Places for People Group Limited (202324737)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324737

Places for People Group Limited

20 June 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 damp and mould.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident lives in the property with her 3 children and her husband, who has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). 
3. The landlord’s repair records show the resident reported damp and mould in the bathroom and bedrooms on 12 December 2022. It then completed a damp and mould survey on 23 March 2023, and raised numerous work orders to complete the recommended repairs.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 22 June 2023 as the damp and mould had not been resolved and she did not think the property was fit for purpose. She had to chase several times before the landlord arranged the survey and she had not received a copy of the report. The landlord had sent multiple texts confirming different appointments and she asked it to complete multiple jobs on the same day to limit the time off work she needed to take. She also said the landlord had failed to attend several scheduled appointments. She wanted an update on the windows and it to inspect the bathroom.
5. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 28 July 2023. It recognised the delay in completing the survey. It said its records showed it had attended all the appointments except 1, and it apologised for the delay in completing the work. It would complete a further damp survey as it was evident the repairs had not been successful. It said it was unclear of the contractor’s findings in relation to the windows so it would reattend to assess the necessary work. It offered £150 compensation for the length of time to resolve the damp and mould, £100 for its poor communication, and £50 for its delayed complaint response.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 3 August 2023 as she disputed the outcome of the stage 1 response. She said it had only completed work to the extractor fan and 1 window, and an external company had inspected the windows. She did not think the compensation was sufficient for the time taken pursuing the issue and the missed appointments. 
7. The landlord sent its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023. It recognised that most works were outstanding, and it provided a list of the repairs. The window contractor had identified additional works and would contact her to arrange the appointments in early October. It apologised for the inaccuracy in its initial response. It offered an additional £300 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
8. The resident referred her complaint to the Service as she experienced further issues since the completion of the complaint process. She said works on the shower rail and porch decoration remained outstanding, there was still mould on the bedroom ceiling, and it had not suitably completed the rendering repairs.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident told the Service that following the completion of the complaint process, a further surveyor determined the bathroom needed replacing. She said she was without washing facilities for 9 days in January 2024 and 5 days in March 2024. While it is recognised that the matter caused significant inconvenience to the resident, the works were not identified at the time of the final response, so the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to the resident’s concerns.
10. In the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. This is in line with paragraph 42a which states that we may not consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. Any new issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint can be addressed directly with the landlord and progressed as a new formal complaint if required.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould

11. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states when it receives a report of damp and mould it will attend to remove the immediate risk, investigate the root cause, and complete any remedial work. It will reinspect after 6 weeks to confirm the issue is resolved. Its repairs policy states it will complete appointable repairs within 28 days.
12. In this case, the landlord recognised in its complaint responses that there were delays in completing the survey and required works. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
13. The resident reported damp and mould on 12 December 2022 and the landlord completed the survey on 23 March 2023. The landlord originally scheduled the appointment for 20 February 2023; however, it cancelled it on 25 January 2023 and passed the job to its new damp and mould team. The landlord should ensure that any internal changes to the structure of its repair department does not have a detrimental impact on its residents. This change resulted in the landlord exceeding its repair response time by 73 days, which was an unreasonable delay. The resident also had to chase for the survey several times, causing her additional time and effort.
14. The survey identified:
    1. There was black mould in the 3 bedrooms and on the bathroom ceiling.
    2. There was black mould on the internal walls in the porch and it was likely there was no cavity insulation.
    3. The bathroom extractor fan required replacement. 
    4. The internal wall adjacent to the shower was saturated and had a strong smell of mould. The tiled area was inadequate in the bathroom and there was no shower curtain.
    5. The render and insulation on the external bathroom wall were bridging the damp proof course.
    6. The eaves vents in the loft were blocked with mineral wool fibre insulation and the lack of ventilation caused damp and mould in the bedrooms.
    7. The loft insulation was inadequate.
    8. Most of the windows did not have trickle vents and there was failed glazing in the window at the top of the hall stairs.
15. The landlord promptly raised the identified works on 29 March 2023. However, it did not group any of the repairs, which meant there were numerous appointments. The resident stated in her complaint that the landlord had sent multiple texts informing her of approximately 20 repairs for different dates. Although the resident is required to provide access for repairs, the landlord should take reasonable steps to limit the number of appointments to reduce the inconvenience. The repair records also show the landlord cancelled and rescheduled numerous appointments as it referred several jobs to the subcontractor. Given the volume of appointments, this would understandably cause confusion and further inconvenience to the resident. 
16. The landlord completed appointments on 12 April 2023 for the loft insulation, 19 April 2024 for the vent roof tile unit, and 28 April 2024 for the trickle vents. However, further work was required on each occasion, so the repairs were not completed in full.
17. The repair records show no access appointments for the shower curtain on 21 April 2023, the loft insulation on 9 May 2023, and the mould wash on 26 April 2023 and 3 May 2023. It also had to reschedule some appointments at the resident’s request. It is somewhat understandable that due to the volume of appointments the resident may have had difficulty keeping track to provide access, but ultimately the landlord would not be responsible for such delays. Nonetheless, the landlord should have sought to promptly reschedule the repairs and ensure the resident was aware of the appointments.
18. It is of concern that the landlord did not schedule many of the repairs, including the windows, render, lobby, and thermal boarding, until July and August 2023. Given the delays in arranging the survey, it should have attempted to prioritise the repairs and ensured it complied with its 28-day repair timeframe. If there were appropriate reasons it was unable to adhere to its timeframe, such as other repairs requiring completion first before works could proceed, specialist contractors required, or supply issues, it should have told the resident. However, there is no evidence that the landlord did, so it failed to manage her expectations.
19. It subsequently cancelled the appointments and referred the repairs to its subcontractor in a bundle. This may have been reasonable if it was more cost effective or resulted in fewer appointment dates, reducing the impact on the resident. However, it is clear it failed to monitor the works to completion as the resident raised a complaint on 22 June 2023 as the damp and mould was unresolved.
20. It is also concerning that the landlord failed to identify the repairs were outstanding in its stage 1 response. It should have sufficient repair records to identify the status of repairs to ensure that it can identify when further works are required to prevent the resident from chasing the works.
21. The landlord recognised in its stage 2 response on 14 September 2023 that other than the sealant in 1 bedroom and the bathroom extractor, the necessary works had not been completed. As such, the works were outstanding over 5 months after the survey, and 9 months after the resident’s initial report, which was an excessive delay. This caused a prolonged impact on the resident’s living conditions.
22. As the repairs were not completed at the time of the final response, the investigation will consider the subsequent events to assess how the landlord put in place a full and lasting repair to the damp and mould, and whether any additional failings occurred. The resident told the Service on 18 October 2023 that the landlord had not updated her on the works following the complaint response. This was unreasonable and it should have provided regular updates regarding the appointments and expected completion dates.
23. The repair records state that the landlord replaced the old windows on 30 October 2023, repointed the window frame on 29 November 2023, and completed works to the roof insulation and the vent roof tile on 2 January 2024. It also raised a work order on 11 January 2024, following a further damp and mould survey on 22 December 2023, but it is not entirely clear what the works were for. Nonetheless, it is evident the landlord failed to promptly complete the necessary repairs to resolve the damp and mould following the complaint response, causing a prolonged impact on the resident.
24. The landlord told the Service on 28 May 2024 that it had completed all repairs, other than the shower curtain as it had been unable to gain access to the property. On the contrary, the resident told the Service on 13 June 2024 that works to the rendering and shower rail had not been completed and there was mould on the bedroom and bathroom ceiling. She also said that following thermal lining the porch, the landlord had not reinstated the radiator, there was a hole in the ceiling, it had not completed the decoration, and it damaged the carpet.
25. When there is a disagreement in the accounts regarding the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how the repair work has been completed to a satisfactory standard. In this case, in line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord should have reinspected after 6 weeks to confirm it had resolved the issue. As there is no evidence it did, there is insufficient evidence to confirm whether it completed the repairs to a suitable standard.
26. In view of the evidence, there were extensive delays of over a year in completing the necessary repairs to address the damp and mould in the property, following the resident’s initial report. The landlord has not provided sufficient evidence to confirm all the agreed works have been completed in full or to a suitable standard and it is of concern that the resident reports there is still damp and mould in the property. It also did not demonstrate that it considered the resident’s husband’s health conditions in its management of the repairs.
27. The resident advised the Service that she has not further pursued the outstanding repairs as she is exhausted with the process. This is understandable particularly as she had to chase the work on several occasions. The landlords failing to take accountability for the repairs has therefore had a detrimental impact on the landlord-tenant relationship.
28. The landlord offered £250 compensation in its stage 1 response for the delays and its poor communication, and a further £300 in its stage 2 for the inconvenience caused. Given the extensive delays, the compensation was not proportionate to the level of failing and impact on the resident. In accordance with the Service’s remedies guidance, £600 additional compensation is warranted as although the landlord acknowledged some failings and attempted the put things right, the compensation offered was not proportionate to the failings identified in the investigation. This is due to further failings identified following the final response. An order has also been made for the landlord to address the resident’s outstanding repair concerns.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

30. In addition to the £550 compensation already offered, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a further £600. It should provide the Service with evidence of the payment within 4 weeks of the date of the report.
31. Within 6 weeks, the landlord must:
    1. Complete a further inspection of the property and complete the recommended works to resolve the damp and mould issues in the property.
    2. Address the resident’s concerns that works in the porch, rendering, shower rail, and mould on the ceilings remain outstanding.
    3. Provide the resident and the Service with a copy of a post-inspection report to confirm it has completed the works to an appropriate standard.
32. The landlord must provide evidence to the Service that it has complied with the orders within the relevant timeframes. 

Recommendations

33. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its repairs record keeping practices to ensure it is able to correctly identify the status of repairs.