Platform Housing Group Limited (202218923)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218923

Platform Housing Group Limited

28 June 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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant who moved to the property, which is a two–bedroom house, in October 2020 following a transfer from another property managed by the landlord.
The resident had been assisted previously by a representative in the communication with the landlord. However, during the course of this complaint, the resident no longer uses a representative and has dealt with the landlord and this Service by herself.
The landlord has noted the resident has mental health concerns and needs.
The resident’s representative emailed the landlord on 23 July 2021 to log a formal complaint. A copy of this email has not been provided to this Service. This had followed on from an earlier complaint made by the resident, which was previously determined by this Service in June 2021.
The landlord spoke to the representative on 3 August 2021. It also issued an acknowledgment letter to the resident on this day in which it informed the resident that it would aim to respond by17 August 2021.The representative mentioned that the resident had complex medical needs including mental health issues which had been deteriorating. The representative added that up to date letters from the resident’s doctor could be provided if required for the resident to move, which had been her preferred resolution to the complaint. The call had followed on from a desktop review which had been undertaken by the landlord. The review had concluded that the issues raised by the representative had not been in connection with the determination previously issued in June 2021. The issues raised by the representative were:
1. The ongoing leak under the resident’s sink. The representative added the resident’s daughter cleaned the area weekly.
2. Kitchen ceiling leak. The landlord’s operative had previously painted the ceiling and stated it might need to come down to further investigate the alleged leak. The leak had since reappeared and moisture was also visible.
3. The lack of a shower screen being fitted. The resident stated she was informed that one would be fitted but when the landlord’s contractor had attended, they had stated they had only been advised to put sealant around the bath. This had been refused by the resident.
4. The radiator not being fixed to the wall.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 9 August and 13 August 2021. She had confirmed that she had been moved to the property on a medical basis. The resident explained that there had been issues with leaks and smells at the property since she moved in and she detailed a list of all the issues, some of which were considered under the previous determination. The other issues mentioned included those raised by her representative. In addition to this the resident explained that there was the smell of damp and mould from the leak in the property and that there were “mushrooms” in the cupboard. She also stated that water dripped onto the front door due to issues with the guttering.
The landlord set up a works order to adjust the PVC door on 14 November 2021. This had followed on from a report by the resident on 12 November 2021 that the door had been “draughty”.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 15 November 2021. It offered the resident £100 compensation in relation to the delays in completing works and a lack of communication about the repairs. It also apologised for the matter. It explained:
1. The complaint had been allocated to a colleague previously but had been reallocated due to unforeseen circumstances. Following this the case handler had visited the resident on 2 occasions on 24 August 2021 and 27 September 2021 together with an external contractor and a technical officer.
2. It understood the resident’s complaint concerns the length of time taken by it to rectify various repair issues. These had included the bathroom leak which had caused staining to the kitchen ceiling, as well as a kitchen leak to the sink waste.
3. It also understood from the resident that she had multiple visits from its operatives but she was not given any updates on the next steps. Instead the resident’s representative had to chase up constantly to get answers.
4. Following the appointment on 27 September 2021 which included an external contractor, the operative had discovered signs of leakage to the resident’s heating pipes. This had meant there was a loss of pressure to the heating pipes. The landlord had arranged for a gas engineer to attend to reposition the heating pipes. However it had also discovered a further leak from the bath waste trap for which it was attempting to arrange an appointment to be resolved.
5. Although it understood the resident had mentioned the kitchen ceiling stain had reappeared, it had seen no evidence of any dampness or a stain to the ceiling during both visits.
6. It had removed kitchen plinths and inspected the pipework behind the kitchen cupboards. However it had not identified any evidence of leakages nor the smell of damp that the resident had reported.
7. In terms of the guttering which the resident had raised, this had been completed by it on 20 October 2021.
8. In terms of the resident’s request for the landlord to install drainage to the side of the property as the resident claimed there were “puddles of water” which were attracting insects and flies, this had not been agreed by it nor was it the landlord’s responsibility. It added it had reported the issue to the adjacent owners of the land.
9. It had also reported to the owners of the land about the trees and overgrown weeds and requested that these were cut back. It stated this had been chased in October and again in November 2021 and the matter had been passed by the owner of the land to their external contractor.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 23 November 2021. The resident wanted the offer of compensation increased. She explained this was as:
1. The landlord had failed to believe her when she had reported leaks.
2. She had been forced to live with damp for a year as a result. Given her medical conditions and needs, she felt the property should have been free of leaks when it was allocated to her.
3. She wanted her medical condition to be considered as part of the landlord’s investigation, in particular the impact the issues had caused to her health. She added a fair amount of compensation was between £600 and £1,000.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 26 November 2021 to confirm the complaint would be escalated to final review. It added that it would provide a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s operative attended in respect of the resident’s front door which the resident had explained had been draughty on 24 December 2021. The job which had been raised had been to adjust the PVC front door. The operative had noted during the visit “this ideally needs a brand new door”.
The resident called the landlord on 4 March 2022 as she was enquiring about the new front door as she had yet to hear back from the landlord about it.
The landlord raised a further job in respect of the front door on 12 May 2022. This was in respect of sanding and varnishing the existing front door.
The landlord’s operative attended the property on 16 May 2022. This had been in response to broken electrical sockets in the bedroom and kitchen which were fixed.
The landlord issued the stage 2 complaint response on 18 May 2022. It offered a further £250 compensation in relation to the delay taken in issuing the stage 2 response and for the further inconvenience the resident had suffered. This was in addition to the £100 it had offered at stage 1. It also apologised for the time taken to respond which it acknowledged was outside its advertised timescales. It broke down the stage 2 response into issues for which the resident had requested the escalation (to do with the compensation level, to do with the bath panel/bath waste and a request for the front door to be replaced) as well as other issues which had come to light after speaking to the resident and which she had raised when she had emailed the landlord on 29 March 2022 but which were not raised at stage 1. The further issues raised were:
1. The ground next to the retaining wall was waterlogged and unsightly.
2. There were gurgling noises from the toilet and an overall bad smell in the property.
3. The shower screen was leaking.
4. Concerns that the previous occupier had thrown rubbish over the fence onto the embankment which resulted in a smell and a fly infestation.
The stage 2 response explained that:
1. The landlord had conducted an inspection on 15 April 2022 which had confirmed the shower screen seal and curtain were working and there was no sign of any other leaks. It added that the bath panel had been fitted correctly and so this repair was complete.
2. On inspecting the door the landlord had determined it was operating correctly and the seals were “correctly aligned to reduce draughts into your home”. The landlord added that, whilst it did not need replacing, it had needed sanding down and re-varnishing and this had been booked for 18 June 2022.
3. The landlord had inspected the ground adjacent to the path down the side of the home and agreed it was prone to being waterlogged. It stated that the necessary draining was in place to minimise this but it felt the soil area next to the path was the issue. It had requested that slabs were placed instead of the soil and this work was booked in for 22 May 2022.
4. It had found no defect with the toilet nor any smells during the inspection on 15 April 2022.
5. The shower seal had been checked during the inspection and was working correctly. However the landlord had asked for a replacement seal to be installed when the landlord’s contractor attended on 22 May 2022 for the slabs.
6. The landlord had found no rubbish being fly tipped over the fence next to the property. It added that the waterlogged soil next to the home had “supported a higher-than-normal fly population”. It added the addition of slabs would limit but not fully eradicate this naturally occurring wildlife.
The resident called the landlord on 19 May 2022 to raise a complaint. She stated that she had previously been informed that she would be receiving a new front door however this now appeared not to be the case.
The landlord’s operative attended the property on 22 May 2022. This was to compete the works on the slabs for the sideway path and also to replace the seal on the bottom of the shower screen.
The resident called the landlord on 1 June 2022. She stated that, since making a complaint on 19 May 2022, no one had contacted her. The landlord asked in internal correspondence for someone to contact the resident to discuss the matter further. She called the landlord again on 22 June 2022 as she had still not had any call back from the landlord.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 21 September 2022 in respect of outstanding issues. These concerned:
1. The smell under the sink. The landlord stated this had previously been reviewed by the landlord who had found no issue during a previous inspection of the property.
2. Electrical sockets in the lounge which were not working. The landlord explained that there had been no job raised for this and, when it had attended the property on 16 May 2022 to fix the sockets in the kitchen and bedroom, it would have also attended the sockets in the lounge had it been brought to its attention. A new job was raised for this by the landlord.
3. The gutters. The landlord explained this issue had previously been repaired by it.
Following the call with the landlord on 21 September 2022 the resident emailed it on the same day. She explained that she had been left upset by the call. She stated that she had done nothing wrong and had not caused the faults that she had reported. She added she had called “to let you know you missed key factors”. However she added she felt the landlord was not listening to her, she was not a “liar” and that she had been misled and given false information.
The landlord emailed the resident on 7 October 2022. It explained:
1. It had discussed the case with the previous case handler and said that, with the exception of a threshold bar to the front door, all other repairs had been completed. It added that it had instructed a contractor for that work and it apologised for the delay.
2. That whilst it could not see anything outstanding on the repairs it would like to undertake a stock condition survey which was booked for 20 October 2022.
3. It understood the resident’s phone conversation with the case handler on 21 September 2022 had related to her original move to the property which she believed was not suitable. It added this had been covered in previous responses by it.
4. Whilst it understood the previous compensation offer had been increased from £100 at stage 1 to £350 by the case handler it was prepared to increase it by a further £100 to £450.
5. It would also arrange for a neighbourhood officer to visit her on 13 October 2022 to discuss the options for moving.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 October 2022. She said she was angry at being called a “liar” for issues that had been in place since she had moved in. She explained this included water leaking under the cupboard which had been the case since she had joined the tenancy. The resident explained the historical issues had never been rectified and the landlord had informed her it would not look at those back issues. The resident explained she was looking at a higher figure of compensation of £550 in relation to the stress that she had suffered since she had moved.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 12 October 2022. This Service has not been provided with detailed notes from this call. The landlord did note that the resident had requested compensation of £700 for the stress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s neighbourhood officer attended the property on 13 October 2022 together with a surveyor to carry out an inspection. During this visit the repair to the electrical socket in the lounge was noted. This was subsequently repaired by the landlord on 16 October 2022. During the meeting the resident explained that she already had support and did not require any help from the landlord. The following day an operative attended and fitted a new rubber gasket to the resident’s front door.
The landlord issued a further letter to the resident on 28 October 2022. This letter was a follow up to the stage 2 letter issued in May 2022. It offered her £450 compensation, increasing the amount from the stage 2 response by £100 due to further delays in it responding to the resident’s calls. It explained:
1. It had visited the property on 13 October 2022 where it had found the property to be neat, tidy and well presented. Its surveyor had noted that there were two jobs which required doing. This was for the double electrical socket in the lounge which was faulty and hairline cracks in the lounge and kitchen along the plaster boarded walls. It added that hairline cracks were decorative and were therefore not the landlord’s responsibility. The electrical socket had been fixed.
2. The surveyor had noted small pools of water on the base unit floor and water dripping from the plastic U bend in terms of the sink. It added that the plastic U bend had been loose as were some of the joints under the sink. The resident had confirmed that this had been recently replaced by the landlord’s operative. She was advised to keep an eye on the drip and to let it know if it re-started. The landlord added that the resident had not raised any further concerns about water under the cupboard since the stage 1 response so it had not been included in the stage 2 response.
3. Since the stage 2 response there had been several operatives attending to the property. This had included to complete the broken sockets in the property. Whilst it had not been initially aware of the socket in the lounge being faulty that had also been replaced during a later visit. The landlord had also replaced the rubber gasket on the front door, the seal on the bottom of the shower screen and it had laid down slabs to extend the sideway path.

Events since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

The resident called the landlord on 15 November 2022. She asked to speak to the case handler who had issued the letter of 28 October 2022 as she wished to point out mistakes in the letter referring to work which the landlord stated had been done. The case handler was not available. The notes taken at the time noted that the resident set out:
1. The slabs had not been put down. The operatives had instead used pebbles and stones down instead of the slabs.
2. The seal on the front door was “bodged” and was already hanging off.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 November 2022. It noted the resident had called it a number of times that week but the case handler had been unavailable. It apologised for the use of the word slabs to describe the french drain system which had been put in place to allow the water to soak away. It also stated that the rubber seal on the door had been replaced with one of the same materials and it had been attached with strong adhesive. It added if the resident had concerns about the door not being fit for purpose she would need to contact the contact centre about it.
The resident completed an online complaint form for the landlord on 23 November 2022. She explained that she wanted the landlord to take ownership of the errors and issues caused to her whilst she had been living at the property. She asked it to “go back and look at old records before they make a decision based on lies”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 December 2022 to explain that the resident had reached the end of its internal complaints process. It explained if she remained dissatisfied that she had the option to go to the Ombudsman.
The landlord raised a works order for the seal on the front door on 14 December 2022. This had previously been closed down on 24 November 2022 as the resident had wanted the door changed.
The landlord’s internal notes show that its contractor asked it on 17 January 2023 whether the door was being changed. This had followed the contractor calling the resident to arrange an appointment to change the seal. The landlord responded to the operative to explain that only the seals were being changed.
The landlord’s internal notes show that its operative tried to contact the resident on a number of occasions between 8 February 2023 and 15 March 2023 in relation to the repairs to the seal of the front door. The job was completed on 8 May 2023.
The landlord has confirmed that the compensation offered of £450 has been accepted by the resident and the payment was made to her on 12 May 2023.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has contacted the landlord on a number of occasions concerning repairs to the property from the time that she moved into it in October 2020 and also after it had issued its follow up to the stage 2 response on 28 October 2022. Whilst the Ombudsman is generally able to look at events for a period of 12 months before the resident made her complaint (which was made on 23 July 2021), we are unable to look into issues which had previously been considered as part of an earlier determination.
In this case, the Ombudsman had issued a determination on 11 June 2021. This determination had considered some reported leaks raised by the resident as well as the issue of the smell in the property. Therefore this investigation will not consider those aspects from October 2020 up to the date of the determination. Instead this investigation will concern issues which were raised following the date of the Ombudsman’s previous determination.
Although the issue of the front door was not resolved until after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process this will be considered in this investigation as it was raised during the course of the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs.

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. be fair- treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. put things right, and
3. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident.
If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to put things right and learn from outcomes.
It is clear from the information provided by the resident that she considers that the property is not suitable for her and that the landlord has not taken into account her specific medical concerns and needs. This Service understands the resident feels that her health has been adversely affected by the reportedly damp conditions, leaks and the numbers of repairs in her property. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to determine whether there is a direct link between any disrepair issue and her reported health concerns. Instead the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord had acted reasonably and appropriately when informed of issues by the resident and whether its actions were proportionate to the issue being raised.
The resident has raised the issue of the leak under her sink which she explained had never been rectified by the landlord. The landlord had inspected the property in September 2021 and this had included removing the plinth and checking the pipework in the kitchen. It had explained that it had not observed any leak nor the smell that the resident had stated had been in the property since she had moved in. This had included a further inspection in April 2022. This was appropriate and reasonable by the landlord.
Whilst the landlord did accept that there had been a leak in in the kitchen when it visited the property on 13 October 2022, this was not the same leak as the one which the resident had initially referred to. The landlord explained that the leak was due to the joints not being adequately tightened and it tightened them up at that time. There is no evidence that the presence of this leak was any confirmation that the resident had been correct all along in that there was a leak in her kitchen sink.
Whilst it is noted that the resident had felt strongly about the smell of dampness, the landlord has provided records which showed that it carried out a number of inspections on the property. This had been during the landlord’s internal complaints procedure and continued after it had issued the stage 2 response. These inspections found no evidence of any smell in the property or that the dampness in the kitchen ceiling had returned. This Service recognises that there is a difference in position between the parties as to whether there is a smell in the property. Based on the evidence available, we are satisfied that the landlord has carried out appropriate checks and investigations into the resident’s concerns and it has found no evidence of a smell.
The resident has explained that the landlord has, in its communication with her including the stage 2 response and the follow up to the stage 2, referred to jobs having been completed when they had not been finished. Whilst the Ombudsman has noted the resident’s comments, the landlord has provided to this Service evidence in the form of jobs which were raised together with comments from its operatives when they had attended to the property and competed the various repairs. Although the resident has said the landlord had not completed jobs, apart from the issue of the slabs, she has not specifically referred to which other jobs she considers the landlord had misled her about. In terms of the slabs the landlord had apologised for using the general term when describing the french drain system it had put in place. The resident has accepted that the landlord did put something in place, so it had addressed the issue which the resident had raised.
The resident also said that the seal on the door had been “bodged” and that it was coming away. She has provided this Service with photos showing this. In terms of this the landlord did act in raising another job to address the issue. There was a delay in the work being completed as the landlord’s operative had not been able to get in touch with the resident to arrange an appointment.
In terms of the front door the resident had said that she had been informed that it would be changed. The landlord had then gone back on its word. The landlord has not provided this Service with detailed notes of the conversation where the resident has stated she was told the door would be changed. From the evidence provided to this Service, when the initial operative had attended to the property in December 2021 they had stated that the door would need to be changed as opposed to replacing the seals on it. It is important to note that this was the view of the operative and not the landlord. Whilst the operative had been acting under instructions for the landlord they did not have the authority to make the decision about the door. Instead they had referred the matter back to the landlord who was responsible for making the decision. Whilst there had been a gap of several months, the next job which the landlord had raised on 12 May 2022 for the front door had been to sand down and revarnish it as, whilst it was functional, it had needed decorating. Subsequent jobs to this to change the seal had noted that a measurement of the door was taken by an operative but this did not convey any expectation that the door was to be changed.
Overall the landlord has demonstrated that it has responded each time the resident had raised a concern about a repair. It had acted when it was informed and made arrangements to raise a job for each repair. It has also undertaken further inspections of the property when the resident had raised a concern. This demonstrated that it had not dismissed what the resident had informed it about. Even after the end of stage 2 it had continued to respond to the resident and her ongoing repairs. It had then sent the resident a follow up to stage 2 to ensure that it covered the remaining issues which the resident had raised. The landlord had made a payment of £200 in terms of the repairs. £100 was offered at stage 1 and a further £100 had been offered in the follow up to stage 2 for the delays in the repairs and the lack of updates to the resident.. This compensation was appropriate in the circumstances and in keeping with the awards that the Ombudsman may order, as set out in our remedies guidance, which suggests payments between £100 and £600 for each finding where there has been no permanent impact on the resident. The landlord acknowledged the delays and apologised for these as well as offering the compensation to the resident.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord’s complaints policy explains that a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction about an action or lack or action resulting in service failure”. The landlord operates a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1 it would acknowledge a complaint within 3 working days from the date the complaint was received and aim to have completed the investigations within 10 working days. It added that if the complaint was complex it could take more time to investigate, if this was the case it would ensure it kept in regular contact and updated the resident on the matter.
If the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response the landlord required the resident to explain which parts of the stage 1 response they remained unhappy with. It stated it would not automatically escalate the complaint “just because you are not happy”. At stage 2 it stated it would acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and it aim to respond within 20 working days.
The resident had raised her complaint on 23 July 2021 via her representative. However the landlord did not acknowledge this complaint until 3 August 2021, some 9 working days later. It also failed to provide its response by the date of 17 August 2021. Instead it only issued the stage 1 response on 15 November 2021, some three months after the timescales contained in its policy. Although the landlord had spoken to the resident shortly after issuing the acknowledgement letter and it had undertaken 2 visits to the property, in late August 2021 and again a month later, it has not provided evidence to this Service that it was regularly updating the resident or that it had given her any indication of when it would respond. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy and it was a failing by it. Whilst the landlord had offered the resident £100 at stage 1 this was not in respect of the complaints handling. The landlord did not apologise for the lengthy delay in providing the response. This was a failing by it.
Following the landlord issuing the stage 1 response the resident had informed it that she remained unhappy on 23 November 2021. Whilst the landlord did acknowledge the complaint in keeping with the timescales in its complaints policy, it did not provide the stage 2 response until 18 May 2022. This was over 20 weeks after the acknowledgement letter and significantly outside the timescales contained in the complaints policy. The landlord did apologise for the delay; however it did not provide any explanation for the prolonged delay. The landlord did refer to an inspection which had taken place in April 2022 but this was just under 5 months after the resident’s escalation request. The landlord has not provided any evidence of any update to the resident in the intervening period.
The landlord has recently informed this Service that, in terms of details of calls which the landlord had with the resident, it had consolidated its computer systems in May 2024 which had “resulted in us not being able to [provide] historical data temporarily”. It further added that it had recently introduced a new case management system which enabled all contact with the residents to be recorded directly to the case. Whilst it is disappointing that the landlord has not been able to locate some information it has assured the Ombudsman that it is sorting out its record keeping making sure it is more robust.
As stage 2 the landlord did make an offer of £250. It has explained that this was in respect of the delay taken in sending the stage 2 as well as the further inconvenience.
Even though the landlord only operates 2 stage complaints process it had undertaken a further review of the resident’s complaint in October 2022. It has explained that the reason it had done this was as the resident had continued to be in touch with it, about her ongoing concerns both historical and about a number of other repairs. It had therefore tried to resolve the remaining issues directly with resident. This was a reasonable approach for it to take, as it took into account the resident’s specific needs and prevented the need for the resident to raise a new complaint about issues which she remained unhappy about. Whilst the landlord offered the resident a further £100 this had not been in relation to the complaints handling.
Overall the landlord did accept that it had not provided the resident with both the stage 1 and stage 2 response in accordance with the timescales as set out in its complaints policy. It had offered the resident £250 compensation for this delay at stage 2. This award is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guide in terms of an issue which has caused no permanent impact to the resident. The award together with the apology at stage 2 is reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered for the failings in the landlord’s complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should undertake a review of its processes to ensure that all of its communication with residents are recorded centrally, and not individually. This will minimise the risk of conversations and call notes being lost as a result.
The landlord should review its process for dealing with complaints. It should try wherever possible to ensure that it provides its response in keeping with timescales as set out in its complaints policy. Where it is not possible to stick to these timescales it needs to ensure that a clear update is provided to the resident together with a realistic deadline.