All Case Studies

Rehousing, repairs and contact (April 2025)

Summary

In November 2023, Mr G reported repair issues. We informed the resident that works had been raised. The resident’s representative, requested that due to Mr G’s vulnerabilities all contact should be via her, Ms H.

We attempted to inspect Mr G’s home on the 30 November 2023 but was unable to gain access. An inspection then took place in January 2024 where works to the bedroom and a complete refurbishment of the kitchen and bathroom were recommended.

In January 2024, Ms H wrote to us to report that despite previous instructions, our contractor kept on ringing the resident directly. She also mentioned that they had previous poor experience with the contractor, so did not want it to carry out any works.

In March 2024 Ms H raised a formal complaint that works had not progressed, lack of communication and lack of rehousing options. In our stage 1 response, we advised that we had appointed a single point of contact for the works, that we were in discussion with the representative on best way to complete works, the list of works to be carried out, that the delays have been partly caused by need to find another contractor and that we would write separately about the request to be rehoused. We awarded £750 in compensation.

In April 2024, Ms H contacted us to say that Mr G was unhappy with our Stage 1 response. On the 4^th of April we provided Ms H with details on how to apply for medical priority. We later advised Ms H that Mr G’s application for medical priority had been declined and that we would support his appeal to LBTH for priority.

In June 2024, we acknowledged the request to escalate the complaint to a stage 2. The panel spoke to Ms H in Aug 2024 . Ms H raised a number of issues including unsuitable temporary options for Mr G while works were being done, and that staff/contractors continue to call when a single point of contact was in place.

We issued our response on the 23 August 2024 which we partially upheld – we said that we had provided regular updates and offered various solutions but that we had not provided a clear handover between our teams. We agreed that we were keen on completing the works but were mindful of the impact on the resident and suggested temporary accommodation options.  We also mentioned that there was a possibility that we might have to take legal action to ensure the works were completed.

We agreed a management transfer for the resident and that we would make one reasonable offer. We apologised that several members of staff had contacted the resident when we had agreed that Ms H would be our contact and that we had not logged the stage 2 in line with our policy. In recognition of this we offered additional £400 in compensation.

Ms H escalated the complaint to the Housing Ombudsman in October 2024.

The Ombudsman confirmed that it was unable to investigate the rehousing element of the complaint as it was outside of its jurisdiction but that the resident could submit a complaint to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.

The Ombudsman’s investigation found that

Reports of outstanding repairs:

• initial inspection was scheduled for November but we were unable to gain access. The inspection was then scheduled for January. The delays were reasonable given the residents wish to have a different contractor
• reasonable efforts were made to find a solution to progress the intended schedule of works. Whilst they noted that we could have considered taking tenancy enforcement action to access the property, they acknowledged that we had acted appropriately by taking account of the resident’s vulnerabilities and trying to seek all other alternatives before considering legal action
• we went over and above what would normally be expected by exercising our discretion by offering the resident a management transfer
• we acknowledged our poor communication and had offered compensation. Our communication improved post our stage 1 response
• our stage 2 response demonstrated that we were making appropriate efforts to improve communication and manage the resident’s expectations. For these reasons, the Ombudsman found that we had resolved the complaint satisfactorily

Preferred method of contact

• we had acknowledged the error of contacting the resident directly and made efforts to put this right
• we also awarded £100 in compensation and therefore offered reasonable redress

Complaint

• at both stage 1 and 2 there were significant delays which were outside of our policy.
• as we had apologised and offered compensation this had resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Outcome

The complaint regarding rehousing was outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Reasonable redress for complaints regarding outstanding repairs, preferred method of contact and complaint handling.

Recommendations

• Pay the resident, the following, if we have not done so already:
  • £750 offered at stage 1 for poor communication, delays to repairs
  • £100 offered for impact following direct contact with resident
  • £300 offered for complaint handling delays
• review training for staff to recognise escalation request at an early stage