Futures Housing Group Limited (202112973)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112973

Futures Housing Group Limited

23 June 2023

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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the intercom system.
2. Repairs to a kitchen tap.
3. The resident’s complaints about external works.

Background and summary of events

The resident had an assured shorthold tenancy of the property which began on 1 July 2016. The property is a flat in a block of 6 with a communal entrance. This entrance features a secure door with an intercom system.

Tenancy agreement, policies, and service standards.

Within the tenancy agreement section 2.9, Services, the landlord says it may end, introduce, or vary the services it provides.
The landlord’s website says that standard repairs will normally be completed within 10 to 25 working days.
The landlord’s website says that when faults are investigated sometimes full replacements are required rather than a repair. When this is the case repairs might take longer with temporary repairs being made prior to any full replacement. Full replacements may take up to 6 months.

Repairs to the intercom system

On 22 April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord. She said that she had expected the landlord to come and check the intercom system in January 2021 but had received no feedback. She said that she had not seen anyone, her handset did not work, and this was the same problem she had during most of 2020.
On 14 July 2021, the resident wrote a letter to the landlord about several issues at the property, including the intercom. About the intercom she said that there had been a visit on 20 May 2021 by an engineer who had confirmed the intercom and handset did not work and that it was beyond repair. There had been no further feedback from the landlord.
The landlord responded to the resident’s letter and about the intercom it was aware that its contractor had visited and inspected the intercom as requested but it did not know what the next step was. It apologised to the resident for inconvenience caused and said that “the matter was in hand.”
On 28 September 2021, following contact with the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord to ask it to respond to the resident’s questions dated 14 July 2021 using its complaints process.
On 12 October 2021, in the landlord’s stage one response it apologised that the intercom repair had not taken place saying it should have taken place by this point. It explained that a change in contractor and in its own management had delayed the replacement decision for an unacceptable amount of time. The resident was offered £250 in recognition of this failing and the inconvenience it had caused.
On 4 November 2021, the landlord received a quote from its contractor to supply, install and commission a new security door with an intercom system at the block.

Records relating to a tap repair.

On 14 July 2021, the resident raised a complaint that she had expected a repair to her kitchen tap to take place on 25 May 2021. After this there had been no further update. On receipt of this letter, the landlord organised a repair for 23 July 2021 which the resident cancelled closer to the appointed date as she had contracted Covid-19.
On 28 September 2021, after contact from the resident about her tap repair still being outstanding, this Service wrote to the landlord to ask for it to provide a stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint dated 14 July 2021 about disrepair to the tap.
On 4 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to find out if she still needed her tap repairing and an appointment was made for 12 October 2021.
On 12 October 2021, the landlord wrote its stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint dated 14 July 2021. It provided a timeline for the tap repair and stated that it had followed its standard repair offer (repair with 10 – 15 days) by attending the property on 25 May 2021 and on 23 July 2021. The letter went on to say it understood the repair was outstanding and that a repair job was booked for that day (12 October 2021).
On 14 October 2021, the resident wrote her escalation to stage 2. She said that the landlord was “lying” when it said that it had attended on 23 July 2021 and completed the repair because she had cancelled the appointment due to Covid-19. She also raised that the tap repair had first been reported in 2020, prior to a Covid-19 lockdown and had been outstanding since then.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord replied to decline the resident’s request for escalation of her complaint. An apology was made regarding providing inaccurate information about the tap repair and the landlord accepted that on 23 July 2021 the resident had cancelled the appointment and that the repair had not taken place. It recognised it had failed to mention this in its stage 1 response and explained that it did not dispute the tap was reported pre-lockdown, but the appointment had been delayed when all, but emergency works were suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic.

The resident’s’ complaints about external work

On 11 February 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that from 1 March 2021 scaffolding would be installed and that it would then be moved around different blocks during the 12-week work period as work was completed. The letter asked residents to be mindful of scaffolding in the area while the work was carried out.
On 19 May 2021, the landlord responded to a query the resident had raised about when the property’s windows would be cleaned to explain that the cleaners had agreed that once the external work was completed all the windows would be cleaned and normal service would resume.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord wrote to all the building’s residents to advise that external works due to be finished in May would now be extended until the end of June 2021.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 14 July 2021 and complained that:
1. Since the scaffolding had been moved in front of her property there had been considerable noise from the work, although not on a continuous basis.
2. Even with closed windows there was quite a lot of dirt to clean.
3. The scaffolding planks were covered in grit and if the windows were opened the resident ended up with soil on the floor and on the windowsills.
4. With recent heavy rain the windows were a mess of blurred glass.
5. To resolve all the matters included within this letter, the resident asked for compensation of month’s rent.
The landlord has provided this Service with an undated letter in which it responded to the resident’s questions. The letter said that it appreciated the work was an inconvenience to the resident however it was necessary, and the dust and mess was to be expected. It asked for the resident to send in any photographs of the issues and agreed that it would ask the contractor if there were any way they could alleviated the inconvenience and to ask them to be as courteous as possible when undertaking the work.
Following contact with this Service, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 12 October 2021. This was in response to complaints the resident had first raised on 14 July 2021. In the stage 1 response the landlord said that:
1. Regarding the noise from external communal works and dust entering property the landlord said that it had sent letters on 11 February 2021 to advise that scaffolding would be erected around the building and advised when work needed to be extended.
2. It had reviewed its correspondence and found that the letters it sent to advise residents about the scaffolding did not explain what customers could expect from the works in terms of noise and mess. It agreed that it would review its letters so that in the future they would provide a more detailed description of what residents could expect, prior to work commencing.
3. It apologised that the works were a source of nuisance, explaining that they were essential for the upkeep of the building and that there was an expectation that this type of work would include a level of noise, dust, and debris.
4. It explained that window cleaning had taken place on 13 August 2019, 27 February 2020, 28 April 2021, and 30 September 2021. It explained the window cleaning was suspended during Covid-19 as it was not essential work and that it was currently on hold due to the external works and the scaffolding obstructing the property windows.
On 14 October 2021, the resident emailed her escalation to the landlord. She said that:
1. Letters sent to advise of the work did not in any way reduce the level of nuisance experienced and the problem was not just dust entering the property, but also grit and plaster.
2. The scaffolding had been erected on 1 April 2021 so the property windows were obstructed meaning they could not have been cleaned on 28 April 2021 as the landlord had said. She also explained that they had not been cleaned on 30 September 2021 either as there was still plaster on them. The resident asked the landlord to provide the annual dates for window cleaning.
3. A month’s rent as compensation would resolve the matter.
On 19 October 2021, the landlord responded to explain that the complaint would not be reviewed at stage 2. And it would not reconsider its compensation offer because at no time during the external works was the property uninhabitable and the resident had full use of all the property’s facilities. It added to its previous responses:
1. The external work had already been addressed in the stage 1 reply and it reiterated that the repointing, damp proofing and the dismantling of scaffolding were essential works which would cause a certain degree of unavoidable noise and mess.
2. It agreed with the resident that previously provided dates for window cleaning were incorrect. The error was explained as being due to the wrong internal information being sent to the complaint officer. The resident was informed that an annual schedule could not be provided, and the next round of window cleaning would next take place on 27 October 2021, letters would be sent 2 weeks before the cleaning began to keep residents informed.

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the intercom system

As described in the landlord’s repairs and planned works standards which can be found on its website it had attempted repairs to the intercom and after it became apparent these repairs had not provided a lasting fix it followed the recommendations of its contractors that a replacement was required and acted appropriately to progress a full replacement of the system, which the landlord’s website says can take up to 6 months as per its planned works standard.
However, there were delays in the process, the landlord first visited the property to repair the intercom in January 2021 and according to the resident, the landlord’s contractor had also visited in May 2021 confirming to her that the intercom system needed to be replaced. The landlord has not provided evidence of its actions relating to the intercom between January 2021 and its quote for renewal dated November 2021, yet there is a clear delay in it obtaining the quotation for the system renewal for which the resident had to take time and trouble to pursue the landlord for an answer.
The landlord did not communicate effectively with its resident about the ongoing repair and its decision to replace the intercom system. The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s question dated 14 July 2021 informs the resident that the matter was in hand but there was no further communication about the steps it was taking and the timeframe for completion of the required repairs until the resident made her formal complaint and the landlord provided its stage 1 dated 12 October 2021.
From the evidence available the landlord delayed acting on reports from its contractors that the intercom system needed replacing. According to the information provided by the resident the landlord knew the system needed replacing from May 2021 and a quote for its replacement was not progressed until 4 November 2021, after the resident had made her complaint. The landlord has sought to put the delay right through its complaints process by progressing the replacement. In its response, it recognised that it had taken too long to resolve the intercom repair and offered £250 redress to the resident. This amount is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance which suggests discretionary awards of compensation from £250 where there has been a failure over a considerable period to address repairs, where there may be no permanent impact on the complainant.

Repair to the kitchen tap.

As part of the resident’s complaint dated 14 July 2021, when it was notified that a tap repair was outstanding, the landlord acted to book the repair for 23 July 2021 which is in line with its service standard of completing standard repairs in 10 to 15 working days. The resident cancelled this repair due to her having Covid-19 and there is no evidence that the repair was rebooked or that the resident called to reschedule the repair until the landlord received contact from this Service on 28 September 2021 to ask it to provide a stage 1 complaint response. The landlord’s records did not accurately reflect that the appointment had not taken place with the repair marked as being complete when was not. This meant the complaint’s response was inaccurate in relation to what happened by it saying that the tap repair appointment had been completed. This causing confusion for the resident and resulting in her believing that the landlord was “lying” and her request for the complaint to be escalated to stage 2. In its follow up response, the landlord set this error straight by explaining that it knew the repair did not take place and apologising for its mistake, as was appropriate.
The landlord’s records about its cancelled repair appointment resulted in poor quality information being available to its staff when it was assessing the resident’s complaint, this then affected the professionalism and accuracy of the service it provided. However, there was little detriment in the error to the resident and the landlord quickly apologised, confirming to her that it was not disputing the 23 July 2021 repair being outstanding after she cancelled it with the repair being completed on 12 October 2021.

The resident’s’ complaints about external work.

The resident complained that grit and dust entered her property during external works which the landlord was undertaking to repoint and damp proof the building. The landlord had an obligation to keep the building in a good standard of repair and it would be necessary for it to undertake these works. For the duration of the works there would be a level of accepted noise, mess, and disruption, and it was reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident in its complaints handling that this was to be expected. Pictures of the debris sent to the landlord and seen by this Service show grit/sand on the inside of windowsills and larger debris on the scaffolding outside. When these issues were reported to the landlord, they requested the pictures from the resident as was appropriate and were reasonable in their approach to reassure the resident that they would speak to the contractors and ask them to be as courteous as possible.
The planned work required scaffolding which added inconvenience and disruption with the resident commenting to this Service that scaffolding prevented the property’s windows from opening whilst it was in place. The scaffolding was required to complete the work and the work was required to keep the building in a good state of repair. Whilst it is acknowledged that windows restricted from opening by the scaffolding was an inconvenience to the resident, the landlord could not complete the works without it. It is noted that plans for the work involved the scaffolding being moved around the site, to provide access to the area that the contractor was working on, rather than scaffolding the whole site for the whole duration of the works. In doing this the landlord demonstrated good practise as it reduced the amount of time residents would be impacted by the scaffolding and in doing so it behaved considerately.
As would be expected the landlord wrote to its residents prior to the external work starting to notify that scaffolding would be put up around the building. It was good practise for the landlord to have written to inform residents of its plans, yet the letters only advised that there would be scaffolding and did not provide details on the scope of the work, or the steps residents could take to reduce other disruption likely to be caused during the work. In its complaints handling the landlord recognised that this was an opportunity to provide additional advice about the work and how residents could mitigate inconvenience caused by it. In its consideration of this aspect of the complaint the landlord demonstrated learning which it can use to improve its service in the future.
The resident’s tenancy agreement does not list window cleaning as one of the services that the landlord is obligated to provide. In the complaints process the landlord gave the wrong information on when the windows had been cleaned which, when the resident challenged these dates, it appropriately apologised and acknowledged its error. In response to the resident’s question about when the cleaning would next take place, the landlord behaved reasonably by providing a date and explaining that it would notify residents 2 weeks before by letter.
Whilst this service acknowledges restricted, dirty windows with an increase in dust when they were closed and grit when they were opened would be inconvenient to the resident the adverse effects were short term and the works were necessary. There were no failings by the landlord who has demonstrated learning from the complaint and that it took reasonable steps to mitigate issues during the work.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the intercom system which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs to the intercom system which in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves this complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was no maladministration of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints about external work.

Reasons

In its complaint handling the landlord recognised that it delayed in progressing the intercom replacement and offered reasonable redress of £250 compensation to the resident.
The landlord explained and apologised for its error in providing incorrect information about the tap during the complaints process.
Whilst it undertook planned work to the building the landlord took steps to mitigate disruption where possible and a level of noise and inconvenience was unavoidable.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord assess itself against the Ombudsman’s Knowledge and Information Management spotlight to review relevant processes (such as repairs recording) to reduce the risks of inaccurate record keeping affecting its service. This can be found on the Ombudsman’s website.