Your Housing Group Limited (202321447)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202321447

Your Housing Limited

24 January 2025

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Leaks in the property.
2. Moving him from the property.
3. His complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. His tenancy at the property began on 22 November 2019. The property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat in a city centre location. It has an open plan kitchen/lounge area. The resident is autistic and asthmatic.
On 29 August 2023, the resident reported a leak which was causing water to pool underneath his living room flooring. The landlord attended the property on 30 August 2023. It found the source of the leak to be a waste pipe in the kitchen and raised a follow on repair for this.
The resident emailed the landlord and his local MP on 8 and 10 September 2023. He expressed his dissatisfaction that the landlord had:
1. Not repaired the leak or communicated to him how and when it would do so. He said he was running a dehumidifier ‘24/7’ to try and prevent damp.
2. Asked him to sign a waiver before carrying out works. He said he found this “suspicious” as he had never seen it before, and neighbours who had also experienced leaks had not had to sign one.
3. Installed new communal doors which slammed shut. He said that due to his autism he was sensitive to noise and had asked the landlord in advance to ensure the doors were soft closing.
After receiving the resident’s email, his MP contacted the landlord on 11 September 2023. They requested details of when it would carry out the repairs and why it had asked the resident to sign a waiver. The landlord logged this as a stage 1 complaint on 28 September 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 October 2023. It said that:
1. The leak repairs were scheduled for 1 November 2023.
2. “The request to sign a waiver form is a process that our operatives follow if they are taking up or removing any items belonging or fitted by our customers” (in this case the resident’s flooring). It apologised it had not previously explained this.
3. It had since agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of renewing the living room flooring, so the waiver was no longer required.
4. Its contractor would be returning to the block in the next 2 weeks to address defects with the new communal doors. It had asked for the door closest to the resident’s flat to be included in this to try and minimise the noise.
5. There had “clearly been a number of service and communication failures regarding the repair”. It offered the resident £300 compensation composed of £100 each for the inconvenience, delay and its lack of communication.
The resident responded the same day. He rejected the landlord’s compensation offer and asked it to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said he felt the landlord could not close his complaint or make an appropriate offer of compensation until it had completed the repairs. He pointed out that he had been running a dehumidifier “day and night” to address the damp and would have to purchase a new one as it had now stopped working.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 December 2023. It said that:
1. It had identified a “major issue” with the roof of the block and a leak from the buildings plant room which were causing water to enter the resident’s flat.
2. It had repaired the leak in the plant room and delivered a dehumidifier to the resident on 7 November 2023 to reduce the damp.
3. Owing to its city centre location, and the need to close the road to carry out the roof works, it believed it would take until summer 2024 to complete these.
4. Due to the amount of work required, it needed to move the resident out of the property. The resident had requested that, due to his medical conditions, any move was on a permanent basis.
5. It had offered the resident 3 properties. He had declined these as 1 was a bedsit, which he said his belongings would not fit into, and the other 2 were not located in his desired areas.
6. It had also offered to place the resident in a hotel until it could find a suitable property. He had declined this, but its offer remained open.
7. It was offering a further £400 compensation made up of:
  1. £200 towards the cost of running the dehumidifier.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
  3. £50 for its lack of communication.
  4. £50 for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response.
8. It would either carpet or offer the resident a “flooring allowance” for his new property.
9. Any additional compensation associated with the move would be covered through its decant process.

Events since landlord’s stage 2 response

The resident responded on 26 December 2023. He described the landlord’s response as “too little too late”. He expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord had offered him a bedsit and a hotel, despite him having provided medical evidence that these were unsuitable.
On 13 February 2024, the resident accepted a new property offered by the landlord. He signed the tenancy agreement for this property on 17 April 2024.
Prior to the resident moving in, the landlord laid flooring in the new property. The landlord also later reimbursed the resident £1,187 to replace this flooring after an independent contractor stated that it had been incorrectly laid.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident’s stage 1 complaint included issues with the noise caused by the new communal fire door which the landlord had installed near his flat. In its stage 1 response the landlord said that its contractor would be attending to remedy any defects with the doors and would look at the issue at that time. The matter did not feature in the resident’s stage 2 complaint or landlord’s response. It is therefore the Ombudsman’s view that this matter was resolved to the resident’s satisfaction and does not require further investigation here.
At the time of complaint, the landlord’s complaints policy said that it would only consider complaints “made within 6 months of the initial incident taking place”. The Ombudsman is aware the resident experienced previous leaks in 2021, which led to the landlord temporarily moving him out of the property. He expressed the view that these leaks were not properly resolved and contributed to the issues of 2023. However, the earlier leaks occurred outside of this 6 month timescale and will not form part of this investigation.

Leaks

The resident reported a leak under his living room flooring to the landlord on 29 August 2023. The landlord attended in the early hours of 30 August 2023. This was in keeping with its repairs policy which says that it will attend ‘emergency repairs’, “when there is a serious risk to customers or their home”, within 24 hours. The landlord also had the electrics in the property checked on 30 August 2023 to ensure they were safe.
The landlord diagnosed the leak as being from a waste pipe in the kitchen which needed replacing. It raised a ‘follow on’ repair for this, which it attended on 31 August 2023.
The landlord’s notes from this visit recorded that the waste pipe was hidden below the floor. It said that the resident had refused to take up the living room flooring himself and would not sign a waiver for the landlord to do so. The landlord’s repairs policy says that residents are responsible for removing any fixed floor covering to allow it to undertake essential repairs. As the resident was unwilling to do this, it was reasonable for the landlord to ask him to sign a waiver to enable it to do so considering the urgency of the repair.
The Ombudsman notes the resident’s concerns that the landlord had not asked his neighbours to sign such waivers when it dealt with leaks in their properties. However, the Ombudsman is not aware of the individual circumstances of those cases and is unable to draw any comparisons with them.
In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord referred to the waiver as being “a process that our operatives follow if they are taking up or removing any items belonging or fitted by our customers”. However, there is no mention of this process within the landlord’s repairs policy. A recommendation is made below regarding this.
As it was unable to take up the resident’s flooring, the landlord suggested taking down part of the wall to try and access the waste pipe there instead. There is no evidence that this option was progressed, and the landlord has not provided an explanation for this.
On 8 and 10 September 2023, the resident emailed the landlord expressing his “deep frustration” at its lack of communication and progress with the repair. He said that for the first 3 days after the leak the landlord had told him not to use any water in the property, and so had been showering at his gym. He said he had since been advised he was able to use his shower but could not use the kitchen sink or washing machine. This meant he had to travel to a laundrette to wash his clothes and use disposable cutlery and crockery as he could not wash up.
The landlord clarified in its stage 1 complaint response that the resident could use the washing machine, and it was only use of the kitchen sink which was affected by the leak. The stage 1 response was provided on 17 October 2023. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have clarified this situation with the resident far sooner, considering the level of inconvenience caused by being unable to use the washing machine.
The landlord emailed the resident on 11 September 2023. It reasonably agreed that the resident no longer needed to sign a waiver and that it would replace his flooring if required. It said it would be in touch with a start date for the works.
The resident emailed the landlord on 18 and 23 September 2023 requesting an update on when it would begin works. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to these emails. It logged the resident’s complaint a few days later.
The landlord’s repair records show that, on 10 October 2023, it logged a new repair to lift the flooring and trace and repair the leak. The landlord has not provided an explanation for the unreasonable delay in raising this repair – which had taken almost a month since it had resolved the issues around taking up the flooring. The landlord’s repair policy says it will “undertake and complete” routine repairs within 28 calendar days. A target it had already failed to meet at this point.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord advised the repair was scheduled for 1 November 2023. It acknowledged there had “clearly been a number of service and communication failures regarding the repair” and apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. It offered the resident total compensation of £300 made up of £100 each for the delay in completing the repair, its lack of communication, and the inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy allows for a maximum of £50 compensation for delays per repair, however considering the nature of the repair it was reasonable for the landlord to exceed this. The policy also sets levels of compensation for lack of communication and inconvenience caused. This allows “up to a maximum of £100 for minor”. Whilst the Ombudsman would consider the level of inconvenience caused to the resident to surpass this, the overall offer of £300 was reasonable considering the duration of the landlord’s failings and its commitment to cover the cost of replacement flooring.
The landlord’s records show that it attended to repair the leak on 1 November 2023 as scheduled. However, during this it found that the property was also affected by leaks related to wider issues with the roof of the block and the plant room located next door. It determined that it would need to move the resident before it could carry out the necessary works.
The landlord told the resident that it would deliver a dehumidifier on 6 November 2023 to assist in drying out the property. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 November 2023 and said that he had waited in the previous day for the dehumidifier, which had not arrived. The landlord delivered the dehumidifier later that day.
In its stage 2 complaint response, issued 20 December 2023, the landlord advised that it had repaired the leak in the plant room, however it is unclear from the evidence provided exactly when it did so. It stated that due to the location of the block, and permits required to close the road, it would likely take until summer 2024 before it could address the roof repairs. This delay was beyond the landlord’s control, and it is apparent that it had already began moving other residents out of the block due to it.
The landlord offered the resident an additional £350 compensation “due to the further and ongoing issues”. £200 of this was reimbursement for the cost of running the dehumidifiers. This was in keeping with its compensation policy which allows a payment of £5 per day for this. The landlord had delivered its dehumidifier 43 days prior to its stage 2 response.
Excluding the reimbursement for the dehumidifier cost, the landlord offered the resident a total £450 compensation. Under the Ombudsman’s ‘Remedies Guidance’, this amount falls within the bracket for cases of maladministration which adversely affect the resident. The landlord also reasonably offered to cover the cost of flooring in the resident’s new property, in lieu of its previous offer to replace his existing flooring. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this offer represents reasonable redress for the landlord’s failings, which it acknowledged and apologised for within its complaint responses.
However, the Ombudsman notes that the resident told the landlord he had been using his own dehumidifier to dry out the property as early as 8 September 2023. Indeed, part of his reason for escalating the complaint to stage 2 was that the landlord had not considered this in its stage 1 response. The landlord similarly failed to consider reimbursement of costs for this period at stage 2. Therefore, the Ombudsman makes a finding of service failure and an order for reimbursement of the dehumidifier running costs for that period.

Decant

After carrying out repair works on 1 November 2023, the landlord identified further leaks affecting the property. It phoned the resident on 3 November 2023 to update him on these and advised that it was “very likely” he would need to be moved out of the property. The landlord’s records show that it spoke with the resident again on 7 November 2023 and that he was “accepting of the fact he needs to move” but would like this to be on a permanent basis.
The landlord’s decant policy says that “a permanent decant may also be offered where repairs or improvement works are likely to take a prolonged period of time. This will help the customer as they will not have to move more than once, and it can be more cost effective for all parties involved.” It was appropriate for the landlord to consider this option due to its belief that the required repairs would not be able to be carried out until summer 2024. The resident had also expressed his desire to only have the upheaval of moving once, due to his autism.
On 10 November 2023, the landlord offered the resident a temporary move to a ‘bedsit’, which was the only alternative property it currently had available in his areas of preference. The resident rejected this offer as he only wanted to move once on a permanent basis. He said that due to sensory issues associated with his autism, it was not suitable for him to sleep in the same room he cooked in. He also expressed concern about the size of the property, which he felt would not accommodate all the belongings from his current 1 bedroom flat.
Considering the resident had previously expressed his desire for a permanent move only, this offer was inappropriate. However, it was the only property the landlord had available in the resident’s desired areas, and there is no evidence that it pressured him to accept it. Therefore, there cannot be said to be any detriment caused to the resident by this.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 13 November 2023, confirming its offer of the bedsit and that the resident had declined this. This was in keeping with its decant policy which says that it “will ensure customers are provided with a written offer for all temporary and permanent decant accommodation”. The landlord explained that it currently had no suitable properties available in the resident’s desired areas to offer him. It said it was prepared to place the resident in a hotel, and his belongings in storage, until a property became available.
The resident spoke with the landlord on 27 November 2023. He explained that a hotel would not be suitable for him, as “he needs multiple rooms as a result of his medical condition”. The resident mentioned that the landlord had previously moved him into a serviced apartment on a temporary basis. However, the landlord advised him that it no longer had a contract with that provider. The landlord’s records show that it did investigate the possibility of a serviced apartment but found it to be prohibitively expensive. As a provider of social housing, the landlord has an obligation to provide best value for money. It was reasonable for it not to pursue this option based on cost.
On 30 November 2023, the landlord offered the resident 2 further properties. These were both 1 bedroom flats, however they were not located within the resident’s areas of preference. He declined them on that basis. As with the offer of the bedsit, whilst the properties were not suitable offers, the landlord was clear that no properties within the resident’s desired locations had become available. There was again no evidence of any detriment in it making these offers. The landlord confirmed the offers in writing the same day, as its policy requires.
On 11 December 2023, the resident provided the landlord with a letter from his GP explaining that he required “separate living spaces” within his accommodation and that a hotel or bedsit would not be appropriate.
In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord said it would “continue to work with [the resident] through our decant policy to seek to find [him] the right property, however as we have explained, this may take weeks if not months.” This appropriately managed the resident’s expectations of the timescale for a suitable property becoming available.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reasons for refusing the properties it had offered so far, as well as the hotel. It said its offer of hotel accommodation remained open if at any point the resident felt he would be able to accept this. It confirmed that it would cover the cost of all associated expenses. It was reasonable for the landlord to keep this offer open in case conditions in the resident’s property reached a point where he no longer felt able to remain there and needed to move quickly.
In summary, once the full extent of repair issues became apparent, the landlord quickly decided to move the resident. The properties offered by the landlord were not suitable for the resident’s needs, however there is no evidence that it unreasonably pressured or otherwise attempted to influence him to accept them. Nor did these offers cause the resident to miss out on any suitable properties. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s reasons for refusing its offers and showed commitment to continue searching for an appropriate property, whilst managing the resident’s expectations about the timeframe for this. There is no evidence of maladministration.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy adopts the Ombudsman’s definition of a complaint. That being “An expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action”. The resident’s emails of 8 and 10 September 2023 can reasonably be said to meet this definition. He sent the email of 8 September 2023 directly to the landlord’s complaints email inbox.
Despite this, the landlord failed to log a complaint until after the resident’s MP, whom he had copied into the emails, contacted it on 11 September 2023. The landlord’s records show that it did not log the resident’s complaint until 28 September 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response it incorrectly referred to this as being the date on which the resident’s MP had contacted it.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days of recording it and provide its written response within 10 working days. The landlord failed to provide its stage 1 complaint response until 17 October 2023. This was 26 working days after the resident’s MP had originally emailed it and 13 days after the landlord had recorded the complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge this delay within its stage 1 response.
The resident emailed the landlord on the same day he received its stage 1 complaint response. Within this email he said, “to be clear again the case is not closed I want it to go to stage 2”. Despite this the landlord failed to escalate his complaint to stage 2 until 31 October 2023.
The landlord’s complaints policy says that it will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days. The landlord failed to provide its stage 2 complaint response until 20 December 2023. This was 46 working days after the resident had asked to escalate his complaint and 36 working days after the landlord had recorded the escalation.
The landlord did acknowledge this delay within the stage 2 complaint response. It apologised and explained that this was due to the member of staff who had been managing the complaint leaving the business. The landlord included £50 compensation for this delay in its total offer. This amount was in keeping with both the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, and the landlord’s compensation policy, which suggest a maximum of £100 for service failure.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in logging the resident’s stage 1 complaint, escalating it to stage 2 and providing its responses at both stages. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its stage 2 complaint response and made a reasonable offer of redress for this. However, it failed to acknowledge the several earlier delays which unduly prolonged the resident’s journey through its complaints process. The Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of leaks in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of moving the resident from the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,095 composed of:
1. The £700 compensation offered during its complaints procedure, if not already paid.
2. £295 reimbursement for the expense of running his dehumidifier between 8 September 2023 and 6 November 2023. This amount is based on the £5 per day from the landlord’s compensation policy across this 59 day period.
3. A further £100 compensation for the maladministration in its handling of his complaint identified by this investigation.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord considers amending its repairs policy to reflect its requirement for residents to sign waivers in certain circumstances.