure.
She had still not received any update on when the crack in the bedroom wall would be repaired. She said it was getting bigger and bigger and she had sent a number of emails to the landlord but received no response.
With the weather getting colder, her daughter could not sleep in a room with a hole in it as it was letting cold air through.

The landlord made contact with the resident, on 19 August 2021, to ask for photos of the cracks in her daughter’s bedroom wall and living room, which the resident sent on the same day.
Operatives attended the property on 6 September 2021 to complete exterior plastering work, and the landlord carried out a further inspection on 13 September 2021 to check on the outstanding repairs.
On 15 September 2021, the landlord sent a holding reply to the resident and apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint. On 23 September 2021, it sent its stage two response, which stated the following:

It apologised for its lack of communication, and that the resident had to repeatedly chase the status of the repairs she had reported. It said it was sorry for letting her down since the start of her tenancy.

The landlord confirmed that the guttering had been replaced and that its surveyor had visited on 13 September 2021 to complete a further inspection. It said that, whilst carrying out the inspection, the surveyor had discussed the outstanding jobs with the contractor and confirmed that the contractor would be in touch with the resident to arrange a suitable time to complete the repairs.
It offered £750 compensation in recognition of the delays in completing the outstanding repairs and a decorating pack that the resident could use to re-decorate the room following completion of the plastering work.
The landlord said it would chase and oversee the repairs, and ensure they were followed up. It explained that, as wet weather would cause the plaster to go damp, the windowsill would need to be repaired before starting any plasterwork.

On 3 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that her complaint was closed on the understanding that the work would be completed. She said that £750 was not enough considering her daughter could not sleep in her bedroom. She asked the landlord to re-open the complaint and not close it again until all the work was completed.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 16 November 2021, who confirmed there was still scaffolding up and that operatives had attended on 8 and 9 November 2021, but had not returned after that. She said she had no idea if the leak in the roof had been repaired, a wall in her bedroom and two walls in her daughter’s room still needed plastering, and the tiles on the windowsill had still not been replaced.
The resident then wrote to the landlord on 17 November 2021 to ask how she could request a rent reduction due to the fact her daughter could not use her bedroom for to fear of the wall falling out. The landlord responded on the same day to say it could not offer a rent reduction but that rent could potentially be reimbursed through compensation. It asked the resident to clarify the date from when the family was unable to use the room so it could calculate the reimbursement, once the works were completed.
On 26 November 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she had still not been given dates for the work to be completed and that the operatives, who were supposed to have attended on 18 November 2021, did not arrive. The landlord responded on the same day to confirm it would visit the property to look at the plastering and check which works were still outstanding. On 30 November, the resident wrote to the landlord to say that the work had started and the contractor had a plan of action going forward. She also asked the landlord to check whether a new front door that she had also requested was on order.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 December 2021 to say she wanted it to re-open her stage two complaint. Following a discussion with its contractor, the landlord replied on the same day to give her an update on the progress of the works.
The resident contacted the landlord, on 11 January 2022, to say that the window repair had not worked as there was still condensation between the glass. On 19 January 2022, she wrote to say that the door the landlord had fitted was not a standard front door, it did not have a thumb lock to stop her son from opening it and it had to be key locked from the inside to secure it.
On 17 May 2023, the resident spoke to this Service and confirmed that all except one of the outstanding works had been completed. The crack in her daughter’s bedroom wall had been repaired in November 2021 but the leak in her roof had still not been resolved, despite operatives having attended twice to address the issue.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs

The Ombudsman has noted and wishes to acknowledge that the resident has suffered significant distress and inconvenience as a result of several outstanding repair issues that were present when she moved in. The Ombudsman recognises how upsetting it must have been to be uncomfortable in a home that was in a poor state of repair, particularly when looking after young children.
When a property is let, the landlord must ensure it is free from certain risks and that the facilities are of a decent standard. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March2019, states that the landlord should carry out a void inspection to determine whether any works are needed to bring the property up to its lettable standard. It is important that the landlord keeps accurate records of void inspections and post-inspections. This may include asking contractors to take pictures once the works are complete. The landlord should provide the new or prospective resident with details of any outstanding works and of how and when it proposes to complete them. If there is a disagreement over the condition of a property, the landlord should be able to clearly demonstrate that it met its own letting standard with reference to robust evidence.
Although the landlord stated that one of its surveyors inspected the void property before she went on maternity leave, there is no evidence the landlord had completed an inspection report following this visit. In addition, there is nothing on record to indicate, after the property was handed over to a different surveyor, that a further visit took place. Due to a failure in record keeping, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that it had met its letting standards, or that its letting standards policy was properly followed before the resident moved in. It was therefore positive that, in its stage one response, the landlord acknowledged the failure in its voids process, upheld the resident’s complaint and offered compensation.
However, in its stage one response, the landlord also refers to information from when the property was empty, and that it was in a poor state when the previous residents left. It is evident from this that the landlord did have some recorded information to show it was aware of the condition of the property. It is therefore unclear why proper checks were not carried out before the resident’s household moved in to ensure the voids process had been properly carried out, and that inspections were completed and recorded. The Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that, ‘on the first working day of the void, the Repairs and Voids Team will specify the void works required to ensure that the property meets the lettable standard. This specification will be issued to the repair’s contractor by way of a void order’. There is no evidence this part of the policy was followed or that any proper checks were carried out to make sure the property was of a lettable standard.
Had there not, in this case, been an apparent breakdown in the voids process, and had safeguards been in place to ensure records were checked before the resident moved in, the outstanding repairs could have either been identified and brought to the attention of the resident at the outset, or the property would have been brought to a lettable standard before it was re-let. Either way, this would have resulted in timelier repairs. Instead, it was left to the resident to report the repairs herself and then to make a formal complaint in order to ensure those repairs were progressed. The failure in record keeping, along with the lack of proper checks, meant the resident and her family had to endure a lengthy period of discomfort and disruption while living in a house that was in a poor condition, and waiting for repairs to be completed. It should also be noted that the landlord’s letting standards policy is not available on its website, which makes it less accessible for current and potential residents. The landlord should ensure all its policies are easily accessible to its residents.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on repairs also states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. The landlord’s repair log shows that most of the repairs that are recorded were completed within or around the 21 day timescale for appointable repairs. However, the records are patchy and do not make clear when some of the repairs were completed. For example, there is some suggestion in the correspondence that two bedrooms were plastered around the end of November 2021 but there is no evidence in the landlord’s repairs log to show the actual date this work was finished. Similarly, the repairs log recorded a job that was raised to fit privacy locks on the resident’s front door and states this was completed in October 2021. However, the correspondence between the landlord and resident shows that the resident was still reporting this issue in January 2022. There is evidence from internal correspondence that, at the beginning of November 2021, there were 11 outstanding repairs; however, most of those are not recorded and there is no evidence of completion dates for these. It is clear the records that were kept were incomplete, inaccurate and unclear. The poor record keeping would have made it difficult for the landlord to properly monitor the progress of the works, thus contributing to the protracted delays in completing the repairs.
It is not disputed that the landlord’s communication was poor and that, following her reports of outstanding repairs in May 2021, the resident was left to continually chase the landlord for updates, with little or no response. It was inappropriate that, having told the resident it would contact her at the end of July to make sure the works had progressed, it then failed to meet its commitment, which meant the resident had to contact the landlord instead.
Although the evidence shows the landlord began chasing its contractor more robustly, following commitments made in its stage two response, it is clear it made little effort to do so beforehand. The evident initial lack of initial engagement with the resident would have likely contributed to the delays between May and November 2021, particularly with regard to repairing the walls in the two bedrooms. The lack of communication gave the resident little choice but to pursue the matter through the complaints process. Had the landlord been more proactive in dealing with its contractor when the resident first reported the outstanding repairs, it would have avoided the need for her to take additional time and trouble to raise a complaint.
The landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging its lack of engagement and it is positive that this improved considerably following the stage two complaint. It is also appropriate that it offered £750 compensation in recognition of the poor communication and delays, along with a paint pack the resident could use to re-decorate the bedrooms. It is also clear the landlord’s decision to provide the resident with a single point of contact for enquiries and updates on the ongoing works helped move things along faster from this point.
The Repairs and Maintenance Policy states that emergency repairs are defects or faults which put the health, safety or security of a resident at immediate risk or cause harm to the structure of the property. When the resident reported there were large cracks in the walls of the property that she described as becoming bigger, there is no indication the landlord considered whether this should be treated as an emergency repair, that it inspected the structure of the building, or ensured the property was safe. There is internal correspondence from August and November 2021 that evidences the landlord had considered sending a structural engineer but no indication this was ever followed up. Although the landlord did carry out inspections to identify the works that needed to be raised, it would have been appropriate for a structural engineer to have checked the building to ensure there were no risks to the residents or the structure. The landlord could not demonstrate it had done everything it could to ensure the building was safe and therefore failed to properly follow its policy.
The evidence shows that the resident was unable to use one of the bedrooms due to the large crack in the wall that was letting in cold air, along with the potential risk of debris falling due to its continued deterioration. It is unclear why it took the landlord around six months to complete this repair, particularly considering the severity of the damage and the photographic evidence the resident had provided. Despite the contractor informing the resident on 17 September 2021 that all the outstanding work would be booked to be completed on the same day, it took a further two months for the internal plastering work to be completed. This was far in excess of the landlord’s timescale for appointable repairs. It is appropriate the landlord had agreed it would reimburse the resident for the loss of the bedroom, once the work was complete, but there is no evidence it had honoured its commitment and that any reimbursement has been given.
Although the resident reported a leak in her roof in October 2021, she informed this Service that the matter remains unresolved and that the issue is currently being dealt with as a new, ongoing complaint. It is open for the resident to approach the Ombudsman once she has completed the landlord’s complaints process, and if she remains dissatisfied with the outcome.
The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes

b. Put things right

c. Learn from outcomes

The landlord has admitted there were service failures and has not disputed the impact its poor communication and the long delays in completing repairs has had on the resident and her family. The landlord therefore acted appropriately by apologising to the resident, appointing a single point of contact in order to improve its communication and offering £750 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, along with its offer to meet the cost of re-decoration. The compensation amount is in line with the landlord’s compensation policy for service failure or maladministration, where there was no permanent impact on the resident. It should be noted; however, that it took the landlord a further three to four months to complete most of the repairs, following its stage two response, and that the work to address the leaking roof appears to remain outstanding. In addition, there is no evidence the landlord had reimbursed the resident for the loss of one of the bedrooms. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer does not therefore adequately reflect the extent of the distress and inconvenience caused and requires further redress to put matters right.
As referenced throughout this report, the landlord’s record keeping was poor. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, states that ‘it is vital landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. The landlord and its contractors should keep comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates’. In addition, the Ombudsman’s latest spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management states that, “the failings to create and record information accurately results in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress”. The landlord’s records give little indication of which works were carried out, when they were completed or if they took place at all. The lack of clear and accurate record keeping would have contributed to the lack of updates to the resident, the failure to meet agreed timescales and the protracted delays in resolving the outstanding issues. The Ombudsman has taken this into account when reaching the overall finding that there was maladministration in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the beginning of her tenancy.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete or make any records of a voids inspection, which meant it could not demonstrate the property was in a lettable condition when the resident’s household moved in. It failed to follow its voids process or lettable standards policy and, as a result, the residents moved into a property with a significant number of defects. It failed to carry out any kind of structural survey to check the property was safe and took an unacceptable amount of time to complete the outstanding repairs, after they were reported. Although its communication improved, the landlord initially failed to respond to repeated contacts from the resident and therefore she was left with no option but to raise a complaint in order to get a response and expedite the works. Although the records state the landlord completed a number of repairs within its appointable repairs timescale, the records are unclear, they fail to include details of all the works and completion dates are confusing and inaccurate. The poor record keeping would have made it more difficult for the landlord to properly monitor the progress of the works. One of the bedrooms was left for around six months with a large crack, rendering it unusable and there was little indication the landlord was taking sufficient steps to address the seriousness of the issue. Although the landlord took steps to address some of these failings, the resident and her family was left to live in a house that was in a poor state of repair for a longer time than necessary.

Orders

In addition to the £750 compensation the landlord has already paid to the resident, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay compensation of £532.20 in recognition of the loss of a room.
The amount of £532.20 is calculated as follows:
1. Loss of a bedroom in a 3 bedroom house equates to the loss of the use of one sixth of the house. As a percentage, this is rounded up to 17%;
2. The period of time the resident lost use of the room was between the beginning of May 2021 and the end of November 2021, which makes a total of 30 weeks;
3. According to the tenancy agreement, the resident’s weekly rental charge at the time was £104.36. 17% of this is £17.74;
4. £17.74 x 30 = £532.20;

The additional amount of £532.20 must be paid within four weeks of receiving this determination. Whilst the Ombudsman acknowledges that this may not be a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all of the circumstances into account.

The landlord to carry out an inspection of the property and to update the resident on the progress of any outstanding repairs, explain the work that needs to be done and provide a date when the work is expected to commence. The landlord to evidence it has done this within eight weeks of receiving this determination.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the way it records and logs repairs to ensure it keeps comprehensive records of residents’ reports of outstanding repairs and their responses, including details of appointments, any pre and post-inspections, surveyors’ reports, work carried out and completion dates and to ensure appropriate systems are in place, as recommended in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management.
The landlord to review the its voids process to ensure there are safeguards in place so that, if there are no available records of a voids inspection, the landlord is alerted before new tenants move. This is so can the landlord can make arrangements for a proper inspection to take place and ensure the property is in a lettable standard before it is re-let.
The landlord to make sure all its policies are available on its website, including its lettable standards policy.