Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited (202318832)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318832

Irwell Valley Housing Association Limited

28 March 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the bathroom.
2. Handling of repairs to the kitchen and doors.
3. Complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association and is aware of the vulnerabilities of the household.

Summary of events

For background purposes it is important to mention that the resident has said the landlord purchased the property from a private landlord prior to the start of her tenancy in 2014. She has said the bathroom and kitchen were installed by the previous landlord. The landlord has not disputed this.
On 13 October 2023 the resident raised her complaint. She told the landlord about issues with the property and said it had not taken action to address this. She detailed the issues as:
1. the bathroom required renovation and its surveyor had told her it was not safe or at the standards required. She told it how she had a glass shower panel, broken floor tiles and a detached bath panel.
2. the kitchen required renovation, there was mould in several areas of the kitchen, and it had no extractor fan. She said the kitchen sink was stained, the tap was leaking and the walls were unfinished.
3. the rear door needed replacing.
Within the resident’s complaint, she told the landlord that she felt the property was unsafe due to the vulnerabilities of the household and explained how she lived at the property with her 12 year old daughter who had Down’s syndrome and an under 2 year old. The resident said the property was overcrowded, but while she lived there it should carry out renovation and repair work.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 9 November 2023. It partially upheld the complaint and said it conducted a full home survey in August 2016, a bathroom inspection in August 2022 and another home survey in February 2023. Its inspections from 2016 and 2023 showed “very similar condition” of the property and found no major replacements were required apart from the front and rear doors. It said it would install these before 31 March 2024. It said:
1. it would look at the bathroom flooring again and explained that it previously thought the resident had fit the floor tiles
2. the glass shower panel was designed for use as a bath screen– it would check to ensure its safety and said the bathroom was otherwise to the standard required
3. it had made an appointment for 23 November 2023 to look at the kitchen tap, staining to the sink and broken waste – neither of its surveys indicated further works were required in the kitchen
4. it had requested damp and mould survey and would contact the resident with an appointment
5. for slug issue, the new rear door may assist with the issue and could also aid the retention of heat in the kitchen to help reduce damp
6. the resident should contact it if she required a kitchen fan and said the kitchen was to the standard required
7. for the internal transfer, the resident had been registered since July 2021 and it had details of medical needs and acknowledged the overcrowding– it suggested the resident consider other areas to widen her choices
The resident escalated her complaint on the same day. She told the landlord that she found its response frustrating. She said the bathroom tiles had not been installed by her and they were in situ when she moved in. She said this meant it was not her responsibility to maintain. She told the landlord that rodents had entered her kitchen and explained how she felt it was from behind the kitchen units. She said the landlord’s response made her feel like it was not listening to her.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 20 February 2024. It said it had raised a number of repairs following the resident’s complaint and explained:
1. it had passed the bathroom flooring repair to its contractor
2. repaired the shower screen and kitchen tap on 11 December 2023
3. it had replaced both the front and rear doors and noted some damage from the installation – its contractor would be in touch, within 7 days to install a lintel on the rear door and following this it would repair damage
Its stage 2 response explained that the resident had been on its internal transfer list since July 2021 and advised her to extend her area selection. Its condition survey from 2023 did not note any renewal requirements until 2032/2033. It concluded the property was at the required standard apart from the repairs mentioned. The landlord acknowledged the time taken to rectify the bathroom floor issue and the damage caused by replacing the doors. It offered the resident £100 compensation.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and referred her complaint to this Service for further consideration.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has told this Service that the landlord did not complete work to the property prior to the start of her tenancy in 2014. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would usually expect the resident to have raised these issues as a formal complaint within a reasonable time, usually 12 months of the matters arising. Issues that were not raised as a complaint within a reasonable time have not been assessed within this report.

Handling of repairs to the bathroom

The tenancy agreement says residents are responsible for repairing and maintaining all improvements and fixtures they install. The landlord’s new home booklet says it is responsible for repairs to baths, showers, and sinks, amongst other things.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it is responsible for repairs to baths, showers and toilets. It says it will complete routine repairs within 28 working days and such repairs would include minor repairs to floorboards. For non-urgent and major repairs, it says it will complete such work within 60 working days.
The landlord’s asset management policy details its approach to planned works which includes planned improvements to a kitchen and bathroom, amongst other things. It explains how such work will be determined by its strategy action plan and will be based on a number of issues including the condition of stock and the components approaching the end of their life cycle. It explains how such work would be considered as part of its longer-term financial planning.
The landlord’s compensation policy says that it can award payments for impact and inconvenience. It says a payment of £100 would be awarded for instances it has partial responsibility for the moderate impact and inconvenience suffered.
The resident initially reported a broken bathroom floor tile on 16 May 2022. There is no evidence to show the landlord took any action at that time, this was not appropriate. The resident contacted the landlord about the same issue again on 9 August 2022. She told it that the tile condition had ‘worsened’ with a sharp edge and could cause harm. The landlord appropriately conducted an inspection on 19 August 2022, it noted that the bathroom and tiled flooring was not what it had installed. It took no further action at that time, despite it being responsible for the repair. This was not appropriate.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7 October and 17 November 2022 about the bathroom tile and was told it was not the landlord’s responsibility. This was not appropriate. It took the landlord until its stage 1 response, to agree to look at the bathroom flooring again. However, its inspection from November 2023 repeated how it felt the bathroom was not its responsibility. This was despite the resident telling it she had not installed the bathroom and what it agreed to within its stage 1 response. This was not appropriate and meant the resident had to contact it again about works. It took the landlord until 9 February 2024 to raise the work order and 4 March 2024 to complete work to the bathroom tile.
The landlord took around 22 months to complete work to the bathroom floor tile. This timeframe was not appropriate and significantly exceeded its repairs timeframe.
It is noted that the resident has said the landlord’s surveyor told her the bathroom was not “fit for human habitation”. The available evidence shows that the surveyor found the bathroom was at the standard required. The landlord repeated this within its complaint responses and this would have helped to alleviate some of the resident’s concerns.
Within the resident’s complaint she told the landlord of safety concerns about a glass shower panel and that the bath panel was detached. The landlord appropriately conducted an inspection on 23 November 2023. However, it took no action following this. This was not appropriate.
While the landlord removed the shower screen by March 2024, it did not attempt to alleviate the resident’s safety concerns during this time (from October 2023). Instead it incorrectly said it was not responsible for the bathroom. There is no evidence to show it completed work to the bath panel or that it informed the resident of its planned approach in relation to this. This was not appropriate.
It is understood that the resident felt the bathroom required renovation. The landlord appropriately conducted a survey of the condition of the bathroom in August 2022 and February 2023. It noted that the bathroom would be updated in 2033. Its approach to planned improvements to the bathroom was in line with its asset management policy and part of its longer-term financial planning. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
It is understood that the resident felt the landlord had used the date it purchased the property as dates for the bathroom and kitchen renovation. The landlord’s policy explains that while the end of life cycle will be considered as part of its decision making, it would also consider the condition of the components (bathroom/kitchen) and the impact of not completing work. While the landlord’s actions may have been in line with its policy, its stage 1 and 2 response could have done more to explain what it had considered in reaching its decision. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom was not appropriate. It significantly exceeded its repair timeframe for the bathroom tile repair despite what the resident told it about its worsening condition and of her safety concerns. It incorrectly told the resident it was not responsible for the bathroom as it had not installed it and did this on more than one occasion. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service and left her feeling it was not listening to her. It then took 5 months to remove a glass shower panel despite the resident telling it of the vulnerabilities of the household and her safety concerns. It is unclear what action it took in response to a bath panel and its explanation around its decision making for the bathroom renovation could have been better.
It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some frustration in having to repeatedly tell the landlord that she had not installed the bathroom and in having to contact it to complete work. While the landlord has told this Service that it has added an alert to its internal system explaining its responsibility for future work, it missed opportunities to explain this within its complaint responses. When considering this, the timeframe taken to complete repairs, the landlord’s failure to alleviate the resident’s safety concerns (with the broken bathroom tile and glass shower panel), the landlord’s failings amount to maladministration.
It is acknowledged that within the landlord’s stage 2 response, it appropriately apologised for its delay in completing work to the bathroom floor and offered the resident £100 compensation to recognise this. However, its response failed to acknowledge the extent of its failings and address the detriment caused to the resident. The landlord’s offer of £100 compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.
When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and a compensation amount of £400 (including the landlord’s previous offer of £100) has been decided as more appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.
The resident has told this Service that the landlord placed flooring on top of the bathroom tiles. She has expressed concerns about the different level of flooring in light of the vulnerabilities of the household. As this is linked with the issues considered, the Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to look into this further.

Handling of repairs to the kitchen and doors

The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it is responsible for repairs to sinks and kitchen units, amongst other things. It says non-urgent and major repairs will be completed within 60 working days. Its policy includes replacing outside doors as non-urgent and major repairs.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that when damp and mould is reported it will triage the severity of the issues which will result in an inspection to assess the issue or a job for its repairs team to resolve the issue. It explains that works would be scheduled as a routine repair (28 working days) where there is a small amount of mould around a window or in a kitchen.
The resident told the landlord about issues with the kitchen on 13 October 2023. She said there was mould in some areas, no extractor fan, a stained sink and leaky taps. She also told it how she felt the kitchen required renovation.
The landlord appropriately conducted an inspection on 23 November 2023. At that time, it found the humidity levels were in excess of 73% and noted mould near the back door and around the kitchen window. However, it took until 15 January 2024 to complete mould treatment and until 26 April 2024 to install a kitchen fan. These timeframes were not appropriate and exceeded those set within its policies.
While the landlord did complete work to repair the kitchen tap on 11 December 2023. It did not follow up on the resident’s concerns about a stained kitchen sink or share details of its planned approach for this. This was not appropriate.
However, similar to its response for the bathroom renovation, the landlord acted in line with its policy when considering the condition of the kitchen and telling the resident that its planned improvement timeframe for the kitchen was 2032. It also appropriately agreed to complete repairs in the interim and said the kitchen was at the required standard. However, it could have done more to explain the elements it had considered when reaching its decision about the kitchen renovation. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
On 27 October 2023 the resident told the landlord about slugs entering the property. Within its stage 1 response, the landlord explained how slugs could be entering the property but failed to provide the resident with support in managing the situation, this was not appropriate in the circumstances. It remains unclear if the issue has since resolved.
The resident told the landlord of issues with the rear door on 12 October 2023. Following its inspection in November 2023, the landlord appropriately confirmed it would replace the front and rear door. The evidence shows it replaced both doors in December 2023. This timeframe was in line with its repairs policy and was appropriate in the circumstances.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen was not appropriate. It took 3 months to complete a mould wash and around 5 months to install a kitchen fan. These timeframes exceeded the 28 working days it set within its damp and mould policy. There is no evidence to show it responded to the stained sink issue or that it provided the resident with support in managing the slug issue within the property.
It is accepted that the resident would have been caused some frustration in the landlord’s handling of the kitchen repairs especially when considering the timeframes taken to complete work. The landlord missed an opportunity to identify its failings within its complaint responses and has not made any attempts to put things right in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint. When considering this, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of kitchen repairs.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation policy. When considering the distress and inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident in light of the landlord’s handling of her concerns about the kitchen, a compensation amount of £250 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate.
It is not disputed that damage was caused to the property following the landlord’s installation of the front and rear doors. The landlord’s stage 2 response said it would complete work to fix the damage, however, it is unclear if the landlord has since done this. The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to consider this along with other outstanding issues with the kitchen.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s customer complaints policy from June 2023 says it operates a 2 stage complaints process. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days of receipt. It will provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of the date of acknowledgement. A stage 2 response will be provided within 20 working days from the date of acknowledgement.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out financial payments for instances where there has been a service failure. This includes payments between £100-£500 for where there has been some impact.
The resident raised her complaint on 13 October 2023 and on 23 October 2023 the landlord said it would provide a response within 10 working days. The landlord exceeded this timeframe and provided its response on 9 November 2023. This was not appropriate.
On 9 November 2023 the resident told the landlord that she found its response “incredibly dissatisfying and frustrating” and that she would be taking the complaint further. However, the landlord failed to trigger its stage 2 process at that time. This was not appropriate.
The landlord took until 24 January 2024 to acknowledge the resident’s escalation request, following further contact from her about outstanding repairs. While the landlord responded within 20 working days of this (on 20 February 2024) it failed to acknowledge the 3 month delay in issuing its stage 2 response. This was not appropriate.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. Its complaint handling delays meant it took around 4 months to conclude its internal complaints process. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with its service. Within its stage 2 response the landlord did not acknowledge its complaint handling delays and failed to make any attempt to put things right. This was not appropriate and amounts to maladministration.
When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered alongside the landlord’s compensation policy. When considering the frustration and inconvenience its delayed complaint handling may have caused, a compensation amount of £150 has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance and has been decided as appropriate.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the bathroom.
2. Handling of repairs to the kitchen and doors.
3. Complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
2. Pay the resident a total compensation of £800, this is made up of:
  1. £400 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of bathroom repairs. This amount includes the £100 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
  2. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of kitchen repairs.
  3. £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
3. Arrange for an appropriately qualified specialist to conduct an inspection(s) of the property. Within 2 weeks of the inspection, it should confirm in writing to the resident and this Service:
  1. Its assessment of the bathroom flooring in light of the resident’s safety concerns.
  2. Its position in relation to the kitchen sink and the slug issue. This is to include details of the support it will provide the resident, if required.
  3. Details of any outstanding work, or further work identified as part of its inspection. It should provide a schedule of work including timeframe for completion, if further work is required.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends the landlord contact the resident to discuss any other issues she is experiencing. The landlord may wish to do this prior to its inspection.