Golding Homes Limited (202224206)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224206

Golding Homes Limited

31 July 2024

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 response to the resident about:
   1. Her repairs reports.
   2. Staff conduct.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom terraced house. The resident lives in the property with her child.
3. In May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and said she had been told it would repair damage after a leak was repaired. In August 2021, works were raised after inspections, and the resident made a complaint around this time that promises by a surveyor, which she had recorded, were not being kept.
4. In mid-December 2021, after a November 2021 stage 1 response, the landlord completed works to mould wash in the kitchen and bathroom, plaster a bathroom wall, decorate both rooms, fill cracks, re-grout tiles, remove and reapply sealant, and put back or fix a cupboard, a drawer and a towel holder. In its complaint response it said its IT system had blocked the resident’s recordings but the staff complaint had been referred to their manager. It said it could not disclose the outcome, but it apologised for distress caused by repairs handling. It invited the resident to supply further information about additional costs she said she had incurred as a result of issues. After the landlord confirmed the works were complete, it emailed the resident in January and March 2022 asking if she had collated costs and if there was anything else it could assist with.
5. In July and August 2022, the resident contacted the landlord.
   1. She raised concern about the workmanship of the December 2021 repairs. The bathroom was still causing leaks, which was believed to be linked to deteriorating sealant, cracked tile grouting, and gaps under the bath and toilet. She had repeatedly said the bathroom needed to be retiled. There were concerns with the kitchen tiling. Incorrect paint had been used in the kitchen and bathroom. Water marks and black mould were occurring in both rooms. Smells were coming from the toilet due to the condition of the base. Heating and radiator pipework casing were not all covered, which could provided rodent access.
   2. She reported that bricks from a boundary wall had fallen on her child. The wall was unstable and proposed repairs were insufficient. The wall needed to be rebuilt or replaced with a fence. A boundary fence was also falling into a neighbour’s garden and needed to be replaced.
   3. She raised concern about a number of drilled holes in the cladding and the front door, which had been there before she moved in. These were resulting in a cold house, and a new front door and cladding were needed.
   4. She had been told 2 years prior that window works would be done, but this had not happened.
   5. She sought to either be rehoused, for all the works to be done by her at the landlord’s cost, or for the landlord to arrange for all the works to be done by professional contractors.
6. In August 2022, the landlord replaced the brick wall with a fence, and said on review of the land registry that the falling down fence was the neighbour’s responsibility. It said that it would rip out the bathroom, investigate the leaks, replace the bathroom, mould wash, re-tile, re-seal, replace the toilet with one that enclosed the sewage pipe, replace the electric shower, fit tiling or splashback in the kitchen, redecorate the kitchen and bathroom with correct paint, carry out required works for cladding, address uncovered casing, and review if the front door and windows needed replacement. Around this time, an operative attributed a reported leak to gaps in sealant and cracks in grouting.
7. In September 2022, the landlord completed the majority of the works and agreed further works to replace a wash hand basin with a larger one in a vanity unit, fit a valve and check the toilet base to address the smell, install a shower screen, replace the front door, and replace any windows that had blown glass or failed casements. It also took steps to reimburse for some kitchen tiles the resident had bought. The same month, the resident raised concern that her front door was less secure than the previous one, and reported various leaks that the landlord resolved. She noted that windows were not fitted as planned as they had been incorrectly measured, and she raised concern that 5 windows were being replaced and not 9. She also reported issues with radiators which operatives found to work fine.
8. In October 2022, the landlord’s contractor fitted new mechanism to the front door to address the security concerns. The same month, the resident reported that contractors had scratched 2 doors, and the landlord arranged to attend on 18 October 2022 to complete outstanding works for 5 windows, caps on a door, and removal of door marks. It said that if windows were found to have deteriorated since the original scope of works, this could be reviewed when the 5 windows were replaced. The resident later cancelled the visit and said she would let the landlord know when she could make appointments. The following month, the landlord noted it had not heard from the resident and emailed and visited her, after which it was noted that she was awaiting a response.
9. The landlord provided a further stage 1 response on 21 November 2022.
   1. It noted that the complaint was originally raised in November 2021 and related to cracks in kitchen and bathroom ceilings, walls and doorframes, decorating in various areas to address leaks, kitchen wires, a kitchen door frame, and conduct of its operative. It noted that the repairs that formed the initial complaint were completed in 2021.
   2. It noted that additional repairs were raised, and it had agreed to a front door replacement, bathroom upgrade, decoration of various areas, cladding repair, replacement of a wall with a fence, reimbursement of £393 for some materials, and replacement of 5 windows. It noted that the repairs were complete apart from windows, which were pending a date from the resident and could be scheduled outside of the complaint.
   3. It apologised for poor initial communication but said it felt it had later been able to respond to the resident’s needs and complete the required works. It awarded £300 for time and trouble and failed appointments investigating the leak, and said the complaint could be escalated within 14 days.
10. On 31 December 2022, the resident raised dissatisfaction with the response and asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. The compensation did not reimburse incurred costs such as utility bills and time off work. She said 9 window replacements were required, and she could accommodate visits from 9 January 2023 for outstanding works. The woodwork was damaged at a visit and was expected to be rectified. There was concern damp and mould had not been treated before the bathroom was painted, as damp patches were appearing after it rained. There were gaps in grouting and sealant, basin taps moved and did not have hot water, unseen areas were barely painted, bathroom flooring was not cut and sealed well, front door caps were missing, a kitchen extractor fan cable had been painted over so it could not be turned off, and tiles were falling out. There was a leak from the boiler area behind the bathroom which had damaged items, a bathroom radiator had not worked since the works, the radiators were noisy, and the new shower vibrated and could be contributing to tiles falling off. Following this, the landlord internally noted that the complaint had been closed and that the concerns described ‘snags’ which could be looked at separately.
11. On 24 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident. It noted that the complaint had been closed, as works in the original complaint had been addressed and additional repairs had been completed. It said that if she was dissatisfied with the stage 1 she could request escalation by 31 January 2023. It offered a point of contact for ongoing repairs and asked the resident to confirm her availability in February 2023 for works to install 5 windows, clean marks from woodwork, investigate bathroom damp patches, investigate radiators, investigate the leak, investigate the boiler, address missing door caps, fill gaps in grouting, and resecure bathroom sink taps. Following this, the resident said that she had previously requested escalation and the landlord was not following its complaints process. She said that she was free after 4.30pm and at weekends, or she could be provided dates for her to make work arrangements.
12. On 13 February 2023, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It noted that some additional works were outstanding and an appointment was currently awaited from contractors for 5 windows, cleaning of marks from woodwork, investigation of damp patches in the bathroom, repair of a boiler and radiator leak, replacement of caps to the front door, filling grouting gaps, and refixing loose bathroom sink taps. It said that any new repairs would not be considered part of the complaint. It noted that the resident had mentioned increased utility costs but confirmation of these had not yet been received. It apologised for behaviour of staff and assured the resident that they had been spoken to and made aware of her concerns. It apologised for the service and impact on the resident and re-offered £300. The same month, a repair was raised for the boiler, after which operatives attended in April 2023, replaced heating and hot water valves, and left the boiler working.
13. In May 2023, a repair was raised for a boiler leak causing tiles to fall off the bathroom wall and water to come into the kitchen. Following this, the boiler was drained and electrics were made safe, but the resident reported that a leak still went into the kitchen when she showered. The same month, it was decided to replace the boiler due to multiple reports of no heating and hot water, a survey was carried out to scope this, and at the end of May 2023 a relevant team was asked to contact the resident about the replacement.
14. The landlord says that between April and June 2023, attempts were made to contact the resident via emails, ad-hoc visits and a relative, to arrange remaining works. The resident says she was advised by health professionals “to take some time away” around this time for a health crisis caused by the landlord, and raises dissatisfaction that a relative was contacted.
15. In early October 2023, the resident contacted the landlord, and the landlord replaced the boiler 2 weeks later. In November 2023, the resident raised concern to the Ombudsman about black mould and a smell. In December 2023, an email to the landlord said that 2 supervisors had attended in October 2023, but there had been no follow up and there had been another leak through a kitchen light that was understood to be due to ongoing unresolved issues with the bathroom. It was unclear that this was written by the resident, and the landlord asked for the resident to contact it directly or for authorisation to be given to speak to a third party.
16. The landlord contacted the resident in May 2024, noting that it understood there had been a period of non-engagement from her, and it queried what works remained outstanding. The resident responded that there was an unresolved leak, mould and property damage. Following this, the landlord asked her to provide some dates the following week so a supervisor could be urgently arranged to attend to assess required actions.
17. In July 2024, the landlord noted it had not received a response, and it carried out an ad–hoc visit after a further email, where it spoke to the resident and established she had not received a recent email although the email address was correct. It was recently trying to liaise with the resident to arrange a visit to confirm required repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

18. The resident has been informed that we do not determine negligence and liability for the impact on health or loss of earnings. It is also understood that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling in respect to a lack of heating and hot water and time it took to replace the boiler. The landlord has not had sufficient opportunity to respond to a complaint about this, as this was not the main focus of the complaint the resident brought to the landlord. She has the option to ask the landlord to raise a formal complaint about any lack of heating and hot water and its handling concerning the repair and replacement of the boiler.

The landlord’s response to the resident about her repairs reports

19. The resident contacted the landlord in 2021 and asked it to repair damage after a leak, after which it completed a number of works to the bathroom and kitchen. The landlord’s response around this time was generally reasonable, as it liaised to complete works, offered to consider the resident’s incurred costs if she provided information, and sought to follow up on the works to confirm she was happy with them. The resident was unhappy with unkept promises and the landlord should aim to honour commitments it makes to residents. However, a landlord is entitled to change its mind if this is still reflective of inspections and its obligations. The works it raised seemed to reasonably reflect its inspections, obligations and repairs the resident requested around this time.
20. The resident contacted the landlord in July 2022, over 6 months later, with concerns about the workmanship of the previous works and some additional issues. The workmanship issues do seem concerning, but again the landlord’s response was generally reasonable, as it considered the issues the resident raised and took action to complete works to resolve most of them by September 2022. It agreed to reimburse her for some tiles she bought. It acknowledged issues with its handling of previous recordings the resident supplied, and took steps to ensure it reviewed new ones she supplied. The resident requested escalation almost 4 weeks after the normal 2 week timeframe allowed to escalate, so the landlord was positive to escalate the complaint after its November 2022 further stage 1 response. It was also positive to add additional issues the resident raised to the complaint, as adding issues in the course of the complaints procedure is not an expectation.
21. The resident was unhappy with some decisions, such as the decision to replace 5 windows rather than 9, but the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its staff and contractors after first-hand inspection, and there seems no equivalent professional views supporting her views. In the case of the windows, the landlord provided a reasonable solution by offering to review the situation when the 5 windows were installed.
22. The resident has complained about leaks being unresolved for a significant period. The landlord took action to repair damage from a previous leak in December 2021 which suggests leaks were resolved at that point in time. It then confirmed it would replace the bathroom to investigate and resolve further leak issues that the resident reported over 6 months later, internally and to the bathroom wall. The sealant gaps and grouting cracks were re-done during the works, and the resident says the contractor also did some sealing to the cladding, however it is unclear that she received clear responses to queries about whether causes were identified for issues such as a leak to the bathroom wall when it rained.
23. The resident reported some leaks shortly after the September 2022 works that the landlord resolved, and then 3 months later referred to further leaks and continued damp patches on the bathroom wall when it rained, leaks from the boiler impacting the bathroom wall and kitchen, and further leaks when the shower was used. The landlord’s stage 2 response made commitments to carry out outstanding works such as investigate the bathroom wall damp patches, and its contractor is understood to have attended in April and May 2023 for the boiler leak. The leaks seem generally new ones, and the landlord’s February 2023 commitment to investigate them was reasonable. However, the leak to the bathroom wall when it rained was a repeat issue, and the landlord should be able to clearly show that it tried to effectively resolve it during the September 2022 works.
24. The landlord has confirmed since January 2023 that it would complete works for 5 windows, cleaning of marks from woodwork, investigation of damp patches in the bathroom, repair of a boiler and radiator leak, replacement of caps to the front door, filling grouting gaps, and refixing loose bathroom sink taps. The resident and landlord both refer to issues trying to progress these. The landlord’s February 2023 stage 2 response said it awaited an appointment from contractors for the works, which suggests her availability was passed to contractors, but there appear missed opportunities to try to arrange the works in January or February 2023, given the resident said from December 2022 that from 9 January 2023 was suitable. This could have prompted earlier offers of dates for the resident to consider, and it is understandable if she felt ignored and frustrated when these were not forthcoming.
25. The landlord has detailed that it made a number of unsuccessful attempts to contact the resident from April 2023, then attempted to contact her via a relative. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was very affected by the ongoing issues at her home and went through a difficult time, and she has said that she took some time out due to health issues and was unhappy with an attempt to contact her via a relative. While the resident’s account seems to indicate that the landlord did make attempts to progress the works after its stage 2 response, it provides limited direct evidence about these attempted contacts. The landlord should be able to evidence its actions and that it reasonably sought to meet its commitments, and that the Ombudsman is unable to assess this is not satisfactory.
26. Overall, the landlord clearly sought to be responsive to the resident’s concerns and it took steps to arrange works in a timely manner. It acknowledged that she was caused distress and inconvenience at points and reimbursed £393 for materials costs, awarded £300, and offered to consider other expenditure. However, it was unclear about the investigations, conclusions and actions for a leak to the bathroom wall when it rained, to show it tried to resolve this effectively. There were missed opportunities to try to arrange the outstanding works in January or February 2023. The resident’s account indicates she may have been difficult to contact for a period and confirms a relative was contacted, but the landlord provides limited direct evidence about its attempted contacts from February 2023.
27. The above leads the Ombudsman to find maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about her repairs reports and to order £600 compensation, including the £300 previously offered. This reflects that while the landlord tried to put things right, it does not show it went far enough to satisfactorily resolve the issues and their impact on the resident and her child, for whom the repeated leaks and the necessity for various different works will have been understandably distressing and disrupting.

The landlord’s response to the resident about staff conduct

28. The resident raised concern about staff conduct such as unkept promises, threats and handling of her concerns. The landlord confirmed that some concerns about staff were discussed with their manager, and the handling seems in line with the approach set out in its disciplinary policy. The threats are understood to have related to staff raising concern about being recorded without their consent, which the landlord seemed to address reasonably by ensuring that the staff had no further involvement with the resident.
29. The resident expressed significant dissatisfaction with the handling of matters, particularly in October 2022, and the landlord seemed to address this reasonably by seeking to follow up her concerns, providing detailed comments to correspondence from her, and reassuring her that it was trying to resolve her issues. The landlord also acknowledged that it could have handled things better when it was unable to open recordings the resident supplied in 2021, and when she supplied videos in 2022, it liaised with its IT department to ensure it could review these. This demonstrates that it learned from previous events and did things differently, which was resolution-focused and appropriate.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about her repairs reports.
    2. No maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident about staff conduct.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

31. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks:
    1. pay the resident £600. This includes the £300 it previously offered, which can be deducted if this has already been paid.
    2. re-offer to consider evidence from the resident about any additional costs she says she has incurred.
    3. liaise with the resident to inspect the property. This should include assessment of any damage caused by leaks since the September 2022 works, any damp and mould at the property, any outstanding concerns the resident has about the electric shower such as the vibration, and any outstanding concerns that a kitchen extractor fan cannot be turned off.
32. The landlord is ordered to, within 6 weeks, write to the resident with the outcome of its inspection, a scope of works, and proposed dates to complete the works, based on availability she provides. The scope of works should include any additional works it identifies as well as any outstanding works it detailed in January and February 2023, including replacement of 5 windows, cleaning of marks from woodwork, investigation of damp patches in the bathroom, investigation and repair of any current leaks from the bathroom and boiler areas, replacement of caps to the front door, filling of grouting gaps, and refixing of loose bathroom sink taps.

Recommendations

33. The landlord is recommended to review our spotlight report on knowledge and information management, and ensure that it keeps adequate and accessible records about complaints, including all correspondence to complainants.