Homes Plus Limited (202233833)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233833

Homes Plus Limited

30 August 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak to the roof at her property.

Background

2. The resident is the assured tenant of a 3-bedroom house owned by the landlord.
3. On 16 November 2022 the resident reported a leak to the roof of her property with water penetrating her bedroom ceiling causing damp patches. The landlord referred the repair to its contractor who attended on 18 January 2023 to assess what work was required. It concluded that a cherry picker would be needed to gain proper access to the roof and a report would be made to the landlord to this effect.
4. The resident complained to the landlord, on 20 January 2023, about the delay in carrying out the repair. She was concerned that the fault partially covered an area that had previously been worked upon, suggesting that that prior repair had been inadequate. She was worried about damage and was unhappy that the contractor’s attendance had not progressed matters further. She also reported that attendances at the property had not been notified to her in advance and which was unacceptable to her.
5. In its stage 1 complaint response of 8 February 2023 the landlord agreed the repair had exceeded its service level timeframe of 60 days. It stated that the repairs could not start until scaffolding had been erected but the resident would be contacted first when this was done and work could commence.
6. The scaffolding was then erected on 7 March 2023 but the resident escalated her complaint on 18 April 2023 when nothing further had happened. Additionally, she reported that regular inspections of the scaffold were not taking place but it appeared the contractor was signing off to say they had carried out this requirement.
7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 24 May 2023. It noted that, as at 22 May 2023, the works had been completed and it apologised for the delay. It explained that due to a number of factors, works were not started straightaway once the scaffold was erected. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £100 for the impact the delay had had upon her. With regard to the scaffolding checks, it explained that these were for the benefit of operatives attending the site and the contractor had been asked to investigate internally. Once the outcome was known, the landlord would determine what action was necessary to address the issue.
8. The resident was dissatisfied with this response. She informed the landlord that its offer of compensation did not reflect the impact that a 6–month timeframe for the repair had had upon her. The landlord offered to reconsider its compensation calculation, but the resident indicated she preferred to wait for this Service to consider its handling of the situation.

Assessment and findings

9. The terms and conditions attached to the resident’s tenancy state that the landlord is responsible for keeping the roof at the property in good repair. The landlord’s Repairs Policy sets out the time limits it commits to for completing works. It states that where an inspection is required to ascertain what is necessary (as was the case here) that will be carried out within 10 working days of the repair request. Where a repair is then classified as a major repair it will then be completed within 60 days of that visit taking place.
10. Whilst the landlord initially designated this repair as a non-emergency/routine one, that changed when the nature of the work and the access requirements to carry it out, became apparent. It was reclassified as a major task.
11. As set out above, the repair itself was a leak to the roof causing damp patches to the bedroom ceiling. It was not affecting any electrics but was exacerbated by wet weather. The landlord reasonably concluded that the situation was not an emergency requiring an immediate attendance. Nevertheless, it was the start of winter, damage was likely to be cumulative and the landlord might reasonably have been expected to deal with the issue sooner rather than later – and certainly within its 60 day target.
12. The landlord reports that it carried out the inspection on 23 November 2022 – that is within the 10-day time limit. However, there is no reference to this in the records it has produced. In any event, the job was referred to the landlord’s contractor who carried out another inspection on 18 January 2023 and the landlord then carried out a further one at the end of February 2023 when it took the matter back in–house. Despite scaffolding being erected on 7 March 2023 the repair was not then effected until 25 May 2023. This was 6 months after the leak was first reported. It can be seen from this history that neither the time taken to inspect and assess what was required or the time taken to carry out the work was appropriate to the landlord’s policy. This represented a service failing on its behalf.
13. In identifying whether there has been maladministration, the Ombudsman considers both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events through the operation of its complaints procedure. The extent to which a landlord has recognised and addressed any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are therefore as relevant as the original mistake or service failure. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where the landlord has fully acknowledged any failings and taken reasonable steps to offer redress.
14. The landlord offered its stage 2 complaint response shortly after the works had been done. It accepted that there had been a delay and was apologetic. It explained that this had been down to a number of factors, although it did not elaborate on this point further. It was important that the landlord acknowledged this failing to the resident as part of a fair and reasonable dispute resolution process.
15. In terms of the remedy offered by the landlord, it awarded compensation of £100. The resident considered that this was inadequate because she had waited 6 months for the repair during which time she was worried about the state of her home. The scaffolding was up for 3 months, during which time she could not park her car on her driveway, was bothered by noise (it being rattled by the wind) and considered it a potential security issue. She has stated to this Service that the amount offered will not cover the cost of stain blocking and redecorating the bedroom in question.
16. When this offer was made, the landlord might reasonably have been able to assess the likely impact upon the resident. It was aware of the length of time taken to effect the repair and the fact damage was being caused in the meantime. There is no suggestion that the damage was extensive, but it might reasonably have understood the resident’s worry about it. Further, it was aware that she could not use her driveway and that this was going to be the case for the duration the scaffold was in place.
17. Finally, the landlord might reasonably have been able to anticipate the need for some redecoration and the fact the delay was probably making that a bigger task as time went on. The tenancy terms and conditions state internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident but where work is necessitated and/or amplified by a service failing on the landlord’s behalf, it might reasonably take that into account when setting compensation.
18. The landlord operates a Compensation Policy which sets out that it will award compensation where it fails to meet timescales for repairs. It does not, however, offer any guidance on setting an amount. This Service’s Remedies Guidance offers assistance on this issue. It states that the landlord’s offer of £100 would be reasonable where the service failure has been minimal and of short duration. However, the timescale involved here and in particular the length of time the scaffold was up, with the driveway issues, suggest the impact upon the resident was more than minimal. In that case an award of between £100 and £600 would be more appropriate. Taking everything into account, including the touching up of decorations, this Service would have ordered/recommended a figure of £250.
19. It is noted that when the resident rejected the landlord’s offer it was willing to revise it and discussed the figure of £250. However, she did not wish to engage with it further on this point and it was prevented from settling the case. The landlord had, of course, already had the opportunity to do so as part of its complaints handling process. Ideally, this offer might have been made in its stage 2 response as it was in a position to assess the situation at that point. 
20. It is noted that the landlord was reluctant to put the offer forward without the resident’s confirmation that it would be acceptable because, at that stage, this Service had become involved. In turn, the resident was reluctant to discuss the amount with the landlord due to the referral. It is reasonable to conclude from comments made in the landlord’s records that it was concerned that increasing compensation after referral might be seen as motivated by a desire to avoid an adverse finding from this Service – rather than to offer a fair resolution to the resident.
21. It is the approach of this Service that where landlords significantly increase compensation awards after a referral is made to avoid an adverse finding that conduct should not be viewed favourably.
22. However, under the circumstances in this case and having regard to the position of both landlord and resident, it would be unnecessarily harsh to make a finding against the landlord. Its complaints handling was not so poor as to justify such action. Its motivation in potentially increasing the offer does appear from its records to have been related to trying to offer a fair resolution.
23. There were other issues that the landlord needed to address for its resolution to be assessed. As also set out above, by the time the resident escalated her complaint, a further issue had arisen regarding checks to the scaffolding at the property. It was up for almost 3 months. The resident was able to provide photographic evidence which showed that as at 23 April 2023 an inspection card attached to the scaffold showed it had not been checked since 29 March 2023. However, a further photograph, taken on 25 April 2023, showed that somebody had completed the card to show inspections had taken place weekly in the intervening period. The resident did not consider this was the case. At best, these inspections appear to have been added in retrospectively – at worst the implication is they have been fabricated. 
24. The landlord’s records show that it took this allegation seriously. It was also unhappy with the implication that arose from it as far as its scaffolding contractor’s performance was concerned. It asked that contractor to investigate, held a meeting with it (with 1 of its senior managers being present), and resolved to monitor it more closely in future.
25. The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it has revised its processes as a result of this complaint so that the contractor in question now has to produce photographic evidence of its inspections at regular intervals. There is no suggestion in the landlord’s records that it instructed its contractor to forego inspections or complete the card after the event. The landlord addressed the issue within a reasonable timeframe of the resident reporting it. Its records demonstrate it was concerned by the situation. The landlord’s handling of this issue was reasonable and there was no service failing. 
26. With regard to the landlord’s failure to give notice of appointments, its Repairs Policy does states that, “for external works where no access is required, appointments will not be made”. This means that where the landlord can effect a repair without needing to enter the property, it will not necessarily notify the resident in advance that it is coming. The resident told the landlord that this approach left her feeling uneasy at the prospect that somebody could just turn up and start working on the exterior of her property without notice. The landlord agreed to tell her in advance moving forward. It was reasonable that it did so. Again, this did not represent a service failing and no redress would have been necessary.
27. In conclusion, the landlord’s handling of the repairs represented a service failing and the compensation offered in its stage 2 response fell short. However, the landlord was willing to revisit this for genuine reasons and it offered reasonable redress overall as a result. 
28. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made below. This is on the basis that the landlord should reoffer the compensation figure of £250 (and which includes the £100 already offered).  A recommendation has been made to this effect.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord has offered reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the residents reports of a leak to the roof at her property.

Orders and recommendations

Recommendations

30. The landlord should offer to the resident compensation of £250 (subject to deduction of the £100 previously offered if this was paid) as this reflected failings in its service and the finding of reasonable redress has been made on the basis this offer remains open for acceptance.