Watford Community Housing Trust (202120555)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120555

Watford Community Housing Trust

27 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s property including damp and mould.
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy which began in May 2014 in a 3 bedroom mid-terraced property, where he lives with his family.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the home including plasterwork, outside and internal wall. It states the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order any installation in the resident’s home for sanitation, space and water heating including kitchen and bathroom fixtures, baths, and toilets. The tenancy agreement also states that it is not responsible for any repairs or replacements needed to the residents home if they are needed due to damage or neglect caused by the resident and that, residents must not make any alterations or additions without first obtaining the landlord’s written consent.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge complaints within 1 working day and provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the complaint being lodged. It states customers can appeal within 10 days of receiving a stage 1 response and it would not accept an appeal at stage 2 where no new evidence is being submitted beyond what was already considered, and the customer has surpassed the 10 day deadline for an appeal.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states on the first report of issues, key questions should be asked to support diagnosis.
Where damp and mould had been ongoing for a prolonged period, it says it would meet with its surveyors weekly to agree action points. The surveyor would attend the property and complete “the damp, mould and condensation template”, along with photos, and a letter with findings and required actions would be sent to the resident within 10 working days of the initial visit or following review of the data.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it aims to complete repairs within 20 working days of the initial report. It said it aimed to attend emergency repairs within 4 hours and complete them within 24 hours. It would deal with appointable repairs with available slots for non-emergency repairs.

Summary of Events

Between November 2021 and January 2022, the resident and landlord spoke. The resident had previously raised issues with a leak in his bath in November 2021. The landlord responded to the resident’s subsequent complaint in December 2021 and offered compensation of a £25 shopping voucher. It said it had resolved the blockage causing the leak, but the resident said the issue was not due to a blockage, but a loose pipe. He asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 due to a delay in the landlord responding and as he believed the landlord only listened to its operative. The landlord explained he needed to provide further supporting evidence about why he thought his complaint should be escalated and it refused to escalate the complaint. The resident then told the landlord on 11 January 2022 that there was damp and mould in the flooring. It responded on the same day and reiterated its actions and findings from its stage 1 response and told him to raise any additional repairs. It also asked him key questions identified in its damp and mould policy and if he used a tumble dryer or radiator to dry clothing.
The resident told the landlord on the same day the issue began in September/ October 2021, following a leak in his bathroom which caused water ingress into his kitchen, and shut off his electricity. He explained the landlord had provided a plumber who told him there was no blockage in the drain, but the bathtub pipe was loose, and this was the cause of the leak. The plumber said they had addressed the loose pipe but could not tell how much damage was caused to the flooring as they believed the leak had been ongoing for a while. They told the resident to ask the landlord to investigate it as they could not, and it refused to do so. He said the landlord was ignoring the risk he and his family potentially faced if the flooring became rotten.
The landlord completed an inspection of the resident’s property on 18 January 2022. The survey found:
1. There was no leak and the wetness on the floor was caused by the way the bathroom was used.
2. The resident had laid his own flooring over the top of “Altro flooring” without permission from the landlord. The flooring laid was not standard and incorrectly installed.
3. There was minor damp in the bathroom believed to be due to poor ventilation and the external wall being wet.
4. There was minor water ingress on an external wall to the rear of the property caused by blocked gutters.

10.Following the inspection, an extractor fan was suggested in the bathroom. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 February 2022 with the results. It said following the inspection it had raised repairs to the property for:

A damp and mould wash in the bathroom.

Replacement of bathroom taps.
Removal of the bath panel and inspection of leaks.

Between 9 February 2022 and 22 February 2022, the landlord and resident spoke. The landlord completed a damp and mould wash in the bathroom on 9 February 2022.The resident raised his disappointment about being told on the day of his appointment that it was cancelled due to staff sickness. He explained the jobs the landlord had booked and said the inspection of the leak was not his complaint and he had explained his issues to it when it visited his property, as well as in emails he had sent. The landlord responded and apologised for any inconvenience caused by the cancellation and said the appointments had been rebooked and provided him with the new dates. It apologised again and said it wanted to reassure him the repairs were booked and would be going ahead. The resident responded, thanked the landlord, asked it to send someone round to investigate the leak and his bathroom flooring due to the damp and mould. He said he had mentioned several times that he wanted the flooring looked at and not a leak.
The landlord contacted the resident on 16 February 2022, and explained it understood he wanted the flooring inspected but, it needed to investigate, and ascertain what was causing the issue and so it needed to exclude a leak. Following a visit on 21 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and expressed dissatisfaction about the visit. It responded and explained the purpose of the visit was to identify the required repairs. Following its inspection, it found that:
1. A new bath and waste trap was required.
2. It needed to renew the sealant on the bath.
3. New lever basin taps were needed.
4. A new MDG bath panel and plinth were required.
It told him it was working to book in the appointment and hoped this had helped to clarify the need for the visit. The landlord said once the works were booked, it would inform him of the time and date.
The resident responded and said he was told by the landlord’s operative that the flooring underneath the bathtub seemed fine, but the rest of it was soaking wet and may require replacing. The resident then said that the operative explained they did not deal with flooring and someone else would need to come and inspect it. They then identified the required repairs.
On 1 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s process, as it ignored his emails and its lack of professionalism when it came to sorting out the repairs. The landlord responded two days later and said it would not be escalating his complaint. It reiterated its actions following the resident’s reports of 1 December 2021, explained its findings about repairs and its findings of damp and mould in the bathroom and the repairs required. It stated these works were booked for 7 March 2022. The landlord said having considered the issues raised in his appeal, it did not consider them appropriate to deal with under its complaints policy as no new evidence was submitted beyond what it had already considered. It said it also considered that its policies, procedures, or regulatory requirements had been followed in full, in relation to the matter.
Between 2 March 2022 and 7 June 2022, the landlord and resident corresponded with this service. The resident contacted the Ombudsman and explained the landlord would not escalate his complaint due to lack of new evidence despite him supplying further evidence. He said there had been several visits and calls with the landlord, it broke its promises, and all his requests were ignored. He further emailed on 3 March 2022 and said it had again refused to escalate his complaint. The letter said it was its final response and provided him with referral rights to the Ombudsman. He explained he was dissatisfied as:
1. The landlord’s complaint responses had not addressed the issue with his bathroom flooring. Every time operatives attended, they were giving their opinion that the lino needed to be taken up to inspect the wood underneath, but their recommendations were not becoming planned works. He was dissatisfied that the landlord had told him that he needed to take up his own bathroom flooring.
2. The internal complaint responses did not respond to the damp and mould coming into the bedroom from the back garden. An “inspector” came to the property and mentioned different departments dealt with internal and external issues, but then he did not hear about this external issue again.
3. He was unhappy that the internal complaint procedure’s (ICP) responses did not mention the reported issues with a gap in the skirting in his living room, with cold air coming through.

To remedy the situation, he said he wanted the landlord to treat the damp and mould, and to repair the damp/ water underneath his bathroom flooring. He wanted the landlord to take up the bathroom flooring themselves as part of the works and to renew the section of the skirting.

The landlord explained to the Ombudsman following its contact that the resident had no previous complaints open or closed about the bathroom flooring, damp and mould, or a gap in the skirting board. It said as a gesture of good will, it would arrange for new skirting to be installed, and was waiting for an appointment date.
Following this services intervention and request, the landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident on 7 June 2022. It said:
1. It had booked for an operative to attend on 10 June 2022 to complete an initial inspection of the property following his reports of the skirting coming away from the wall. It said during the inspection the operative would assess all the skirting boards within the affected room and take the appropriate measurements. A further appointment would then be arranged following the operative’s attendance to carry out the required works.
2. Regarding the ongoing damp and mould, it had arranged for its surveyor to attend the property on 9 June 2022. This was to measure the levels of damp, condensation, water within the walls, and air, in the affected areas. This would provide a clear picture of any issues that were present. To help reduce the amount of condensation within the bathroom, it had arranged for an extractor fan to be installed within the bathroom on 28 June 2022.
3. It addressed the resident’s reports of damage to the flooring from previous leaks and said it could confirm that it would be replacing the flooring in the bathroom. Measurements would be taken while its operative was on site, and this would be sent to its approved contractor who would then be in contact directly to arrange a suitable appointment.
After its response, the landlord organised for the works to be completed on the resident’s property on 13 June 2022.
On 9 June 2022, the landlord completed another survey on the resident’s property. The survey found:
1. There was discolouration found to the render on the outside of the property and cracks in the render around the window. There were signs the render was damp or sometime in the past had been damp.
2. Both the external and internal of the property were in good condition and decorated to a good standard. There was missing skirting in the corner of the living room, a very small amount of mould above the window in the bedroom, and all damp test reading came back negative for damp in the first bedroom.
3. No damp or mould was found in the third bedroom, but there was a spot on the bedroom wall that had a reading of 8% damp. The bathroom and toilet had signs of water damage to the flooring which needed to be replaced in both bathrooms.
4. The skirting by the basin in the bathroom was rotten and needed to be replaced. The resident also informed the surveyor that there were signs of mould growth on the bathroom ceiling, but this had recently been cleaned off and the ceiling had been painted by him.
5. The missing skirting needed to be replaced in the lounge, the rotten skirting on the wall near the basing needed to be replaced in the bathroom as well as the flooring with “polysafe anti-slip”, and the flooring in the toilet.
6. The boiler needed to be put on the improvement programme and replaced with a combi boiler. The property needed to be put on the External Wall Insulation (EWI) improvement programme.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 July 2022 and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 as it had been more than four weeks since he spoke with it, and nothing had changed.
The landlord installed an extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom on 7 July 2022.
The landlord contacted the resident on 1 August 2022 and explained it had tried to contact him on his mobile and it had left a voicemail to discuss his email of 29 July 2022. It apologised for the outstanding repairs and said it had chased the flooring with its contractors and they had come back to it asking if the resident could provide a date of availability so they could attend to assess the flooring within the bathroom and toilet. It said an operative attended his property on 19 June 2022 to assess the works required and identified skirting needed to be removed and new skirting fitted, and 2 kitchen cabinet doors needed to be repaired with repair brackets. It explained due to the length of time required to complete the works, it had been allocated half a day’s work and scheduled for 26 August 2022. It told him that it was in the process of securing funding for the external wall insulation project, and this was scheduled to begin in the new financial year (funding pending). It then offered him £80 for the inconvenience caused. It then contacted him on 2 August 2022 and told him that it was reviewing his request for escalation to stage 2 and would respond once there was an update.
The landlord then provided a stage 2 refusal to the resident on 9 August 2022. It said it wanted to reassure him that all relevant repairs resulting from its surveyor’s visit and his complaint had been raised. It said:
1. Regarding the damp and mould concerns, damp readings were taken on the surveyor’s visit which showed no measurements of concern. Further, to help reduce condensation in the bathroom, an extractor fan was fitted on 7 July 2022. However, should he have further concerns in relation to this, he should send it photos so that it could arrange a suitable resolution.
2. Its external contractor visited his home on 8 August 2022 to obtain a quote for the replacement of the flooring in both the bathroom and toilet. It had received the quote and its contractor would be in contact with him to arrange an appointment for the replacement of the flooring.
3. He had also reported issues with the skirting boards in the living room and its surveyor made note of this and replacements were required to the skirting in the bathroom during their visit. The required repairs were booked for 26 August 2022. On this date, the kitchen cabinets were also to be repaired.
4. The resident had mentioned the external insulation program in his email, and it could advise that while there was no available funding for this to take place at the time, there was a bid for funding.
5. It said the water pressure issues he was facing was due to the gravity-fed system of his current boiler. Following him raising his concerns about this, it had brought the replacement of his boiler forward to the financial year 2023-24. It understood he mentioned the water pressure concerns to be due to his wife’s recent surgery. It told him that should he require any adaptations or assistance because of any medical concerns, it recommended that he obtain an occupational therapist referral so that it was able to investigate aids and adaptations for him.
6. It said it would like to offer a good will gesture of £80 in line with its email of 1 August 2022, for any inconvenience caused because of the length of time taken for the repairs to be completed. It also said it did not consider the issues to be dealt with under stage 2 of its complaints process as no new evidence was considered.
The resident responded on the same day and said he disagreed with the landlord’s response as the issue had been ongoing for months. He said the extractor fan was not his request and his complaint was about damp and damage to the flooring which was still present. He said it was unfair he was living with the low water pressure from the previous year, and his stage 1 complaint was registered at the beginning of June 2022.

Post Internal Complaint Procedure.

Following the completion of the ICP, conversations continued between the landlord and resident. The landlord responded to the resident and explained it had taken all necessary action to ensure the required works were completed in his property. It then arranged for the works to be completed in August 2022, however on 30 August 2022, its contractor explained to it that it had been unable to replace the bathroom flooring as the skirting board was too damp. It had also been unable to replace the skirting in the living room as the wall was too rotten and lumps of plaster were falling away behind the wallpaper. The resident had insisted on the damp being addressed before any works were completed and a damp survey was requested.
A survey was then completed on 21 September 2021 and identified 2 rooms in the property were affected by damp and mould. It found damp in the walls and floor of the living room and said this was most likely caused by the blocked gully to the front of the property. It also found minor mould to the front and rear of the bedroom on the left-hand side of the property which it said was caused by a lack of ventilation.
The landlord was provided with a schedule of works, visited the property, and explained the outstanding works in October 2022. It said this would be completed by its new contractor who would contact the resident. In December 2022, the landlord confirmed to the resident that works were booked in for 5 December 2022, but on the day, the resident refused for works to be completed in the bathroom as he wanted the bathroom replaced, but this was not in the scope of work. The resident also raised dissatisfaction with the landlord due to the standard of work with tiling and door repairs it had agreed to complete and due to lack of work to address the shower pressure. He also stated the works had taken longer than it said it would, said this was causing his family inconvenience.
The landlord’s contractor confirmed to it that the works were completed 19 December 2022. It emailed the resident on 21 December, apologised for the delays in completing the works and explained the delays were due to the “subzero” temperatures and this affected its contractor’s ability to attend his property and slowed down the drying process of the walls. It said its surveyor had explained this to him during their visit to his property. It explained there would be follow on works in the new year and offered the resident a goodwill payment of £750 for the stress and inconvenience caused to him and his family during the complaints process and invited him to attend a meeting with its customer experience manager and an assistant director.
Between December 2022 and January 2023, the landlord arranged for the resident to meet with a director from its organisation about his complaint and the repairs. It then arranged for the works to be completed on the condition the drying out was completed. Following the meeting in January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and discussed the requests he had raised around the tiling and water pressure. He had also raised a new issue with his dining room radiator and requested an electric shower. The contractor confirmed the works to the resident’s property were completed on 24 January 2023 and the resident confirmed he was satisfied with the works on 25 January 2023. The resident also updated this service and explained the only outstanding matter was with the shower pressure.
The landlord provided a further update on 15 August 2023 where it:
1. Explained all repairs to the resident’s bathroom were completed between November 2022 and January 2023 by it and its contractor. A post inspection survey was also completed, and repairs were completed to a high quality.
2. Said all works identified in the survey in September 2022 were completed between December 2022 and January 2023. It also completed the works identified by the survey to the skirting board between November and January 2023. This was however delayed due to the weather as it affected the plastering drying and delayed the installation of the new skirting board. This was explained to the resident, and he confirmed in January 2023 he was satisfied with the work.
3. Acknowledged it had not completed some repairs as per the timescales set out in its responsive repairs policy due to reasons provided in its email of 20 March 2023. It also acknowledged its communication should have been better and said it had completed all repairs and had apologised to the resident in January 2023 and offered a good will gesture of £750 which was accepted.
4. Identified about its complaint handling that it responded to his stage 1 within the timescales provided of 10 working days and declined his stage 2 appeal as no new evidence was provided beyond what was already considered at stage 1. It said it did however update him on the damp and mould concerns, all repairs were raised to resolve the complaint but due to internal resourcing issues and sourcing external contractors, it was unable to complete the repairs within its policy timeframes and offered a goodwill gesture. It stated on reflection, at the point it could not resolve the repairs within its timescales, it should have escalated the complaint to its stage 2 appeal process.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised further issues with repairs within his property such as his bathroom tiling, request for an electric shower and the suitability of his bathroom for his wife. There is no evidence these issues exhausted the landlord’s complaints process. As such these issues will not be considered in this report.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s property including damp and mould.

Damp and mould & living room skirting board.

Once notified of the issues of damp and mould, the landlord completed a survey of the property within 5 working days. It acted quickly in rectifying the identified issues with the drainage and the wet walls at the rear of the property, and positively arranged for post inspection works to ensure the gutters remained clear of debris.
The landlord then provided the resident with the results of the survey 11 working days afterwards. This is 1 working day longer than the timeframes specified in its policy, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unlikely to have led to significant detriment to the resident.
After identifying that an extractor fan was required in the bathroom, the landlord then took 5 months to install this. From the evidence provided, there were issues with cancelled appointments, and it apologised for this, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the total length of the delay was unreasonable. The resident was also provided with no explanation at the time about why there was such a delay in installing the extractor fan and this would have caused him frustration.
The landlord appropriately completed another survey of the resident’s property which provided negative damp readings. It did however identify there was some issues externally with the render around the property as well as some discolouration near the boiler flu. Following the survey, it appropriately addressed the spots of mould found in one of the bedrooms by arranging for it to be washed. It also positively brought the insulation works to the external walls forward by at least 7 years.
However, from the evidence provided, it is unclear if the resident was informed of the results of the survey within the 10-working day period within its policy, or prior to his meeting with the landlord. This is the same for the survey completed in September 2022. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been best practice for the landlord to have done so, to be transparent with the resident and inform him of any changes in the damp and mould findings.
Following the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property, between January 2022 and June 2022, the landlord’s survey reports did not identify issues with damp in the property. There was only 1 wall in the bedroom with an 8% reading in the June survey which potentially the landlord could have investigated. It was not until August 2022 that it discovered an issue with the living room wall, which informed the need for a further survey, which it appropriately arranged within 1 month.
After the survey, there was then a 3 to 4 month delay in completing the required works. The issues with the damp then led to further delays with other repairs in the resident’s property. The landlord has explained that there were mitigating circumstances, such as the weather impacting on drying times for plaster. Whilst this service acknowledges this was an issue outside of the landlord’s control, and it had communicated timescales for the plaster to dry with the resident, no information was then provided to him about what caused the rest of the delays. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable.
The resident also reported issues with his skirting board, but it is unclear when the resident reported this to the landlord. From the evidence available, it became aware as early as March 2022 and it then took it 3 months to arrange for an inspection to take place. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unreasonable and added to the delays in completing the required works.
When it did try to replace the skirting, there was then an issue with the plastering in the living room wall which added to the delays, as works were required to address the issue with the wall before the skirting could be replaced. The landlord reasonably arranged and completed a survey within a month of this which identified issues with damp in the living room wall and informed its approach. Following the conclusion of the survey, it then took 3 to 4 months to complete the required works. The landlord has explained that there were further delays due to the weather conditions causing it to take longer for the plaster to dry.
In total it took 8 to 10 months for the landlord to completely rectify the issue. This is significantly outside of the timeframes provided within its repairs policy. The landlord has explained to this service that the time constraints were due to internal resourcing issues, needing to secure new contractors, and cancelled and rearranged appointments. There is no evidence this was explained to the resident however, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable.

Repairs to the bathroom

Although it was positive that the landlord took responsibility for removing the resident’s flooring, it was not until he brought it to this services attention that it decided to do so. The landlord should have taken a customer focused approach and considered this approach sooner to get the matter rectified in a timely manner. It is unacceptable that it waited until the Ombudsman’s intervention to consider and take such an approach.
Following the resident’s notification of issues within the bathroom, the landlord responded appropriately and fixed a blockage. However, the issues persisted and following him notifying it of the continued issue, it took 3 months to attend, inspect and identify the required repairs to the bathroom. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable. The resident was left with the ongoing issue for a period, and this caused him frustration.
The required works were then not completed for a further 9 to 11 months from the initial inspection. Although this was due to the damp issues, the length of time taken by the landlord to address the issues are substantially outside of the timescales within its policy. Further there is no evidence that it provided the resident with a schedule or intended timescales for the completion of the works initially. In this Ombudsman’s opinion, this would have been good practice, and could have been used to manage the resident’s expectations.
When the resident reported issues with the shower pressure in his property, this service would have expected the landlord to have a better understanding of its fittings, or alternatively check the equipment installed in the property, when the issue was first reported. It should then have explained much sooner to the resident that he did not have a shower, but instead a handheld shower hose. The failure to do so then led to a protracted exchange for a period of 5 months, before the resident was finally informed of the reality of the situation that it was a handheld shower attachment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unacceptable and caused the resident frustration. It also highlights issues with the landlord’s record keeping and communication.
Further, it was not until after the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage 2 that the landlord decided to provide him with an update on the works. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, given the fact there had been unanticipated delays, this was unreasonable and would have been frustrating for the resident.
The landlord provided reasons for delays in completing the works. It explained that personnel changes in its organisation meant it did not meet its service standard requirements and this led to it outsourcing work to contractors. It said this created backlogs and affected its response timeframes and it had brought in two new contractors in November 2022 to assist. It also said that the adverse weather conditions such as low temperatures and snow led to works taking longer to complete. It said the skirting in the living room could not be installed until after the plaster was completely dry and it anticipated this would take 25 days, and it had explained this to the resident.
Although it explained there were staffing difficulties, this is no evidence this was communicated to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this shows poor communication by the landlord with the resident. It would have been best practice for it to have been transparent with him about such issues. This might have aided in managing the resident’s expectations and eased some of his frustrations around the delays and could have allowed for a mutual agreement to be reached about when the repairs would be completed.
The landlord has correctly acknowledged its failings and offered the resident redress on separate occasions. It previously offered the resident £80 during the complaints process, and then offered him an apology and £750. It has also demonstrated that it has learned from its failings in this case and that it looks to do better in the future. Whilst this is positive, the redress of £750 was offered 4 months after the completion of the ICP. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it was inappropriate that the landlord waited to offer this level of compensation till this point. Further, the compensation accounts for issues which were not raised during the complaint, and it is unclear how much is apportioned for the matters considered during the ICP and issues raised after the ICP. This is another example of poor communication by the landlord. The Ombudsman has ordered that further compensation is paid to the resident.
In summary, once notified of the issues of damp and mould, the landlord acted quickly in completing its survey to identify the problems and necessary remedies. It did however take 5 months for it to install the extractor fan it identified as a possible solution. Following a further survey which identified issues with the external rendering, and spots of mould in the property, it positively addressed the mould issues and brought works forward by several years, regarding the external rendering. It is however unclear if the resident was ever provided with the results of the survey within the 10-working day period in its policy, this is also the case for the one completed in September 2022. Following the survey, it then took 3 to 4 months to complete the required works. This also led to other works in the property being delayed. It also took it 5 months to explain to the resident that he had a handheld shower attachment and not an actual shower and this was the reason for the pressure issues he faced. It waited until the resident requested an escalation to stage 2 to provide it with an update. Although it has explained its reasons to the Ombudsman, there is no evidence these were ever communicated to the resident. Its offer of redress was 4 months after the completion of the ICP and does not breakdown what is apportioned to the delays caused during the complaint. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration.

Complaint handling.

Following the resident’s reports of ongoing issues in his bathroom after its repair in November 2021, it would have been good practice for the landlord to have confirmed with him how it was treating the issue, as it was unclear if this was treated as part of the same complaint, a new complaint, or a service request. This would have assisted the resident in understanding and potentially explaining if he was raising a new complaint at this point, or providing evidence that the matter was not resolved and led to further damage to support his stage 2 request for that complaint.
Further, the landlord told the resident it would not be escalating his complaint to stage 2 of its procedure at this point as he had provided no further supporting evidence, however in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable. The resident had told the landlord the matter remained unresolved, this should have been treated as the required evidence, and escalated his complaint to stage 2. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord to resolve the matter at an earlier stage and caused unnecessary delay to the complaint handling process.
The landlord acted appropriately by choosing to consider the resident’s stage 2 escalation request despite it being outside of the 10 day deadline provided within its policy. It recognised there were extenuating circumstances and chose to consider the resident’s request.
As the landlord had nothing further to add as it believed it had addressed all the resident’s concerns and raised the required works, it declined to escalate his complaint to stage 2. It also did this as it said there was no new evidence to suggest any new issues, beyond what had already been considered at stage 1. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unsatisfactory. This is because the landlord had made promises in its stage 1 response which it had not fulfilled. The resident brought the fact the issues continued to its attention, and this was evidence of a continuing issue, which it should have taken consideration of when deciding on if it should escalate. The failure to acknowledge this caused the resident frustration.
The landlord’s refusal letter also did not provide the resident with a reason for its decision not to escalate. Further, although it had said it would not be escalating the complaint, it then provided a full response about the outstanding works. If this was to be a refusal letter of the stage 2 request, it should have provided the grounds on why it was not escalating his complaint. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was confusing and would have been frustrating for the resident, as it had refused to escalate, but then proceeded to address his concerns.
Following the landlord’s refusal to escalate, it appropriately did not delay the resident accessing this service as it provided him with the details of the Ombudsman if he was dissatisfied with its response, allowing him to escalate his complaint.
However, prior to its stage 2 response, it acknowledged that there were delays in completing the repairs to the resident’s property and offered £80 compensation. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should have used this as a reason to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its process and incorporated its update as part of its response. It could have then taken this as an opportunity to expand on the update and provide the various reasons for delays to the resident. This would have also shown that it took a customer focused approach.
The landlord has positively acknowledged there were failings in its complaint handling, has appropriately learned from its mistake, and has offered the resident compensation to address this. However, it is unclear how much of the offered redress is apportioned to its complaint handling failure.
In summary, the landlord should have confirmed how it was dealing with the resident’s further reports following its response in December. It should also have considered the resident’s reports of ongoing issues following its stage 1 response in December 2021 as evidence to escalate to stage 2. It appropriately applied its discretion and considered his stage 2 response despite it being outside of its 10 day timeframe. It was also appropriate that it decided not to escalate to stage 2 as it had addressed his concerns in its previous response. However, it had acknowledged that there were delays in completing repairs and should have used this as the required evidence to escalate to stage 2 of its complaints process. It has positively acknowledged its failings and awarded compensation; however, the compensation does not detail how much is offered for its complaint handling failures. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Reasons

There were delays and issues with the landlord’s communication around the repairs. Some of the delays then led to further delays in completing other repairs in the property. It did not provide the resident with an update until he requested to escalate his complaint. Although it has acknowledged its failings and offered compensation, during the ICP, this did not go far enough to address the length of the delays already faced by the resident. It then offered the resident a substantial increase 4 months after the complaints process, and its offer did not differentiate whether this was for delays which occurred both during the ICP or after. It also did not explain if it aimed to redress delays for issues raised after the complaints process.
Its communications were unclear on how it was treating the resident’s reports of ongoing issues in the property following its unblocking of the drain in November 2021. When it identified there were continued delays with the repairs, it should have used this as a reason and escalated the complaint to stage 2 at this point and notified the resident. Although it has acknowledged its failings and offered compensation for its complaint handling, this was done post ICP, and it is unclear how much of the redress was apportioned for the complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of this report, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £1150 comprising of:
  1. £750 previously offered to the resident if it has not been accepted and previously paid.
  2. £200 for the delays and communication issues around the repairs
  3. £200 for its complaint handling failure.
2. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider:
1. Completing an inspection of the resident’s property and identify any outstanding repairs and provide the resident with a schedule of works with timescales for completion.
2. Reviewing its stage 2 escalation requirements and consider if they are restrictive and limiting the appropriate acceptance of escalations.
3. Providing breakdowns of what its compensation awards are paid for, to allow for better clarity.