Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

West Kent Housing Association (202122162)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122162

West Kent Housing Association

23 June 2023

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

1.     The complaint is about the landlord’s:

  1. handling of repairs to the roof and its replacement.
  2. communication and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

2.     The resident is a shared owner. The property is a first floor flat, within a converted building, that was formally a hotel.

3.     The lease sets out the rights and repair obligations of the resident and the landlord. “The landlord shall maintain, repair, redecorate, and renew, the roof, foundations and main structure of the building”.

4.     The resident is obligated under the lease to pay a service charge to the landlord, which covers relevant expenditure reasonably incurred by the landlord. This includes expenditure in connection with “the repair, management, maintenance and provision of services for the building”.  

5.     Under the lease, the landlord is to “keep the building insured against loss or damage by fire and such other risks as the landlord may from time to time reasonably determine”. The resident financially contributes towards the building insurance premium, though his service charges.

Relevant policies and procedures

6.     The landlord has a 2 stage formal complaints process. The target timescale for responses are 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. At both stages, if the landlord requires more time to complete its investigation, it will discuss this with resident and may extend its response time by a further 10 working days.

7.     The landlord’s compensation policy sets out the circumstances under which it will pay compensation. The landlord will make a payment for inconvenience and goodwill “where a customer has experienced inconvenience because of service delivery failures”. The amount of compensation payable is dependent on the level of impact (minor impact: up to £100; moderate impact: £101 to £250; severe impact £251 – £500). The level of impact is dependent on factors such as distress caused, time and trouble, severity of service failure, duration of the problem, issues with complaint handling and individual circumstances. However, compensation may not be paid “if there’s insufficient evidence of the loss or inconvenience”.

8.     The landlord’s website states that it aims “to respond to all enquiries within 5 working days”. However, for email enquiries, it aims to get back to customers “by the end of the next working day”.

9.     The landlord has a repairs policy which outlines the response times for different types of repair. It aims to attend to ‘emergency repairs’ by the end of the next day, ‘urgent repairs’ within 3 full days, ‘routine repairs’ within 21 full days and ‘planned works’ within 12 months. Where further works are identified, the landlord will advise the resident when these will be completed.

10. The repairs policy states that repairs such as to “make safe major damage to roof”, should be completed as an emergency. A “leaking roof, missing roof tiles and faulty or blocked guttering causing serious water penetration”, should be completed as a routine repair. It will undertake repairs arising from major water leaks, fire, flood, storm or structural collapse as ‘planned works’.

Summary of events

11. This investigation focuses on the landlord’s handling of roof repairs, communications and complaints between 22 March 2021 and completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure on 1 November 2021. To place the resident’s complaint in its current context, this report also references recent actions carried out by the landlord, subsequent to the landlord’s internal complaint process, and which concern the resolution of the substantive repair issue.

12. The roof is of mixed construction. Part of the roof is flat and is constructed of a fibreglass material. Other parts of the roof are tiled. The roof was replaced in 2005, when the building was refurbished and converted from a hotel into 14 flats for part buy, part rent.

13. This service has seen evidence that the roof issues were first made known to the landlord on 22 March 2021. On the same day, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to “make safe major damage”. Further damage to the roof was reported on 7 May 2021, following which the landlord chased its contractor. In turn the contractor asked its subcontractor to “attend as soon as possible due to further damage”. It erected scaffold on 25 May 2021.

14. The resident first emailed the landlord on 1 June 2021 and again on 2 June 2021. He asked the landlord when the roofing works would begin and how long they would take. He noted that scaffolding had been installed but no work had yet started. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 June 2021, saying “that an onsite meeting needs to take place to decide how long [and when] the work will take place. There is currently no date for this meeting and as soon as we have an update from the contractor when this will be, we will update you further”.

15. The roof was inspected on 9 June 2021. Several observations were documented by the landlord following the roof inspection, including:

  1. “the flat roof has ‘gone’. The fibre glass has split and lifted from the decking / bubbled in quite a few locations”
  2. “it appears an area of the decking could possibly need changing as well”
  3. “scaffold will be required plus a new 3 layer felt system. [The landlord’s contractor] is going to put a quote together”
  4. “whilst the scaffold is up, there are also some loose tiles and missing / broken and it would be better that this is done at the same time”
  5. “they are going to do a temporary repair in interim as a section 20 will be required”.

16. A repair to “make good” was undertaken on 11 June 2021.

17. The resident chased the landlord for a progress report on 17 June 2021 and 22 June 2021. The resident mentioned, “in your last email you said you would update me when you heard back from the contractors”. The landlord replied on the 23 June 2021, stating that its contractor had until 24 June 2021 to respond. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 June 2021 and 25 June 2021, asking why there had been no update and pointing out that it had “missed another deadline” under its service level agreement. The landlord told the resident on 25 June 2021, that it had 5 days to respond to the resident’s communications. The landlord’s records note that the resident said he “could not understand why he has to wait 5 working days for [the contractor] not to call and now another 5 days”. 

18. The resident contacted the landlord several more times by phone and email between 26 June 2021 and 2 July 2021, asking for updates on the roofing works. The resident pointed out that the landlord was not keeping to agreed response times and expressed dissatisfaction with levels of customer service. The landlord chased its contracts team on 1 July 2021, asking them to contact the resident directly with an update. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 July 2021, advising that the contracts team had until the end of the day to provide a response. The resident was also asked to “let us know if you have not received a response by the end of today”.

19. The resident emailed the landlord on 5 July 2021, stating that he still hadn’t received an update. The landlord chased its contracts team on the same date, asking them to contact the resident who was “getting frustrated with the lack of communication”. The landlord’s contracts team phoned the resident later on 5 July 2021, apologising for not responding sooner and explaining that it was still waiting for a quotation. During the conversation, the resident asked whether the roof replacement would be covered under the building insurance, and the landlord agreed to make enquiries. The landlord started to make internal enquiries about its insurance cover on 5 July 2021, however was unable to progress its enquiries as it needed to “provide a copy of the report”, which it was still waiting for from its contractor.

20. The landlord carried out a further ‘temporary fix’ to the roof on 7 July 2021.

21. The resident and landlord exchanged email correspondence between 13 July 2021 and 25 July 2021. In summary, the resident indicated that he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s lack of progress with the roof repair, he was concerned about the cost of the scaffolding, wanted a full response and a date when the roof would be repaired. The landlord indicated in response that it was waiting for scaffold costs and a copy of the contractor’s report, but the scaffold was being charged “as a one-off fee”, not at a daily rate. The landlord explained that it was having difficulty working out a safe working platform to carry out the works. Ultimately, the resident concluded that the landlord was “fobbing” his queries off, which led to him to make a formal complaint.

22. The resident made a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2021. The resident said:

  1. “the roof was reported damaged in May 2021, scaffolding was put up at the end of May 2021 and the roof was inspected on the 9th June 2021. Yet the roof is still not fixed”
  2. he was constantly having to chase the landlord for a response. He believed that his emails were being ignored and pointed out that the landlord’s 5 working day target response time had been missed on 3 occasions. He had requested a call back but had reached an out of office reply, which did not contain details of who to contact in the alternative
  3. he asked the landlord to respond to the following questions:
    1. “why has it taken over two months from reporting the damaged roof, and still not be any further forward?”
    2. “why was the safe working platform not put in place when the scaffolding was put up? Or after the roof was inspected”
    3. “why do you not have a copy of the report”
    4. “why do you not have a time frame”
    5. “why do you not have costs?”
    6. “why isn’t this being covered under the warranty of the last repair”
    7. “can I have a copy of the last repair report”
    8. “can I have a copy of this repair report”
    9. “is this being covered by out building insurance. If not why not”
    10. “what warranty/guarantee will the job come with”
    11. “how long will the repair last in inclement weather”
    12. “when will the roof be repaired”.

23. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 29 July 2021, and said that it would respond within 10 working days.

24. The landlord received a quotation from its contractor for roof replacement works on 3 August 2021. The contractor released its roof report on 11 August 2021, which recommended full perimeter access scaffolding be installed to the flat roof section and detailed various works required to the roof. The landlord sent the resident a copy of the report later that day. It told the resident that it would liaise with its finance team to establish whether the works were claimable from its insurer, or whether it must follow a leaseholder section 20 process. The landlord told the resident it would need 5 working days before it could respond.

25. After the resident sought an update from the landlord on 12 August 2021, the landlord phoned the resident on 13 August 2021 and advised that its finance team would be deciding the next steps. It agreed to contact the resident on 25 August 2021 to review progress. The resident asked the landlord to keep his complaint open.

26. The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 August 2021, outside of the formal complaint process, responding to the queries raised in his stage 1 complaint. It said:

  1. “a repair has been undertaken. However, the repair will not hold in extreme weather and the same occurrence will happen again. We need to replace the flat roof end redress”
  2. “scaffolding was put up to allow an inspection to be undertaken. Subsequently, [the landlord’s contractor] recommended that a safe working platform be erected to carry out the recommended works. A quotation was required by us to agree the expenditure before the scaffolding is altered”
  3. “the report is provided by a sub-contractor which is then presented to [its contractor]”
  4. “time frame for works depend on several factors that are currently being worked on. Consideration is being given to a building insurance claim or a section 20 notice that will require a 30-day consultation period. [Named officer] will update you once we have a decision”
  5. “costs have been received”
  6. “repairs do not come with a warranty, whereas replacement is covered by warranty. When a repair is carried out this means the fault has been fixed. In this case extreme weather impacted the repair which was outside of our control”
  7. “when a repair is carried out, we do not request a report, unless there are other faults identified. On this occasion, we inspected the site with [its contractor] prior to a further repair being carried out because a repair had been completed previously”
  8. “a copy of the report has been sent to you”
  9. whether this is covered by building insurance is “something that is currently being considered and [named officer] will update you in due course”
  10. “a warranty will be issued in line with the manufacturing guarantee, usually for a 25 year period”
  11. “the current repair will not hold in extreme weather and this will cause the area to lift again”
  12. “a temporary repair has been carried out within 3 days of the inspection being completed. [Named officer] will update you when we have further information to share regarding the start date for the next stage of works”.

27. The landlord contacted the resident on 27 August 2021 and 6 September 2021 as agreed, to give updates. On 9 September 2021, the resident requested the landlord update him on the insurance company’s decision otherwise he would escalate his complaint.

28. In its stage 1 response on 10 September 2021, the landlord reiterated much of what it told the resident in its email on 13 August 2021 (paragraph 27, points a to l, refers). In addition, it gave the following updates:

  1. whether the roof replacement would be covered under the building’s insurance remained under consideration. It said, “our insurers have requested further information from us, and [a named officer] has responded to this”
  2. apologised that it had taken “slightly longer than our normal response time of 10 working days to initially respond to the questions raised for this complaint”
  3. said it was sorry for the difficulties he had experienced whilst a [named officer] was on leave. It could “appreciate how frustrating this must have been”
  4. it trusted that “works will be completed soon”.

29. The landlord’s records reflect internal communications and external communications with its insurer between 17 August 2021 and 14 September 2021. It was concluded that the roof replacement was a maintenance issue, which was not covered by insurance.

30. The resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 on 15 September 2021. The resident:

  1. said he was not happy with the landlord’s response, as the complaint still had not been resolved
  2. explained the damage reported in May 2021 had still not been fixed. He appreciated that a ‘temporary fix’ had been made, however he viewed the time frames “unacceptable” and suggested that the landlord “was expressing no urgency”
  3. said that he was aware that the landlord was waiting to hear back from contractors and insurers, but reminded the landlord that as he paid his service charge to the landlord, this was its “issue to fix”
  4. said that the landlord’s “customer care has been shocking, emails have been ignored, call backs that have been promised have never materialised” and “your hold times are incredibly long and when I finally get through, I get told that they cannot help me”
  5. said that he was told that “the finance team had signed everything off and it was with the insurance company”. He asked why all the correct information hadn’t been sent to the insurer in the first place and why it had taken so long for them to request more information
  6. asked for compensation for himself and the rest of the block, “for the unacceptable delays, inconvenience and hassle that the [landlord] was creating”.

31. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint escalation request on 16 September 2021. It emailed the resident again on 11 October 2021, stating that it needed to extend its complaint response deadline by a further 20 working days. The resident did not agree to the extension. The resident asked the landlord to communicate its stage 2 response by close of business on 15 October 2021.

32. The landlord emailed the resident on 12 October 2021. It apologised for not being able to respond to his stage 2 complaint within 20 days, but said that it needed to locate certain documents before it could give a full response. It said that it would revise its response deadline to 10 working days which was in line with its complaints policy, however cautioned that it may not be possible to provide a full response by that time (being 27 October 2021). If it needed longer to investigate, it would tell the resident before the new deadline passed.

33. The resident chased the landlord for an update on 17 October 2021. The landlord phoned the resident later the same day, explaining that it was still awaiting information and would contact the resident the following week.

34. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 October 2021, reminding the landlord that he was expecting the landlord’s stage 2 decision. The landlord responded to the resident by email later the same day, indicating that it was awaiting information, but it would provide an update following an internal meeting planned for 28 October 2021.

35. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 November 2021, advising that it would be closing the complaint, “with an in-depth action plan in place to address outstanding issues”. The landlord provided its stage 2 response the same day. The landlord said:

  1. it had investigated the complaint and agreed “there are some things that we could have done differently”
  2. it apologised for the delays in attending to the permanent fix on the roof. It said that a ‘temporary fix’ was completed “around 13 June 2021”, which was holding while it decided on a permanent solution to the problem
  3. the scaffold was left up so the roof could be patched without delay, should the ‘temporary fix’ fail
  4. it had taken advice from its insurer. As there was no record of strong winds around the date of the damage, it had advised that necessary works would not be covered by insurance. The insurer would review its position if a more accurate date could be given for the damage
  5. it responded to the resident’s claim, that the landlord should be responsible for the cost of the roof replacement because it was not installed correctly at the time of conversation. It said that it believed that the roof was installed in line with building standards, however it was still looking into this
  6. it was considering options to fund the cost of the works. This was more complex than was first thought. It was taking advice from its in-house solicitor on how best to proceed
  7. it appreciated that there were still outstanding actions to be completed in order to fully resolve the complaint. It had created an action plan, which would be monitored until it was able to resolve all of the issues. This included, liaising with its insurer regarding the date of the damage, investigating building control regulations from the time of conversion and investigating funding options for replacing the roof. It undertook to contact the resident with fortnightly updates
  8. it “did not believe that compensation was due in this instance because “the ‘temporary fix’ was holding and there had been no damage to the properties within the block. It would continue to ensure that a ‘permanent fix’ was undertaken.

Post completion of the landlord’s internal complaint process

36. The landlord continued to provide fortnightly updates to the resident between 15 November and 29 November 2021. It was agreed that fortnightly feedback would cease, in favour of ad hoc updates when the landlord had something “concrete to advise”. The resident said that he was happy with this approach but asked the landlord to contact him in a month’s time if there was no update before then. The landlord updated the resident again on 24 December 2021.

37. The landlord served a ‘notice of intention to carry out qualifying work under a qualifying long-term agreement’ on 24 February 2022.

38. The landlord told his service on 23 March 2022, that:

  1. the resident had “not received a good level of service in regard to the roof repair. There have been times where he had to chase for responses and the issue took longer for us to resolve than originally anticipated”
  2. the time from when the works were identified as necessary, to the section 20 notice being sent out, “is too long”. It explained that there were several contributing factors to the delay. This included the need for a second quote which was received on 20 October 2021. Other factors included high workload within the team, and during the intervening months there had been a restructure in the property team who would normally manage the issues.

39. The landlord has since told this service, that the roof replacement works started on 23 May 2022 following a section 20 consultation exercise and slightly later than planned due to inclement weather. Works were completed on 7 June 2022. The scaffolding was removed shortly after.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and its replacement

40. Damage to the roof was first reported to the landlord by a neighbour on 22 March 2021. The landlord raised a works order for its contractor to “make major damage to the roof safe”. The landlord’s repairs policy aims to attend to repairs like “make safe major damage to roof” by the end of the next day. Therefore, after describing the repair as “major damage”, it was inappropriate that a works order was raised with a completion date of 25 weeks. In view of the need to erect scaffolding, it may have been more appropriate to have treated the repair as a ‘routine repair’, which would have given the contractor a completion date of 21 full days. However, there is no evidence to suggest that an inspection, or a temporary repair to the roof was attempted in a timelier manner.

41. The landlord missed an opportunity on 7 May 2021, to bring forward the completion date to “make safe the roof”, following new reports about water ingress. Whilst the landlord did ask its contractor to “attend as soon as possible due to further damage”, it failed to set out its expected timescale for this. Considering the new report of water ingress, this lack of clarity or urgency was unreasonable. However, this service has not seen any evidence to suggest that the resident’s property itself was experiencing water ingress.  

42. On inspection on 9 June 2021, it was established that the roof required replacement. The landlord identified that a leaseholder section 20 consultation would be required, and appropriately instructed temporary roofing works as an interim measure. A “make safe” repair was undertaken on 11 June 2021, making the roof watertight.

43. A ‘temporary fix’ to the roof (pending a full roof replacement), was carried out on 7 July 2021, which was undertaken within expected timescales for routine works. However, it was 8 months between the landlord first identifying the need to replace the roof and issue of its ‘notice of intention to carry out qualifying works’ (section 20 notice) in February 2022. The landlord acknowledges that this delay was “too long”. The landlord attributes its delay to high workloads, a staff restructure and the need to obtain a second quote after the first quote expired. The landlord has explained that it has since taken on more staff.

44. It is noted that a permanent roof replacement was competed on 7 June 2022. Whilst there may have been delays starting the section 20 process, the roof replacement was completed within 11 months of the temporary repair being carried out. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, ‘planned works’ should be completed within 12 months. Accordingly, the roof replacement works were carried out within recommended timescales for ‘planned works’. It is also noted that there were no further reports from the resident or other residents living in the block, after the ‘temporary repair’ had been carried out, that would have required expedited action. The scaffolding was removed shortly after the roofing works were completed.

45. Overall, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repair. This service recognises that there was a delay between the roof being damaged and the landlord making it safe and then watertight (pending a full roof replacement). Whilst this was frustrating for the resident, this service has seen no evidence to suggest there was material detriment to the resident. Once the roof had been made watertight, it was appropriate for the landlord to work towards a permanent solution through ‘planned works’. The landlord completed the roof replacement within the 11 months of it completing the ‘temporary repair’, which was in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

46. The landlord aims “to respond to all enquiries within 5 working days”. However, for email enquiries, it aims to get back to customers “by the end of the next working day”. The landlord’s records between 1 June 2021 and 4 January 2022, show that the resident contacted the landlord on multiple occasions. It is not in dispute that the landlord did not always respond to the resident in line with its service level standards. The landlord told this service on 23 March 2022, that it accepted that “the resident had not received a good level of service in regard to the roof repair”. It acknowledged that “there had been times when the resident had to chase for responses and the issue took longer for it to resolve than originally anticipated”.

47. By way of exemplification, the resident asked the landlord on 1 June 2021, when the roof would be started and how long it would take. The landlord responded on 2 June 2021, confirming that it was waiting for a date for an onsite meeting with its contractor and as soon as it had a date from its contractor it would update him further. At the inspection on 9 June 2021, it was established that the roof required replacement. It was inappropriate, in view of its undertaking to update the resident following the inspection, that the resident had to chase several times before the landlord responded on 5 July 2021.

48. However, at the time its conversation with the resident on 5 July 2021, the landlord would have been aware that it was unlikely that a full roof replacement could be achieved quickly, particularly factoring in the need to agree a specification, decide the procurement process and the possibility of having to carry out a section 20 leaseholder consultation process. Whilst the landlord told the resident that it was waiting on a quotation for works, it could have used this opportunity to give an indicative timeframe for works based on experience. It also could have explained the timescales permitted for rectification under its repairs policy, to better manage the resident’s expectations from the outset.

49. The purpose of the landlord’s complaints policy is to “try to put things right as quickly as we can and ensure that it learn from what happened”. It defines a complaint as “an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf, affecting an individual resident or group of residents”.

50. The resident first raised concerns as a stage 1 complaint on 26 July 2021. Under its complaints policy, the landlord should have provided its stage 1 response on 9 August 2021. It was inappropriate that the resident had to chase the landlord for a response on 12 August 2021. Whilst a formal stage 1 complaint was not provided within the landlord’s 10 working day target for responses, it is noted that during a conversation with the landlord on 13 August 2021, the resident gave a tacit agreement to keep the complaint open. The landlord provided the resident with an email response to some of his enquiries later the same day, however this service would also have expected the landlord to have set out an anticipated timescale for providing its formal full stage 1 response. The stage 1 response was not provided until a further 21 days later.

51. This service notes that in addition to the substantive complaint, the resident made several information requests within his stage 1 complaint about future or as yet undetermined matters (paragraph 22 c, refers). Delays responding to the stage 1 complaint were exacerbated by the landlord gathering a significant amount of information, for inclusion in its stage 1 response. However, as the purpose of the landlord’s complaint process was to investigate dissatisfaction, the landlord should have considered whether it was appropriate for some or all of the information requested to be addressed by the relevant service area, outside of its complaint process. Taking this approach, if the resident was dissatisfied with any aspect of the service area’s response, he could then have raised a separate complaint, dealing specifically with any new complaint elements. This would have made the investigation into the resident’s substantive complaint more manageable within the timescales available. The landlord’s decision to encompass future or as yet undetermined factors within the complaint response, led to a protracted complaint process, as well as confusion and uncertainty.

52. The resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 on 15 September 2021, which the landlord acknowledged on 16 September 2021. When the landlord was unable to provide a response within 20 working days, it told the resident that it needed an additional 20 working days (equivalent to double the extension period set out in the landlord’s complaints policy). It was understandable that the resident did not agree to the proposed extension, considering an element of his complaint concerned delays with the landlord’s communications. The landlord did acknowledge the resident’s concerns and reduced its extension to 10 working days, with a caveat that it may be difficult for it to respond within this timeframe. After being chased by the resident for a response, the landlord’s stage 2 decision was provided 3 days after its new deadline.

53. Overall, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. The landlord has acknowledged there “had been times when the resident had to chase for responses and the issue took longer for it to resolve than originally anticipated”. The complaint process became protracted and overly complicated by considering future or yet to be determined factors within the complaint process. This caused a loss of focus on the expressed issue of complaint and ultimately delayed concluding the complaint. Whilst these failures did not significantly affect the overall outcome for the resident, they were nevertheless unreasonable, causing the resident inconvenience, uncertainty, as well as elevated time and trouble seeking a resolution to his complaint.

Determination

54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the roof and its replacement.

55. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Reasons

56. There was a delay between the roof being damaged and the landlord making it safe and then watertight, pending a full roof replacement. There is no evidence that this delay led to material detriment to the resident beyond time and trouble. Once the roof had been made watertight, the landlord worked towards a permanent solution through ‘planned works’. The landlord completed the roof replacement within the 11 months of it completing the ‘temporary repair’, which was in line with its repairs policy.

57. The landlord did not keep the resident adequately informed about the progress made with the repairs required to the roof and associated queries. The landlord’s communication handling often left the resident waiting for responses, which led to an unreasonable level of involvement by the resident. The landlord’s complaint process became unnecessarily protracted and overly complicated, on account of it considering future factors outside of the substantive complaint, and ultimately delaying conclusion of the complaint. Whilst this did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint, it contributed to increased time and trouble for the resident, chasing for responses and seeking a timelier resolution.

Orders

58. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to pay compensation of £250 to the resident, in respect of the resident’s time, trouble and inconvenience, arising from failures in the landlord’s communication and complaint handling. This has been determined with regard to the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and landlord’s complaint policy.

59. The landlord is to write to the resident with 4 weeks of the date of this report, to apologise for the failings identified in this report.

60. The landlord is to provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision.

61. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should review its communication processes. Particular regard should be given to:

  1. the management of resident expectation in complex cases which involve several teams, parties and issues;
  2. the information given to residents on repairs categories, response times, and how residents are best kept informed where responsive repairs evolve into planned works.

62. Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is review its complaint handling on this case, to identify any leaning opportunities. In particular, such a review must consider the issues surfaced relating to complaints where future or yet to be determined factors are raised alongside a substantive complaint.

63. The landlord is to provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above orders, within 8 weeks of the date of this decision.

Recommendations

64. The landlord may wish to consider the practicalities of its expected response times for email correspondence, and review whether its 1-day response time is achievable and best manages expectations.

65. The landlord is to write to this service, within 4 weeks of the date of this decision, to confirm its intentions in relation to this recommendation.