Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202331524)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202331524

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

24 February 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 the resident’s:
1. Reports about communal lighting.
2. Reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs.
3. Reports of a pest infestation.
4. Complaint.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant since 2017. She lives in a 2-bedroom, duplex flat. The landlord advised the resident has a number of mental health conditions. The resident told us she is deaf, sight impaired with glaucoma and cannot read or write emails.
The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 30 November 2023 asking it to address the resident’s complaints regarding leaks, damp and mould, and a mouse infestation. She complained that she had no capacity due to severe mental health. She complained of having:
1. Broken sockets in her living room, the fridge socket was broken and loose.
2. A broken television (TV) aerial socket.
3. A broken kitchen fan.
4. A leak from the roof into the kitchen.
5. Windows which let rain in.
6. A leaking kitchen sink.
7. Mice in the kitchen wall cavity.
We asked the landlord to respond, which it did on 18 December 2023. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint. It reviewed the formal logged contact it had with the resident. It said it could not see any records of leaks, redecoration, damp and mould since its contractor had completed works on 3 July 2023. It reviewed other repairs and found there was nothing outstanding. The landlord tried to telephone the resident to discuss further but had been unable to, it asked the resident to contact it. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day, and the following day.
We asked the landlord to provide a response to the resident. It did this via a follow-on response on 12 February 2024. In this it also did not uphold the complaint. In July 2024 we advised the landlord it should not produce a follow-on response and asked it to send out its final response letter. The landlord did this on 30 July 2024. The landlord held a panel to review its complaint response. The landlord said the resident had not replied to its invitation to appear at the panel, so it held it without her. The landlord partially upheld the complaint. It offered compensation totalling £150 and identified areas of learning to stop similar situations happening again. The findings were that it had not progressed the TV aerial repair, it offered the resident £50 for this and said it would ensure it checks each element of complaints. It also arranged for a post inspection and to carry out a property MOT on 20 August 2024. The landlord found it had not escalated the complaint, so it offered £100 for this.
The resident told this Service the landlord had not invited her to the panel meeting. She said it had refused to engage with her on the complaint as there was legal action taking place. She felt the landlord’s responses were a cover up and said it had completed no repairs, she had been injured when a wooden baton had hit her.
The resident was in communication with this Service throughout. She remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and asked us to investigate further. The resident raised further repair complaints with us, however we are unable to address these as the landlord has not formally responded.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. As the complaint about communal lighting was not raised as a formal complaint by the resident, we cannot investigate it at this time. We will not address the further and later complaints made by the resident as the landlord would not have had the opportunity to respond to these.

Scope of investigation

The scope of this investigation will start a year before we asked the landlord to investigate on 30 November 2023. This means the resident’s complaint of the roof leak into her kitchen will not be considered as part of this assessment.

Leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs

The landlord inspected the damp and mould in the property on 10 May 2023. From this visit it completed the following works on 3 July 2023:
1. Replastered and redecorated areas previously affected by damp.
2. Completed previously started plastering on stair wall and redecorated.
3. Removed a rotten access panel to stack boxing, mould washed behind it, and redecorated the new panel.
4. Mould washed and redecorated a corner of the front bedroom ceiling following water damage.
This Service has seen the resident did not want a specific contractor to complete the works. Understandably the landlord would have taken longer to organise an alternative. We are aware the resident contacted other agencies to ask for help progressing this issue which helped to resolve it. As such, we cannot say it was unreasonable for the matter to have taken 3 months to resolve.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that it will adopt a zero-tolerance approach. It will find the underlying cause of the mould and to monitor to ensure it does not reappear. While the landlord’s actions were positive, there has been no evidence provided to show any efforts to establish the root cause of the mould. We have not seen evidence it booked in a revisit to see if it had come back. In line with its policy, the landlord should have completed this following its visit in May 2023. The landlord did not act in line with its damp and mould policy.
Following our contact with the landlord on 30 November 2023, the resident emailed the landlord on 18 December 2023, to say she had leaks in her kitchen and had to use a bowl under the sink to collect water daily. This was at the same time as the landlord’s stage 1 response. There is no evidence the resident reported this before this date.
In response to the resident’s complaint on 19 December 2023 about the broken electrical sockets in the kitchen, sitting room and the broken kitchen fan, the landlord made an appointment to complete its 5-year electrical safety test. We have seen evidence it raised this the same day, noting the elements the resident wished it to address. The landlord’s next recorded action was to chase the job internally on 29 January 2024. The landlord reported subsequent attempts to attend the resident’s property, completing the inspection on 16 April 2024. The landlord did not supply the Ombudsman with the report from this visit. However, it noted it completed ‘remedials’. Aside the landlord’s complaint responses this Service has not seen evidence it completed the sockets and kitchen fan. However, reasonably we understand the property would not have passed the safety test unless the electrics were safe. The landlord took approximately 1.5 months from raising the job to chasing what was happening with it. It then completed the job 2.5 months after this. While we recognise the difficulties the landlord had in arranging an appointment, this was an extended period given the safety concerns.
On 19 December 2023, the resident reported:
1. Loose sockets
2. A hole in the wall in the cupboard
3. A broken cupboard latch
4. Broken tiles.
The resident reported that a baton had fallen off the kitchen wall in January 2024. She said that the fan was broken. The landlord raised some repairs on 29 January 2024. On 29 January 2024, the landlord booked works for it to be completed for 31 January 2024.
In the landlord’s final response letter dated 30 July 2024, it reviewed its repair log. It stated it had completed all repairs, aside the TV aerial point which remained outstanding. It had offered to complete a healthy homes assessment on 16 February 2024 which was in line with its damp and mould policy.
On 20 August 2024, the landlord visited the resident to complete the property MOT in line with its final resolution letter. It also agreed to conduct a healthy homes assessment and to complete a post inspection of the repairs it had carried out. Following this visit the landlord agreed to:
1. Renew the kitchen sink and the worktop.
2. Box in the boiler.
3. Cap exposed trunking.
4. Corner base unit and drawer.
5. Renew the electric box door renew.
6. Inspect for leaks in the boxing of the WC stack.
7. Renew WC flooring.
8. Refix loose bedroom radiator.
9. Paint balcony floor.
This Service has not seen any evidence of the healthy homes assessment or that the landlord post inspected the repairs it had carried out. This would have provided crucial understanding of the status of these repairs and whether there was any necessary follow up.
Aside the landlord’s complaint response when it said it had no outstanding repairs. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of a response to the resident’s concerns about her windows letting rain in, the strength of the wall, the wooden baton, kitchen fan, the cupboard handles, and shelves. An order of this report is that the landlord should visit to establish a clear action plan of the works it will and will not do.
The Ombudsman recognises the landlord reports some challenging interactions with the resident for example that she declined to provide access and emailing the complaints inbox to report repairs. However, the landlord has a duty to ensure it reads and responds to each interaction.
In summary, the landlord did not provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it had completed or raised all the repairs. It took an unreasonable amount of time to resolve the electrical testing. It did not fully adhere to its damp and mould policy, or the commitments made in the final resolution. This failure adversely affected the resident. The landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings. We have noted some mitigation in that there have been communication challenges. However, the Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs of repairs.

Pest infestation

In the landlord’s stage 1 and final resolution letter it noted the resident complained about the mice infestation. However, it did not review any previous contacts regarding pests. It asked the resident to contact it directly. The landlord has a service level agreement with the local authority to provide residents with a free pest control service. The landlord’s policy directs residents to approach the local authority directly with issues. Therefore, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to advise, as it did in its follow-on response, to approach the local authority.
In the landlord’s follow-on response, it said it could not find that the resident had raised a pest issue prior to us notifying it on 29 January 2024, aside a much older case. This was not correct as it was aware of the mice in the kitchen wall cavity from the stage 1 response dated 18 December 2023. In addition, the landlord did not refer to a previous email from the resident from 28 February 2023 reporting rats running under her balcony. The landlord provided us with evidence of this email. Therefore, the landlord did not accurately assess its response to the resident’s history of reporting pests.
Following the resident’s contact on 28 February 2023, the landlord asked her if she had informed the local authority about this. We have not seen evidence the resident responded. The landlord did not give the resident the contact details for the local authority or an explanation as to why this was necessary. It also did not make it clear it would not be pursuing this matter further. While we recognise the resident should have responded to the landlord’s question, it would have been clearer to initially ask her to report this to the local authority and the reasons why.
As part of the evidence for this investigation, the landlord requested information from the local authority as to whether it had received any reports from the resident’s flat in the last year. It said it had not, indicating the resident did not report any pest infestation to the local authority.
This Service recognises the tenancy agreement places the responsibility of pest control on to the resident, including the cost of doing so. However, the landlord has a service level agreement in place, allowing residents to benefit from free pest control. We acknowledge the resident should contact the local authority with pest control concerns. However, we have not seen evidence the landlord explained this to the resident in a timely manner. It was only in the landlord’s follow up response dated 12 February 2024 that it informed the resident. Therefore, we find there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a pest infestation. We will make a compensation award in line with our remedies guidance.

Complaint handling

The resident complained to us that she was not invited to the review panel hearing. The landlord provided evidence it sent the resident emails dated 4 and 17 July 2024 inviting her to the panel hearing. Reasonably we cannot see that the resident was not invited.
The resident complained that the landlord had sent her a letter dated 21 February 2024. This said it would not deal with her complaint as it had issued possession proceedings against her. We have seen a copy of this letter. After our intervention the landlord confirmed this concerned a different complaint. The letter contained nothing to indicate this. The landlord should include something to identify which complaint it refers to. This was likely to have led to anxiety on the resident’s behalf and the landlord could have easily avoided this.
From the evidence the landlord provided us, it shows the resident mainly emailed the landlord through its complaint inbox. This was regardless of whether it is a service request or advising that she cannot make an appointment. These emails would be better directed to the specific department the resident wishes to contact. Especially on one occasion when the resident emailed the complaints team regarding an emergency out of hours leak.
A number of the resident’s complaint points are service requests. We recognise we contacted the landlord asking it to deal with the complaint, however in our letter we stated the landlord should assess if it would accept the issues as a formal complaint and if not, to explain why. It appears from the landlord’s stage 1 response it believes some of the repairs would be more appropriate dealt with as a service request. It should have been explicit and clear about this.
The landlord offered £100 in compensation for its failings in the final response letter. This level of compensation is in line with our remedies guidance for a finding of service failure. Therefore, we find there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 and 53 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs.
2. Service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of pest infestation.
3. Reasonable redress in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this decision:
1. issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. pay the resident compensation totalling £600.00. This is broken down into:
  1. £150 compensation award previously made, if not already paid.
  2. £400 for the maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould, and associated repairs.
  3. £50 for the service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a pest infestation.
3. visit the resident’s property to assess whether there are repairs outstanding. It must provide the resident and us with a clear action plan of the works it will and will not do. The resident is to have at least a weeks’ notice of this visit so she can prepare and raise outstanding repairs. If the resident does not permit access on two occasions the landlord will need to document this, and this order point can be dispensed with.
4. provide the resident with the correct emails for her to use to in different situations for example, to raise a repair.
5. provide documentary evidence of compliance with these orders.