Homes Plus Limited (202304135)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304135

Homes Plus Limited

20 May 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. The back door replacement.
2. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident and her husband have been assured tenants of the landlord, a housing association, since 2021. The property is a 3–bedroom house and they live there with their 2 children.
There is an outhouse attached to the back of the property, which is accessed via the kitchen and contains a downstairs toilet and storage areas. The door separating the outhouse from the kitchen is an internal door and the external back door of the property is at the entrance to the outhouse from the back garden.

Summary of events

On 17 November 2022, the resident reported that the external back door had large gaps, a rotten seal and was draughty, causing the property to be “really cold”. The landlord raised a job and attended the following day to inspect the door and identified that it was beyond repair and needed replacing.
Four days later, the resident asked for an update on the door replacement and reported that there was mould on the ceiling of the outhouse, including the toilet. Her children had health issues and the cold and mould were not good for them. Three days later the resident asked for an update again and on the same day, the landlord raised a ‘planned’ job to replace the back door.
On 15 December 2022, the resident reported that the condition of the back door and mould had got worse. She said her children’s health was being negatively affected because of this. The resident then made a complaint to the landlord on 20 December 2022, about the lack of response to her contacts about the back door replacement and mould. The door was causing the property to be cold, which meant her heating costs had increased and she asked for compensation to cover this. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day.
On 21 December 2022, the resident asked for an update on the back door replacement and raised concerns about the mould in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 9 January 2023, which said:
1. The complaint was partially upheld because of its lack of response to the reisdent’s email of 22 November 2022.
2. External doors that needed replacing were added to the programme for that financial year and had to be ordered and built to individual measurements. There could be a delay between identifying the door needed replacing and a follow up visit to measure the door. It apologised that she was not told this or that the door had been approved for replacement.
3. It had attended on 5 January 2023 to measure the door but there was a query regarding this and it would revisit that day to confirm the measurements. It could take up to 8 weeks for the door to be made and she would be contacted to arrange an installation date once the new door was received.
4. It offered a £30 goodwill gesture in recognition of the upset caused by the lack of communication.
The same day, the landlord attended and confirmed the measurements for the back door. Following the visit, the operative reported back that there was damp and mould so an inspection was booked for 17 January 2023. The landlord attended on this date and identified that the felt on the flat roof of the outhouse was in poor condition and needed replacing.
Two days later, the landlord raised jobs to replace the felt and for a mould wash to be carried out, which it booked to attend on 20 and 21 February 2023. The landlord said that it categorised these repairs as ‘major responsive works’.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord replaced the back door.
The same day, the resident asked to escalate her complaint as the landlord had not taken the health risk to her children seriously. She had reported the mould in November 2022 and while the landlord had agreed to replace the back door, it had done nothing about the mould until she had chased it up. There had been mould in the property for over 3 months and she believed her son’s asthma had flared up because of this and how cold the property was. She reiterated that her heating costs had increased and she wanted compensating for this.
On 17 February 2023, the landlord told the resident that the appointment for the mould wash that month was not going ahead due to staff sickness. It had rebooked this for April 2023. Six days later the resident raised concerns that the new appointment for the mould wash was 8 weeks away and did not take account of the risk posed to her children’s health.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint on 28 February 2023, and the next day it told her a response would be provided by 28 March 2023.
In March 2023, the landlord said it contacted the resident on 2 occasions regarding the mould wash appointment and to discuss attending if there was a cancellation.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 March 2023, which said:
1. The roof repair had a 60 day target for completion, which had passed earlier that month. The delay was because the job had been passed to its external contractor to provide a quote. Once this was received, the works would be scheduled. It apologised that the resident had not been told this. As the repair had fallen outside of the target timescale, this was a service failure and it partially upheld her complaint for this reason.
2. The mould wash would address the hazard presented by the mould and reduce the health and safety risk to her and her family. The job required 2 operatives for 2 days and the rearranged date in April 2023 was the first available date it could facilitate this.
3. It had asked her to return the call made in February 2023, to discuss the appointment but she did not. She had been put on a cancellation list to call as a priority and it had wanted to explain this to her. It acknowledged there had been miscommunication and identified that it should have followed up with an email to explain things. It acknowledged that the communication should have been better and apologised for this. It had identified learning and fed this back to the relevant team.
4. The new back door had been fitted, with the works being completed in line with its policy and processes. It reiterated the apology given at stage 1 for the lack of communication and acknowledged this was not the standard it expected.
5. It offered £340 compensation (£100 for communication failures, £130 for the delays in resolving matters and failure to meet its repair timescales, £80 for damage to decoration from the mould, and the £30 goodwill gesture offered at stage 1).
6. It could not offer compensation for the increased heating costs as the correct procedure had been followed regarding replacement of the back door.
The landlord completed the mould wash on 12 April 2023 and the roof works on 24 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected her children’s health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, but it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s family’s ill-health. She may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her children’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of the back door replacement

The landlord is responsible for repairs to the back door under the terms of the tenancy agreement, which confirms that it is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including outside doors. Where an item is beyond repair, it is reasonable that the landlord would arrange a replacement, as it did in this case.
When the resident first reported the issues with the back door, the landlord said it categorised this as a ‘triage 24’ job with a target to attend within 24 hours, due to the concerns raised about the seal and the property potentially being insecure. This category and timescale are not clearly set out within the landlord’s repairs policy, but it was a sensible decision to prioritise it in this way, to ensure that the property was secure. The landlord attended the following day, which was within the required timescale.
As the landlord identified that the door required replacement, it was reasonable that this would be added to its planned programme of works for that financial year. The landlord’s repairs policy says that the timescale for repairs covered by a planned programme would depend on the timing of the programme, which is understandable. In this case, the landlord said that the target for completion was by the end of the financial year (end of March 2023). As the landlord replaced the door on 7 February 2023, this was within the target timescale committed.
It took the landlord a total of 55 working days to carry out the replacement, from the date it identified this was required. While understandable that the resident would want the door replaced as quickly as possible; considering the various steps needed to progress this and that the door needed to be specially made, this timeframe is considered reasonable.
After the inspection in November 2022, the resident contacted the landlord on at least 5 occasions to ask for updates on the door replacement, which included raising a formal complaint. The records show that the landlord made internal enquiries after several of the resident’s contacts in November and December 2022, but it was only in response to the formal complaint that the landlord provided a detailed update to her. This amounts to maladministration and was frustrating for the resident and meant she incurred time and trouble in chasing the landlord, when it should have kept her informed of progress.
The landlord identified failures in its communication as part of the complaint investigation. It apologised, offered compensation and identified learning, all of which are in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord offered £30 at stage 1 and an additional £50 at stage 2 (half of the £100 for communication failures as there were other communication failures identified in relation to its handling of the damp and mould); meaning the total amount offered was £80. Considering the number of times the resident had to chase the landlord for updates and that she had told the landlord she was worried about the cold negatively impacting her children’s health and wanted to know when the works would be carried out, this amount is considered insufficient to address the level of distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident.
Therefore, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation (inclusive of the £80 already offered) for its handling of this issue.
The landlord’s refusal to compensate the resident for increased heating costs was reasonable and in line with its compensation policy that says it will reimburse costs for increased utility charges that had been incurred as a result of service failure. While the landlord’s communication in relation to this matter was poor the actual steps taken to carry out the replacement and the timeframe this was completed in were reasonable, which means that the increased heating costs were not a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of damp and mould

The landlord is responsible for addressing damp and mould in line with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, which says that it has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp. The resident’s tenancy agreement also confirms that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, which includes the roof and outbuildings that are provided by the landlord.
When dealing with damp and mould, it is important that landlords carry out an inspection at the earliest opportunity to assess the severity and any risk, identify the underlying causes and works required to address this. In this case, the resident reported mould on at least 4 occasions in November and December 2022, including as part of the formal complaint. However, it was not until a landlord operative highlighted this after they attended in January 2023, that it arranged an inspection. This is particularly concerning as the resident had told the landlord on multiple occasions that the mould was negatively impacting her children’s health.
The landlord’s repairs policy says that where an inspection is required, this will be offered within 10 working days of the repair request. In this case the inspection was carried out 38 working days after the resident first reported the mould. This delay amounts to maladministration and was upsetting for the resident as it made her believe that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously and did not care about the impact this was having on her children.
When the landlord inspected the property in January 2023, it identified the potential underlying cause and works required to address this, but there is no record that the severity or risk was assessed or considered, which is a concern. The landlord’s notes of the inspection are brief and it is important that detailed notes are recorded following these types of inspections so landlords can accurately track the progress of issues and account for its decision making.
It is noted that the landlord has more recently implemented a damp and mould policy, but there is no reference to risk assessments or record keeping. An order has been made below for the landlord to review and update its policy, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, to include reference to risk assessments and record keeping for inspections.
The resident has said that when the landlord inspected, it told her that the outhouse was not meant for habitation and would not be considered part of the property. The resident challenged this as the external door was fitted on the outhouse, rather than the kitchen and there was a toilet included in this area, which was particularly important for the family due to one of the children’s disability.
While outhouses would not normally be considered a main, habitable part of the property, in this case, for the reasons set out by the resident, it is reasonable that the outhouse would be considered a main, habitable part of the property. Considering that there is a toilet in this area, it is understandable that the family, including the children, would expect to be able to access this on a regular basis.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines major repairs as ones that require significant extra work. Considering the scope of the works required to the outhouse roof and that scaffolding was needed, it was reasonable that the landlord categorised the roof works as a major repair. The landlord commits that major repairs will be completed within 60 days of being inspected. However, in this case, the roof works were completed in 128 days, which was more than double the committed timeframe and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord identified that a mould wash was required in addition to the roof works, which was sensible. It told the resident this would address the hazard presented by the mould and reduce the health and safety risk, which was reasonable. However, it categorised this as a major repair with a 60 day target for completion, which does not reflect the urgency with which it should have progressed this to remove the hazard.
A mould wash is not complex or specialist and while this particular job may have been resource intensive as it required 2 operatives for 2 days, the landlord should have explored other options to get this completed sooner, for example, identifying other contractors it could use. While the landlord placed the resident on a cancellation list to try and bring the job forward, this was only after the first appointment was cancelled, meaning a month had already gone by.
The landlord completed the mould wash in 86 days, which was over the target timeframe. While some of this delay was outside of the landlord’s control due to staff sickness and the landlord took steps to bring the works forward, it should have done more to prioritise this from the outset, and its failure to do so amounts to maladministration.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord that her children’s health was being negatively affected by the mould and while the landlord acknowledged this and provided the mould wash as a solution, it did not prioritise this from the outset. The delay in it carrying this out was particularly upsetting for the resident, because of the impact she said the mould was having on her children. The landlord’s failure to properly consider this was insensitive and left the resident feeling let down and ignored.
Following completion of the works in April and May 2023, there is no record that the landlord followed up to check that they had fully resolved the issues, which is good practice when dealing with damp and mould issues. In recent contact with this Service, the resident has reported that there are further problems with mould. Therefore, an order is made for the landlord to assess the mould, identify the underlying cause and any works required. A written update should be provided to the resident confirming a timeframe for any works to be carried out, including how it will monitor progress to ensure the issue is fully resolved.
The landlord acknowledged elements of service failure and poor communication in its handling of the damp and mould, as part of the complaint responses. It apologised and offered the resident a total of £260 compensation. Considering the full circumstances of the case, this amount does not go far enough to reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. In consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, an order has been made below for the landlord to pay the resident £350 compensation (inclusive of the £260 already offered).

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of receipt and stage 2 within 20 working days of receipt.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint in 1 working day, which was within the committed response time. It provided the stage 1 response in 12 working days, which was a minor delay.
The stage 2 complaint was acknowledged in 16 days, which was over the committed timeframe and only after the resident made further contact to raise additional concerns, more than 2 weeks after the initial escalation request. This amounts to maladministration and left the resident feeling ignored and that the landlord was not taking the complaint seriously.
When the landlord acknowledged the stage 2 escalation and gave the resident a date the response would be provided, this was calculated from the current date and not the date the escalation request was received, which is what the landlord’s policy commits to. The stage 2 response was provided in 36 working days, which was over the committed timeframe and amounts to maladministration.
The landlord did not acknowledge the delay in its complaints handling and offered no redress for the detriment this caused. Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay her £100 compensation.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the:
1. Back door replacement.
2. Damp and mould.
3. Formal complaint.

Reasons

The were communication failures in the landlord’s handling of the back door replacement.
There were delays in the landlord’s handling of the damp and mould, including carrying out an inspection and completing associated repairs. The landlord failed to properly consider the impact of the mould on the resident’s children, despite her telling it repeatedly that this was negatively affecting their health.
There were delays in the landlord’s complaint handling and it did not respond in line with the committed timeframes set out in its complaints policy.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £650 compensation, made up of:
  1. £200 (inclusive of the £80 already offered) for its handling of the back door replacement.
  2. £350 (inclusive of the £260 already offered) for its handling of the damp and mould.
  3. £100 for its complaint handling.
2. Carry out an inspection to assess the mould, identify the underlying cause and any works required. A written update to be provided to the resident confirming a timeframe for any works to be carried out, including how it will monitor progress to ensure the issue is fully resolved.
3. Apologise to the resident for its complaint handling.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service, within 4 weeks.
Within 12 weeks, the landlord is ordered to review and update its damp and mould policy, in consultation with the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this subject, to include reference to risk assessments and record keeping for inspections. Staff training to be provided on the new policy once the review is completed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders, to this Service, within 12 weeks.