Futures Housing Group Limited (202302990)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302990

Futures Housing Group Limited

24 September 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 a leak at the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since October 2013. She lives in the property, a 2 storey mid terrace house with her children.
On 14 June 2022, the resident reported that her shower was leaking through the ceiling into the living room. The landlord replaced the bathroom flooring and installed a shower screen. On 18 September 2022, she raised another repair due to not having any hot water to the mixing tap for the bath and shower. She contacted the landlord again on 22 September 2022 to report the same issue. An operative visited on 23 September 2022 to carry out a repair.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 September 2022 to raise a complaint due to the operatives failing to repair the issue with the hot water on the first occasion.
The resident reported the absence of hot water again on 26 September 2022, the landlord attended and replaced the mixer tap on 27 September 2022. It then wrote to the resident on 4 October 2022 informing her it had rejected her complaint. It said it had dealt with the issues raised in line with its published service standards, which complied with its complaints policy.
On 11 October 2022, the resident raised a repair due to a leak from the bathroom. The landlord’s notes show that the job was not actioned and was then cancelled. She sent an email to report the leak again on 13 October 2022. She stated that the operative’s poor workmanship had led to 3 leaks into her living room and attached photographs showing staining on the walls and ceiling. She asked if the issue would now be considered as a complaint. An operative visited the same day and carried out a repair in the bathroom.
On 14 October 2022, the landlord responded to the resident. It said it had asked the decorating team to contact her directly. It also asked if the leaks had been fixed.
On 31 January 2023, the resident told the landlord she was still waiting for someone to come and paint the walls after the leak in September 2022. The landlord sent an internal email to request information from other departments but none were aware. It went back to the resident the same day and asked who had told her the walls would be painted. She listed the departments she had spoken to and believed this should have been present in the notes.
On 9 February 2023, the landlord sent an internal email asking what work was to be done on the resident’s property. They said there was no order to carry out works and no information to detail what the problem is.
The resident raised her stage 1 complaint on 20 February 2023. She said:
1. She had received poor service over the past 6 months with one disaster following another.
2. The landlord’s communication had been poor. Workmen were meant to arrive on 20 February 2023 but did not turn up.
3. Customer service had called and asked her for feedback on her experience. She had explained her complaint. The representative advised they would investigate it and get back to her but they never did.
4. She was dissatisfied with the service. The landlord had not taken ownership of the issues that its staff and contractors had created. She had suffered stress and inconvenience and loss of wages having to wait in for repairs to take place.
5. She was paying rent and complying with the requirements of her tenancy agreement but she felt the landlord was not complying with its responsibilities.
The landlord contacted the resident about her stage 1 complaint on 24 February 2023. It said that it would not accept complaints where the issue being complained about had occurred more than 3 months before the complaint. It advised it would look at records as far back as 17 August 2022 but would not look at anything further back unless it was unresolved.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 9 March 2023. It said:
1. It apologised and said it understood how frustrating and upsetting it could be when things went wrong in the home and residents did not receive the service they expected.
2. It highlighted its complaints policy which stated that issues occurring 3 months prior to the complaint would not be considered. However, it decided to look into the resident’s complaint and any issues raised between 1 September 2022 and 28 February 2023.
3. The shower leak was reported on 14 June 2022. While it could not specifically look at this point it advised that she report any workmanship issues to the complaints team who would take it up with the repairs team to investigate further.
4. The shower leak had been raised as a standard priority. It had attended on 8 July 2022. The operative attending had recorded that he had measured up for a new shower screen. It was unable to see multiple visits recorded at her property.
5. It listed all contacts made by the resident through her online customer account and by telephone. In total there were 11 contacts by the resident and 3 responses by the landlord.
6. It had passed her contact details to the decorating team on 13 October 2022. It had not raised a follow-on repair which meant they did not contact her. The resident had to chase this up in February 2023. It apologised for this error. The decorator then attended a pre-arranged appointment on 9 February 2023, but she was not available. The decorator left his number but had not heard back from the resident.
7. It asked the resident to provide her availability and it would ensure the painting was completed as soon as possible.
The resident escalated her complaint on 16 March 2023. She felt the landlord could not do a full investigation if it could not listen to the phone messages and calls. The entire process had caused her unnecessary stress. She wanted the repairs carried out to a high standard, which so far, they had not been. She asked that someone attend her property and assess the repair as the leak had not stopped. She pleaded with the landlord to carry out a genuine investigation as she was struggling to cope with the situation.
On 24 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord and advised the leak in the bathroom was ongoing. It arranged an appointment for 29 March 2024.
On 30 March 2023, the resident contacted the landlord. She said:
1. The issues had begun when she could not have hot water in the shower. When it was repaired the operative had told her not to turn the tap on full as the pressure would result in no hot water. She now must put up with water that is only ever lukewarm.
2. She has been reporting a leak from the bath for months but the landlord has only ever carried out patch repair jobs which have not stopped the leak.
3. On 29 March 2023 she had an appointment scheduled for an operative to visit between 12-4. The operative attended at 07:30. She advised the time was not suitable and asked if the operative could come back. They refused and said they would be cancelling the job and left. She called customer services who sent another operative. She attempted to show the operative the staining on the ceiling but they were uninterested. They resealed the bath and filled it with water. They did not check for leaks. Within an hour the bath began leaking through the ceiling into the light fitting and onto the laminate flooring. She had to call again and an out of hours plumber was sent. She, the plumber and a neighbour had to empty the bath with containers and buckets. The operative removed the bath panel and found a number of leaks.
4. She called on the morning of 30 March 2023 to find out when a plumber would be attending to fix the leak. The customer services advisor told her they were not aware of any leaks. She found this extremely frustrating.
5. She had to spend the night emptying buckets, had no water and no heating. She had to send her children away to another family member as they could not remain in the house. This had put them out of their routine and raised challenges getting them to school.
6. She wanted the landlord to inspect the staff members that had attended and not carried out suitable checks to find the leak.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 12 April 2023. It listed the following points:
1. After investigating the resident’s complaint, it sought to sincerely apologise for the lack of service she had received during the repairs journey. It admitted the communication issues she had to deal with were not acceptable.
2. It acknowledged:
  1. It had not actioned the repair raised on 11 October 2022.
  2. It had contacted her on 9 February 2023 to gain access even though it had not arranged an appointment.
  3. Operatives had not attended the appointment on 20 February 2023.
  4. The operative attended at the wrong time on 29 March 2023.
3. It would remind the repairs team that contact must be made before attending pre booked appointments. It would reiterate the need to contact customers if an appointment had to be cancelled to notify them of the change and to arrange a new appointment.
4. It had spoken to the operative who attended on 29 March 2023. They had admitted they did not completely remove the bath panel to investigate the leak. It confirmed this was not investigated thoroughly and had fed this back for future learning.
5. It had visited the resident on 30 March 2023 where it arranged to:
  1. Repaint the lounge ceiling by 25 April 2023.
  2. Repair the hole in the chipboard floor.
  3. Install new lino, bath and bath panel.
6. It acknowledged the emotional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family while dealing with the major leak.
7. It understood she had had to turn off her heating and hot water to prevent further damage and had missed 2 days training because of the leak. It acknowledged that this was not acceptable in any way and offered genuine apologies for the impact on her and her family.
8. It offered a total of £270 compensation. This was comprised of £20 for the missed appointments on 20 February 2023 and 29 March 2023. And £250 for all other issues highlighted in its complaint response.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process.

On 4 August 2023 the landlord reported internally that the resident remained unhappy with the ongoing bath repair. She wanted the complaint reopened due to the work not being completed and the lack of communication. She had checked her repairs account which is showing a bath repair as opposed to a replacement.
On 7 August 2023, the landlord sent an internal email stating that the stage 2 response had committed to a new bath and asked for this to be arranged with the resident as soon as possible.
The new bath was fitted on 14 August 2023. The resident reported to us that the bath panel on the new bath does not reach the floor resulting in a large gap.

Assessment and Findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure of the property in repair. It also requires it to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and heating water.
The landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. A property with damp and/or high humidity can lead to threats to health from associated mould or fungal growths resulting in the presence of a category 1 or 2 hazard. The principle underlying the HHSRS is that any residential premises should provide a safe healthy environment for any potential occupier or visitor. To satisfy this principle the landlord must ensure the dwelling is free from both unnecessary and avoidable hazards.
The landlord’s repairs offer has the following 3 repair categories. These are:
1. Standard repairs – repairs or initial inspections where large works or replacement of items may be identified for follow on works. Normally responded to within 10-25 working days.
2. Fast repairs – response within 4 working days.
3. Priority repairs – same day within hours or make safe on call.
The resident’s first report of the shower leaking through the ceiling was on 14 June 2022, which the landlord raised as a standard repair. It attended on 8 July 2022, a period of 19 working days. Its customer repairs offer details several types of containable leak as a standard repair. It is questionable whether a leak from a bathroom through the ceiling could be considered containable as it will be soaking into and damaging building materials and potentially affecting electrics. Allowing a leak to continue also increases the potential for mould growth. While the landlord complied with its policy in this instance, we have made a recommendation for it to review its policy and repair timescales for leaks.
The landlord failed to raise a repair for the resident’s first report of no hot water to the shower on 18 September 2022. This was a failure. It should have logged the repair and responded to the resident to inform her when it would be attending. She did not receive a response and was required to report the issue again on 22 September 2022. This time it classed the repair as fast and attended the next day. This was appropriate and within the timescales of 0-4 working days. It is noted that the repair carried out on 23 September 2022 did not stop the leak, which caused the resident additional frustration and required her to report it again on 26 September 2022. The landlord raised the repair as fast and attended the following day.
When the resident reported a leak on 11 October 2022, the landlord again failed to action the job and cancelled it. Upon receiving the residents report of a leak, it should have logged the repair and notified the resident when it would be attending. After the failure to address her first complaint about the hot water, this caused further frustration for the resident. She reported the leak again on 12 and 13 October 2022. The landlord attended on 13 October 2022 and tightened a nut on the blending valve. Given this was the third time the resident had reported a leak the landlord should have conducted a thorough inspection and lasting repair. It is apparent that this did not happen as the resident reported it again on 16 and 24 March 2023. The operative who attended to address the leak on 29 March 2023 conducted a substandard investigation and left without stopping the leak. This was unacceptable as it required the resident to contact the landlord’s out of hours service that evening. As a result of the leak, she was left without heating or hot water and had to send her children to stay with family.
In total it took the landlord 15 months to conduct a lasting repair that stopped the leak and a further 5 months to conduct all follow on works and redecoration. This was an unreasonable amount of time, which caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The repeated attempts and visits meant she had to take additional days off work to be available. In its stage 2 response the landlord ordered a total of £250 compensation. It has not shown how it has calculated this sum in relation to the failures identified. However, the Ombudsman does not consider the sum sufficient and has made an order for additional compensation. Considering the timeframes and repair failures it is our decision that there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the leak in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s record keeping

A landlord should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, responses, inspections, and investigations. Good record keeping is vital to evidence the action a landlord has taken. Failure to keep adequate records will result in the landlord’s complaints processes not operating effectively. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management sets out steps a landlord can take to improve in this area.
We asked the landlord to provide all relevant information in respect of this complaint, and any related repairs. It was only able to provide a repair log, which had single line entries for most records. In addition, there was no information present for either of the inspections carried out on 29 March 2023. This limited information makes it difficult for the Ombudsman to determine the sequence of events. More importantly it hinders the landlord’s understanding of exactly what is discovered during an inspection and what action is taken by its operatives.
The landlord contacted the resident about her stage 1 complaint on 24 February 2023. It said her complaint was generalised and asked if she could provide more detail including, specific incidents and repairs, dates and exactly what had gone wrong. This was inappropriate, which was pointed out by the resident. The landlord should hold sufficiently detailed records of all its customer interactions to enable it to promptly and accurately respond to complaints without relying on residents.
On 9 February 2023, an operative listed a missed appointment even though the resident advised she would not be available. The Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management report requires landlords to set out clear requirements before operatives are allowed to record an appointment as missed. On 20 February 2023 nobody turned up for an appointment and on 29 March 2023 an operative arrived at 07:30 despite the appointment being arranged later in the day. All these instances were unreasonable and led to the resident feeling exasperated and let down by the landlord.
Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service and are essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Overall, the landlord’s record keeping failures amount to maladministration.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In May 2023 we published our Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM). The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence it has self-assessed already.

Complaint handling

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The complaints policy describes a complaint as outlined by the Housing Ombudsman Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It states that any issues raised that meet agreed service standards will not be treated as a complaint, neither would issues that had occurred 3 months prior to the complaint. It aimed to resolve complaints first time by conducting a thorough and fair investigation that reviews all available evidence. Complaints will be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to after 10 working days. Stage 2 complaints will be responded to within 20 working days.
The resident raised a complaint on 24 September 2022 in relation to the leak and absence of hot water with her shower. The landlord rejected the complaint on 4 October 2022. It said it had responded to the repairs in line with its service standards. This is incorrect, it failed to log and action the resident’s report on 18 September 2022. Had it been logged, a repair was required by 22 September 2022. When refusing a complaint landlords are required to detail why the matter is not suitable for the complaints process, which in this case it did. However, they are also required to notify the resident of their right to take that decision to the Ombudsman. The landlord did not do this, which was a failure to comply with the Code. After further leaks the resident emailed the landlord on 12 October 2022 and asked if it would now consider the complaint. There is no evidence it responded to this request.
The landlord’s refusal of the resident’s initial complaint and its failure to respond to her second attempt to complain was unreasonable. It was also not in line with the Ombudsman’s 2022 Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction however made about the standard of service, actions or lack of action.
In its stage 1 response on 9 March 2023 the landlord said it could not look at the resident’s first report of a leak in June 2022 as it was 3 months prior to her complaint. This was unreasonable and not in compliance with the Code which required landlords to consider complaints where the issues occurred 6 months prior to the complaint. Additionally, the complaint was about a leak and therefore related to the ongoing issues and should have been considered as required by the Code. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
It is also noted that the landlord advised in its response that the resident had missed a visit on 9 September 2023. This was incorrect and an indication that it had not conducted a thorough investigation. Its stage 1 response was a missed opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity, which was a failure to comply with the requirements of its own policy and the Code.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered an apology for its errors and acknowledged where it had fallen short and listed the outstanding works. This was fair and the correct thing to do. However, it did not carry out some works, such as the replacement of the bath. This led to the resident chasing the landlord on numerous occasions causing her further frustration and annoyance as well as time and trouble. This indicated a failure to learn from its mistakes in accordance with the Code. It is the Ombudsman’s decision that there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.
On 8 February 2024, the Ombudsman issued the statutory Complaint Handling Code. This Code sets out the requirements landlords must meet when handling complaints in both policy and practice. The statutory Code applies from 1 April 2024.The Ombudsman has a duty to monitor compliance with the Code. We will assess landlords using our Compliance Framework and take action where there is evidence that the requirements set out in the Code are not being met. In this investigation, we found failures in complaint handling. We therefore order the landlord to consider the findings highlighted in this investigation when reviewing its policies and practices against the statutory Code.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of a leak.
2. Record Keeping.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must:
1. Provide a written apology from a manager to the resident for the failures identified in this report. The landlord must ensure the apology meets the criteria highlighted in the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance amended on 17 April 2024.
2. The landlord must pay the resident £650. The money must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against arrears. This replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £270 (less any amount already paid by the landlord as part of its previous offer). It is comprised of:
  1. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak at her property.
  2. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its record keeping.
  3. £150 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble associated with its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks from the date of this report the landlord must inspect the bath and bath panel and carry out such works as are necessary to remove the gap between the bath panel and the floor. The landlord must confirm in writing to the Ombudsman that this inspection and the required works have been completed.

Recommendations

The landlord should review its customer repairs offer to residents for leaks. This is to ensure the timescales for investigation and repair can deliver on the requirements of the Ombudsman’s 2021 Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould.