Platform Housing Group Limited (202402819)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202402819

Platform Housing Group Limited

20 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 handling of repairs to the resident’s chimney, outhouse doors, and treatment of mould in the bathroom.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 3-bedroom house which the resident occupies with her partner, who has emphysema and COPD. The property can be accessed via the resident’s kitchen.
According to the repair logs, the landlord raised a works order in relation to a rotten wooden door on the resident’s outhouse in mid-May 2023. The following month it raised a job for a crumbling chimney stack. On 16 June 2023, the resident reported a “large amount” of mould in her bathroom.
In late January 2024, the resident complained that the repair to her chimney and outhouse were outstanding. She later added that the bathroom ceiling was still affected by mould because the contractor who had attended had not applied mould paint. The resident reported that the house was cold and unsecure.
In the stage 1 response, dated 1 March 2024, the landlord acknowledged failings in its handling of repairs. This included that:
1. A referral was made on 5 June 2023 to consider replacing the timber doors and window frames in the outhouse but this was not forwarded to the relevant team.
2. No action was taken in response to its roofing contractor’s report that the condition of the resident’s roof meant it could not erect scaffolding to complete the chimney repair.
3. A referral had been sent to the damp and mould team for it to complete the mould treatment.

The landlord apologised that the resident had “lost faith” in it, awarded £350 compensation, and confirmed that someone would be in contact within 10 working-days to schedule the outstanding repairs.

The resident escalated her complaint in late April 2024. She said she was unhappy there had been no communication about the repairs. She also said that 3 months had passed since she made a complaint and no repairs had been completed.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 3 July 2024, it said:
1. There was disagreement internally about which team was responsible for the outhouse repairs/replacement of doors. It had now decided that a repairs surveyor would inspect the property.
2. The chimney repairs were scheduled for 8 July 2024.
3. The roof replacement had been put on its planned programme for 2025/26.
4. It was sorry for the lack of communication from its contractors and advised it would consider learning from her feedback.
5. A further referral had been sent again to complete the mould treatment in the bathroom.
6. It was awarding compensation of £1150, comprised of:
  1. £500 for the time taken to complete repairs.
  2. £300 for distress and inconvenience caused.
  3. £200 for its failure to schedule works.
  4. £100 for lack of communication.
  5. £50 for the delayed complaint response.
After the complaint process ended, the landlord completed its inspection of the outhouse and the mould treatment within a few days of its final response. It identified possible structural causes of the mould problem and raised repairs to address these. The landlord also decided that it was responsible for replacing 1 door to the outhouse, but that the resident was liable for 2 others because she had previously installed these. It carried out repairs to part of the chimney but had to return to complete these using different scaffolding. This was completed in late-November 2024.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because she was unhappy that the landlord decided it was not responsible for replacing all outhouse doors. She was also dissatisfied with the time it took to complete the chimney repair. She advised us that the mould problem has not been completely resolved. The resident said she has been caused inconvenience in having to chase matters up and the mould poses a possible risk to her partners health. She is seeking for the landlord to replace the 2 outhouse doors, resolve the mould problem, and pay additional compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident told us that the mould problem is ongoing. She explained that this is despite the landlord having carried out repairs to address the possible causes. While connected, the more recent events were not part of the original complaint the resident referred to the Ombudsman. In the interest of fairness, this investigation only focuses on the events the resident complained about from May 2023 until July 2024. Where we go beyond this period, in this report, is to consider if the landlord completed actions it agreed to resolve the complaint. The resident can make a new complaint if she is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the more recent damp and mould repairs, or any other issues.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on complaints about repairs, published in March 2019, highlighted the need for “landlords [to] keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail.” This is so it can demonstrate that it has met its repair obligations. In practice, this means that a landlord should be able to evidence what repair issues were reported and when, what action it took and when, and whether any further works were required. In this case, the record’s the landlord provided did not include all this detail. While the gaps in the evidence made it more challenging for us to establish a timeline, it was not a barrier to us reaching an overall decision. We will highlight any gaps and, where appropriate, any other relevant evidence we have considered.

Repairs to outhouse, chimney, and treatment of mould

Landlords have a legal obligation to complete repairs they are responsible for within a reasonable timescale. They are also required to maintain a property to ensure it is in good condition. Equally, a resident is required, under their tenancy agreement, to report repairs and maintenance issues as soon as they arise.
According to the landlord’s complaint responses, the resident reported the problem with the outhouse on 9 May 2023. It also said she reported bricks had fallen from the chimney on 13 June 2023. While the record of the resident’s reports was not provided, records we have seen show instructions were raised for repairs on or around the same time as these date.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy at the time stated it would attend to emergencies within 24 hours. These are for issues where there may be a degree of risk posed to the tenant or building. It did not though specify a timeframe for its routine repairs. Best practice in the social housing sector, however, is for landlords to complete routine repairs in around a month but may take up to 3 months if more complex. Such repairs are defined in the landlord’s policy as issues that do not require a specialist and “that cannot reasonably wait for cyclical or planned/ programmed works”. Planned works are more usually complex, costly works and may be completed as part of a programme that is budgeted for, sometimes a year or more in advance. The landlord’s repair policy states that these are “agreed annually and informed by frequent stock condition surveys.”
The available records show that the landlord’s contractors inspected the outhouse on 5 June 2023. This was done with a month of the resident’s report, which was an appropriate timescale, as there is no indication that there were any potential risks. The chimney issue was attended to within 24 hours. It was appropriate to prioritise the inspection because the records indicate this was potentially dangerous.
In both cases, the contractors reported back to the landlord that larger works were needed. This should have triggered some action by the landlord, not least a referral to the asset team and possibly a stock condition survey, in-line with the repairs policy. However, no action on these reports was taken until the resident made a complaint on 26 January 2024. This was clearly a failing and a significant departure from its repair policy timescales. Additionally, the call logs show that the resident chased both repairs up 3 times. These were missed opportunities for the landlord to find out what had gone wrong and to take some decisive action.
Although the records indicate the landlord was not considering the contractor’s request, available records show that another contractor attended to the “Outhouse rotten door” on 21 July 2023. The notes indicate this was to complete a repair, but what this was is not documented. The contractor noted the resident asked for no work to go ahead as they wanted all the “timber work” replacing first. It was reasonable and, in-line with its obligations, to attend to any repairs. While true, there is no evidence that we have seen that the landlord communicated the reason for the appointment. It was also a further missed opportunity for the landlord to act on the earlier request to consider renewing all outhouse doors.
The resident reported mould was affecting her bathroom in mid-June 2023 using the landlord’s damp reporting form. According to the landlord’s damp, condensation, and mould policy it will respond “quickly” and proactively. It states that it aims to “[a]rrange for a condensation mould clean to be undertaken and refer the case to a surveyor who will aim to contact the customer within 5 working days.” This approach to dealing with damp and mould as a priority is in-line with the one the Ombudsman’s 2021 spotlight report on the issue recommended. We encourage landlords to take action to improve a resident’s living conditions, such as mould washes, while it is establishing the cause.
The available records show that the landlord completed a video inspection with the resident on 8 August 2023, around 35 working-days after the initial report. This inspection noted that the cause was likely to be due to condensation. Subsequently, the landlord raised an instruction for mould treatment on 14 September 2023 and this was confirmed as completed on 1 November 2023. It therefore took the landlord nearly 100 working days to treat the mould. This was unacceptable because it was not in-line with the damp policy, which indicates treatment would be prioritised. The landlord also accepted the resident’s account that its contractor had not completed the full treatment. This means it took even longer, which we will return to later in this report.
It was appropriate for the landlord to take accountability for delays in its handling of the repairs. Where service failure is identified, the landlord’s remedies and compensation policy stated that it aimed to take actions “to put things right and ensure [its] customers are treated fairly.” Remedies can include apologies, undertaking repairs, and paying compensation. This approach is in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) and guidance on remedies.
The landlord made some attempts to put things right by apologising for its failures, confirming that the repairs team would contact the resident within 10 working–days, and paying compensation. The amount it awarded at £350 was within the range the landlord’s policy states it will pay for low impact cases of a “short duration, [and] mild inconvenience”. However, this was not reflective of the 9-month delay and inconvenience caused up to that point. It was also unreasonable that the landlord was unable to confirm appointments for most of the repairs, given that the stage 1 timescale was extended to allow the landlord more time to investigate. The landlord therefore missed an opportunity to resolve the complaint at an earlier stage.
When the resident escalated her complaint on 29 April 2024, she reported that, other than a window contractor attending to quote for replacement doors in the outhouse, she had not heard anything more about the other repairs. The window contractor’s inspection report was not included in the available evidence. However, the fact that this went ahead is not disputed by either party. It is also not in dispute that the chimney and mould treatment works were still outstanding by this point.
In the stage 2 response from early July 2024, it acknowledged further delays and poor communication had occurred since its initial response. This was clearly appropriate because all 3 issues were outstanding, and the resident had to sometimes chase updates. It said it would seek to learn from the communication issues between its contractors and the resident. Again, this was reasonable as the Code expects landlords to take learning from complaints to improve its service.
The landlord also confirmed appointments for the chimney repair and the outhouse, which was reasonable. It was, however, unable to provide a date for when the mould treatment would be scheduled but would follow up with her. This was not compliant with the Code, which states any “remedy offer must clearly set out what will happen and by when”. While this was not in-line with the Code, as explained in more detail below, it did keep to this agreement. The mould treatment was completed on 11 July 2024. This was an unreasonable amount of time overall given the resident had reported the problem over a year before. However, it was positive that the landlord completed the painting within a relatively short time of its final response. This was appropriate given the considerable delays up to that point.
The landlord carried out some of the works to the back of the chimney on 8 July 2024. The resident then reported to it that there was still some damage to that had not been fixed. Based on records seen, the roofing contractor was unable to complete all the works because they could not access the front from the same scaffolding. The repair logs show these were completed at the end of November 2024. While this would clearly have caused further frustration to the resident, it is not clear that the landlord’s contractors would have known before starting the works that the whole chimney could not be accessed.
In the circumstances, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to communicate any changes to scheduled works as soon as possible. There is no evidence that it did so, which is a shortfall. It also took the landlord around 2 months longer than the best practice timescale for complex repairs. Again, we have seen no evidence that explains why it took as long as it did to complete the repairs. The further delay would have understandably caused the resident an additional impact, which we will return to.
The evidence shows that, following the surveyor inspection in July 2024, the landlord agreed to replace some of the doors in the outhouse. It also advised that the resident was responsible for replacing 2 of the doors because the inspection found that they had been fitted by her. This decision was understandably frustrating to the resident, given how long she had been waiting. We have seen that it is a condition of her tenancy agreement to repair and maintain any installations or improvements she has made. If the resident disputes that she installed the 2 doors, she may wish to raise this as a separate complaint with the landlord. We are unable to order the landlord to replace the 2 doors, as the resident has requested.
The landlord’s increased compensation award of £1150 was appropriate at the time to recognise the impact of the cumulative failings in its handling of the repairs. It was in-line with the awards the landlord’s remedies policy states it will pay for “high to severe” impacts where that has been “prolonged service failure(s)”. It was in the range that the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance recommends is paid where the impact on a resident is experienced over a long time, as was the case here. This also included a payment of £50 for complaint handling. This was a reasonable amount to account for the 20 working-day extension at both stages because the resident was informed of them and the revised timescales were met.
While the landlord took actions in response to the complaint to put right its failings that were reasonable, the evidence shows further delays to the chimney repair. Therefore, we find that it would be fair for the landlord to pay additional compensation, above the amount already paid.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of repairs to a chimney, outhouse doors, and treatment of mould in the bathroom.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is required to provide evidence to the Ombudsman showing it has:
1. Apologised in writing for the further delay and shortfalls in communication relating to the chimney repair.
2. Paid £100 compensation.

Recommendations

Some of the findings in this report are consistent with failings identified in an earlier investigation by us into the landlord. Some of the events in that case happened around a similar time to those the resident complained about. In the previous investigation the Ombudsman made a wider order for the landlord to review its repairs and record-keeping processes and procedures. This included looking at improvements around its communication with residents about repairs. As the landlord has complied with our order, no further ones have been made. It is though encouraged to consider any learning from this case to use in any ongoing work.
Based on the records seen, the resident made the landlord aware of her partners lung conditions after the complaints process ended in July 2024. The records it provided though did not refer to these. The landlord should consider updating its records to include the vulnerabilities in the household.