Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202401031)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202401031

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

1 May 2025

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 handling of and response to the resident’s:
1. Reports of water ingress from exterior walls and windows.
2. Reports of damp and mould inside the property.
3. Request for a claim to be made on its liability insurance.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident lives in a 3-bed flat. He became the leaseholder in March 2022 however he has lived in the property for over 34 years. The landlord said there are 2 vulnerable people living in the flat.
On 14 November 2023 the resident reported concerns with the pointing of the external brickwork and window which he said had caused water ingress and had led to mould growth within the flat. The landlord assigned the re-pointing work to a contractor.
The resident asked to raise a formal complaint on 20 December 2023. The request was repeated on 8 January 2024. The complaint was in relation to:
1. Repairs which he said had not been completed in full.
2. The lack of communication.
3. The leaks coming from the windows and external brickwork.
The landlord responded to the complaint on 14 February 2024. The landlord:
1. Apologised for the poor communication and for any distress caused.
2. Confirmed the windows had been inspected by a contractor who said there was no evidence of water ingress.
3. Said it believed no work was needed but, as a gesture of goodwill, would ask for a second opinion from a different contractor.
4. Said it would provide a further update on 16 February 2024 and would confirm the work completed, the future work planned and the resident’s responsibilities for any future work.
5. Offered £500 compensation in recognition of the repeated failures and impact on the resident.
The resident escalated the complaint on 5 March 2024 and attended a hearing with a panel. The resident told the panel:
1. The windows let water in and caused damp and mould which was affecting the health of household members.
2. Three independent inspectors had confirmed the windows needed replacing but the landlord was not willing to do the work.
3. Water was still pooling on the balcony, despite repairs.
4. The extractor fan in the bathroom was not sufficient.
5. The building was not being maintained due to it being demolished in the next 3 to 5 years.
6. As a resolution, he asked for more compensation, new windows, the repairs completing and for the landlord to claim for damage to his belongings through its own liability insurance.
In the final complaint response dated 31 March 2024, the landlord:
1. Confirmed the inspections and repairs that had been completed to date.
2. Said it was arranging for the trickle vents to be overhauled to help with the ‘significant’ condensation.
3. Confirmed it would ask the contractor to return to look at the balcony.
4. Confirmed it would continue to meet its repair obligations for the building despite the demolition status.
5. Confirmed it was the resident’s responsibility to remove the mould from inside the property, but it had arranged for the removal of mould from 2 bedrooms and lounge and for the affected areas to be treated.
6. Confirmed the internal repairs were the resident’s responsibility and he should claim through the landlord’s building insurance.
7. Advised the resident to claim through his own home contents insurance for damage to personal belongings.
8. The landlord agreed the communication and customer service had been below the level expected. No further compensation was offered; however, the landlord informed the resident the panel had developed a list of recommendations for improvement which it would implement.
The landlord’s evidence confirmed it followed up on its commitment to complete the additional work to the balcony. Although not within the scope of this investigation, in recent contact with this Service (November 2024), the resident has said the landlord has not completed any repairs to the windows and as such he has had to make a further complaint as the mould has re-appeared. The resident told this Service he would like the windows repaired or replaced.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of his family, along with damage caused to personal belongings. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These are legal matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, he should seek legal advice.
The resident first reported the issues under investigation to the landlord in November 2023. This investigation will therefore focus on events from November 2023 to the date of the final complaint response (31 March 2024) and will only refer to the issues raised within the complaint.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman expects landlords to maintain a robust record of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise.
It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has failed to maintain adequate records, which has impacted this Service’s ability to carry out a thorough investigation, as highlighted at various points throughout this report. This was a failure by the landlord and contributed to the other failures identified in this report.

Reports of water ingress from exterior walls and windows and the associated repairs.

The resident’s lease agreement states the resident is responsible for the glass of the windows and the internal surface of the frames, but this does not include window frames. The landlord should maintain and keep in good repair the main structure of the building including exterior walls other than those included in the flat or in other flats in the building.
Information provided on the landlord’s website states that it will respond to repairs which are not emergencies within 14 days.
The resident reported a repair for the external wall and his windows on 14 November 2023. On 21 November 2023 a contractor inspected the brickwork, which was 7 days later. Scaffold was installed on 27 November 2023 and the re-pointing was completed the same day. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
On 20 December 2023 the resident told the landlord he wanted to raise a formal complaint. He said:
1. He said only half of the work had been completed to the front and back.
2. He had called daily for 2 weeks about the outstanding work and had not received any response.
3. Three surveyors had been out and 2 of them had said the brickwork to the front and back had to be re-done to stop the leaks, and that all affected internal walls had to be stripped back to brick and rebuilt.
On 17 January 2024, the landlord told the resident it would obtain an update on the outstanding work. On 18 January 2024, it explained further scaffold was needed to complete the re-pointing around the bedroom window. The landlord told the resident the internal work could be claimed through the building insurance and asked him what was wrong with the windows. This was reasonable.
The landlord inspected the windows on 26 January 2024, which was 24 days after the resident reported the repair. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The landlord’s contractor did not identify any faults with the windows at this inspection. It suggested the landlord arranged a survey and confirm what action it wanted to take.
On 30 January 2024 the landlord confirmed the brickwork had been completed, the balcony had been inspected and work was required which its contractor would arrange directly with him.
Following the landlord’s visit on 6 February 2024, it confirmed it had arranged a second opinion from a different window contractor. While the landlord should be able to the rely on the findings of the initial inspection, this was a reasonable step to take. The landlord arranged for a ventilation contractor to check the communal system that serviced the resident’s bathroom.
The window inspection report received on 23 February 2024 stated:
1. the trickle vents were in good working order.
2. the inner seals were failing, and the sides had a gap where cold air was coming through.
3. the windows were not closing, and this was causing condensation.
4. changing the trickle vents would not stop the water problem.
In its stage 2 complaint response on 31 March 2024, the landlord said:
1. All the re-pointing work had been completed in January 2024.
2. Additional work was needed to the balcony.
3. The window inspections had not shown any evidence of water ingress. The seals were found to be sound, but there was significant condensation.
4. It would arrange for the trickle vents to be overhauled.
5. There were no plans to replace the windows.
This was not appropriate. The evidence indicates that the landlord knew or ought to have known at the time of its response that the window seals were failing and that repairs to the trickle vents were unlikely to be effective. Therefore, the landlord’s response and proposal for repairs conflicted with the evidence presented to it. This was unreasonable.
Ultimately the issue of contention is whether the window repairs would be considered the landlord’s or leaseholder’s responsibility. A disrepair inspection report dated 5 February 2025 noted that the glazing units in the bedrooms had failed and required replacement. Additionally, the rubber seals around the window perimeters were compressed due to general wear and tear and should be replaced to restore their effectiveness. I appreciate the resident’s frustration with this matter as he explained that building insurance advised it was not responsible for the window repairs and referred him back to the landlord.
The resident’s lease agreement states the resident is responsible for the glass of the windows and the internal surface of the frames, but this does not include window frames.
The service charges FAQs for leaseholders document, notes that the service charge covers the communal repairs in the building such as to the roof, windows, balconies and landings or graffiti removal.
The Ombudsman has found that further clarity would be required to establish liability for the repairs to the window, particularly with regards to what parts of the window would be considered the internal and external components. The resident’s leaseholder agreement does not provide enough clarity on this aspect and the Ombudsman does not have the legal expertise or technicality to determine the liability. Based on the concerns around the repairs to the window, the landlord should have sought clarity regarding its obligations regarding aspects it is responsible for. There is no evidence that this was done by the landlord. As such and considering the information detailed above, service failure has been found. The landlord made an offer of £500 compensation for the failures in handling the reports of water ingress and the impact on the resident and this is considered reasonable. I have made an order for the landlord to seek legal clarification regarding its obligations with regards to window repairs.

Reports of damp and mould inside the property.

The lease agreement states the resident is responsible for the internal plastered coverings and plaster work of the walls within the property.
When the resident discussed the mould in the property with the landlord, it advised the resident was responsible for the removal of the mould within the home. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s response was not unreasonable. This is because the resident may have been responsible for removing the mould.
However, the landlord is responsible for maintaining and repairing the structure of the building. The landlord has provided evidence of an inspection completed on 14 December 2023. The landlord states this inspection was to address the brickwork, pointing, internal walls, vents and windows. The evidence provided from the survey inspection contains internal pictures of the property which indicate that an internal inspection was done and within the communication it stated that the internal repairs were the leaseholder’s responsibility.
The evidence indicates that the landlord did remove the mould on 9 February 2024. This was a reasonable in the circumstances. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude the landlord was obliged to offer this.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of damp and mould.

The resident’s request to make a claim on the landlord’s liability insurance

It is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine liability for damage to property or belongings. We can however assess if the landlord has provided the resident with the correct information and advice in line with its policies.
The landlord’s repair policy states the structure of a resident’s home and any shared areas for which it is responsible for, is covered by its building insurance policy. The policy confirms the cost of repairing or replacing contents is not covered. Its website confirms home content insurance is not included in lease agreements and is separate from building insurance. Furthermore, it is the resident’s responsibility to make their own insurance arrangements.
The resident asked the landlord what would happen to the damp and mould inside this home. The landlord said he could claim on the building insurance for the internal damage and said the internal repairs and decoration would be dealt with as part of the insurance claim. This was reasonable and in line with policy.
The resident submitted a claim for the internal damage and damage to belongings but was advised by the insurance company that the policy only covered buildings. It said if the resident did not have home contents insurance he should ask the landlord to consider making a claim via its own liability insurance. The insurance company rejected the claim as it was not seen that the damage had been caused by a one-off identifiable single event.
The resident told the landlord he ought to make a claim under the landlord’s liability insurance. The landlord said it would be reviewed as part of the stage 2 complaint. This was reasonable.
In the landlord’s final complaint response, it confirmed it would not carry out the repairs to the property. Although this was in line with policy, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to explain its decision in reference to the lease and its obligations as a landlord. The landlord also said the claim for damage to personal belongings should be made via his home content insurance.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response was not unreasonable, as it was not responsible for insuring the contents of the resident’s home. However, the resident had already informed the landlord that he believed the claim could be made on the landlord’s liability insurance because he believed the landlord was responsible for the damage. Therefore, it would have more appropriate if the landlord had provided the resident with the relevant information to allow him to pursue this claim.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to make a claim on its liability insurance. The landlord ought to provide the resident with the relevant information to allow him to pursue this claim.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy states it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
The resident asked the landlord to raise a complaint on 20 December 2023. The landlord did not log the complaint. The landlord has provided office closing times as a reason it did not log the initial complaint. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complaint acknowledgement will be sent within two working days. The resident raised the complaint on 20 December 2023 and the landlord has explained that the office was closed from 22 December 2023 to 2 January 2024. Following on from the resident re-submitting the complaint on 8 January 2024, the landlord acknowledged this within two working days. While it is noted that the office was closed over the Christmas period, the landlord should have recognised and apologised for its failure to acknowledge the original complaint raised, explaining the reason for the delay.
The resident made another complaint on 8 January 2024. This complaint was recognised by the landlord. The landlord confirmed the reference number, the case handler and advised it would respond within 10 working days. This reflected the policy.
On 18 January 2024 the landlord sent a holding response. The landlord:
1. Confirmed it was meeting with senior repair management to ensure an update was provided as quickly as possible.
2. Apologised that an email drafted on 20 December 2023 did not reach him.
3. Said it would maintain weekly contact with the resident.
4. Confirmed the work required would be managed by a surveyor who would keep in regular contact until the work was completed.
While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to send a holding email, the landlord did not indicate when a response could be expected. This was unreasonable and was not in line with policy.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 14 February 2024. This was 27 working days after the resident raised his complaint. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated his complaint on 5 March 2024, and the resident met with the panel on 22 March 2024 to discuss the complaint.
The final complaint response was provided on 31 March 2024, which was 18 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. This was appropriate as it was consistent with its policy.
The landlord has stated the resident was told a final response would only be sent upon completion of repairs therefore, it does not agree that the delay in issuing the final response was a failing. It was not made clear in the evidence submitted that an agreement was made to extend the due date for the final response and there has not been additional evidence provided as part of the review to support this. I have discussed the matter with the resident who advised that there was no agreement for the final response to be sent following completion of the repairs. It would have been reasonable that this agreement was noted within the holding letter to keep a clear audit trail of the progress of the complaint.
In its complaint responses, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to recognise the resident’s initial complaint or the delay in providing its complaint response. It therefore offered no remedy for these failures.
Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the landlord to claim for damages through its own liability insurance.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of water ingress from exterior walls and associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould inside the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:
Write a letter of apology to the resident which should refer to the failings identified within this report.
Pay the resident £100 for the complaint handling failures and the inconvenience to the resident.
Pay the resident the compensation of £500 that it previously offered if it has not already done so.
The payment should be made directly to the resident and not offset against any debt that may be owed. The landlord must provide this Service with confirmation of the payments.
Look into its policies and obtain legal clarity on what aspects of the window are classed as internal components which the leaseholder is responsible for. If it is confirmed that the areas requiring repair are considered part of the external components, thus the landlord’s responsibility, it must arrange for any necessary repairs providing a clear timescale of when the works will be done.
Provide the resident with information about how he may make a claim on the landlord’s public liability insurance.