Accent Housing Limited (202203580)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203580

Accent Group Limited

27 June 2023

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 repairs, including the presence of mould and a drain replacement.

Background

2. The resident is the leaseholder of a ground floor flat. The landlord owns the freehold of the building. The leaseholder is represented by her daughter. For clarity, the leaseholder and her daughter will be referred to as ‘the resident’ throughout this report.
3. An issue with a drain to the rear of the property had been identified before the resident moved in during November 2021. An email to the resident from the estate agent on 4 November 2021 stated that the landlord planned to replace the drain, and that this would be completed within 15 days. Internal landlord emails on 16-17 November 2021 showed discussions about quotes for a new drain. The resident emailed the landlord on 28 January 2022 asking for confirmation of its position, as works had not been completed.
4. On 16 February 2022, the resident raised a repair request to the landlord as the drain had become blocked. On 18 February 2022, the landlord attended and attempted to unblock the drain.
5. On 24 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. She stated she had been told that the works on the drain were not yet planned due to the costs involved. The resident was unhappy that this had not been communicated to herself or other leaseholders. The resident informed the landlord that she was now experiencing black mould in her bedroom, near to drain in question. She requested a response that confirmed the current status of works and an expected timescale for completion. She also requested that the mould in the bedroom was inspected.
6. The landlord attended the property with a surveyor on 5 April 2022 and 6 May 2022 to inspect the mould in the resident’s flat. On both occasions, the landlord was satisfied that the mould was caused by condensation and was not linked to the drain.
7. The resident received multiple emails from the landlord during April 2022. It stated that due to costs of the drain exceeding £250 per leaseholder, it was legally obliged to formally consult leaseholders first before carrying out the repair. On 29 April 2022, the landlord told the resident it expected consultation paperwork to be issued to leaseholders the following week.
8. On 17 June 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It stated it was closing the part of the complaint related to mould, as it was satisfied that it was unrelated to the drain and therefore the resident’s responsibility to resolve as a leaseholder. With regards to the drain replacement, it confirmed that the consultation paperwork went out to all affected leaseholders on 1 June 2022, with next steps to be communicated after the deadline. It assured the resident that her complaint would remain open until the drainreplacement was completed.
9. On 17 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It explained that following multiple visits to assess the drainage issue, it had decided to install a certain type of drain as a longer-term solution. The landlord acknowledged that the consultation took longer than anticipated and apologised. It explained that the consultation process began in June 2021 and concluded on 7 July 2022. Following this, it had arranged for works to start on 18 July 2022. Upon attending, the contractor found the drain to be blocked, which delayed the installation. The landlord apologised for the time taken to resolve the issue and confirmed that contractors were now due to attend on 18 August 2022, with works to install the new drain to commence on 25 August 2022.
10. Works were subject to further delay. An issue with the mains power supply meant an essential camera survey could not be carried out as planned. Works were rearranged to the week commencing 19 September 2022, however it was then identified that an alternative remedy would be more successful at providing a long-term fix. These works were said to be able to be completed over the following two days.
11. On 10 November 2022, the resident complained again to the landlord about the progress and quality of works. She also continued to believe that the mould in her bedroom was directly related to the drain issue. The landlord acknowledged the new complaint the following day. On 17 November 2022, the resident informed the landlord that foul waste was rising from the manhole into the garden. Her kitchen sink and shower would not drain. A contractor attended the property the same day and it was identified that a different drain at the front of the property had suffered a blockage.
12. The landlord visited the property again on 9 December 2022. It issued a further stage one complaint response on 14 December 2022. It reiterated it did not believe the resident’s damp and mould was linked to the drain problem. It would continue to work with specialists to understand why the issue with the drainage persisted following the repair works. The landlord said the issue with the drain at the front of the property was a reoccurring issue and had been found to be caused by residents in the block flushing bulky items down the toilets.
13. The landlord issued a final response to the resident’s complaint on 6 January 2023. It was pleased that following an independent damp survey, the resident felt more able to accept the landlord’s conclusion about the cause of the mould. It confirmed the drain at the rear of the property was now working but it would re-visit at the end of April 2023 to re-level and plant more grass seed to the area. It apologised for the delays experienced. It pledged to provide regular 12-weekly maintenance to the drain at the front of the property to help mitigate any future blockage issues.
14. The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She was unhappy that the landlord considered her complaint closed upon the completion of the works. She felt the landlord had not been accountable for its incompetence in handling the matter and its lack of communication had been unacceptable. She had not received a response to emails she has sent the landlord since 21 April 2023 requesting an update on actions it promised in its final complaint response.

Assessment and findings

15. The lease agreement sets out the obligations and responsibilities of the landlord as the freeholder, and the leaseholder. The leaseholder is responsible for maintaining the repair of the internal of the property and any systems that serve that property exclusively. The landlord must keep in good repair any communal systems that do not exclusively serve the resident’s property.
16. The landlord’s responsive repairs and voids policy states that it aims to attend to repairs deemed an emergency within 4 hours to at least make them safe. Repairs not deemed an immediate threat to safety or possessions will be attended to within 28 days.
17. Upon receiving the resident’s complaint, the landlord responded by attending the property to assess the mould problem with a surveyor within two weeks. It attended a second time a month later, with the same conclusion reached following both visits. As a leaseholder, the resident would be responsible for resolving mould issues within her own property caused by condensation. The landlord acted reasonably by investigating the mould and it was within its rights to accept the conclusions of an appropriately qualified professional and this Service has not seen evidence to show the surveyors’ conclusions were incorrect and there was a different cause to the mould.
18. This Service is satisfied that the landlord attending the property for a second time within a matter of weeks demonstrated that the landlord acted thoroughly to identify the cause of the mould. The resident had an independent damp survey conducted towards the end of 2022, with the same conclusion being reached. The cause of the mould was assessed as unrelated to the drainage issue and therefore outside of the landlord’s remit to resolve.
19. It is regrettable that the planned works to the drain suffered delays. The evidence shows these delays were often caused by the landlord’s obligations to follow due process, or by events outside of the landlord’s control. Examples include the need to conduct a consultation with residents in line with service charge regulations and technical issues halting works from starting. The cause of the drainage issue was clearly complex, with a last-minute change to the remedy being considered and queries about the eventual remedy’s effectiveness. While these issues have no doubt been frustrating for the resident, it does not automatically mean that the landlord was at fault for the delays. The chronology of events shows a reasonable pace of progression for the repairs.
20. When assessing the landlord’s actions, the Ombudsman will consider the level of detriment caused to the resident by the delays in the works being completed. The resident acknowledges that the daily impact of the drain not having been replaced was minimal. She spent time believing that the delays were enabling a significant mould problem in her home, however qualified professionals said that was not the case from April 2022. The other detriment was having to engage with an issue that ideally should have been resolved very quickly at the start of the resident’s lease. This would have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident but the impact of the delays on the resident’s daily use of her home was not significant.
21. The landlord has provided a comprehensive file of evidence including internal communication about the issue. There was a constant progression throughout the months, there is no evidence of the work stalling or unexplained delays. There appears to have been a slight delay with issuing the consultation paperwork to the leaseholders. These types of exercise often carry an administrative burden which require time to complete. The delay was not extensive and there is no evidence of significant detriment caused to the resident or other leaseholders as a result of it. The landlord apologised for the delay, and that was an appropriate response to the issue.
22. There is disagreement between the resident and the landlord about the cause of the reoccurring blockages of the drain at the front of the property. The landlord says it has repair logs over a long time that state that sanitary items have been found to have been blocking the drain, having been flushed down the toilet by residents. The resident states that the landlord blaming residents for the drain blockages has resulted in some residents of the block feeling scared to flush toilet paper down the toilet. The Ombudsman notes the dispute concerning the cause of the blockage. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings of its operatives who had unblocked the drain and to act accordingly. The Ombudsman has not seen anything to suggest that the landlord took action against residents for putting bulky items down the toilet. Therefore, it appears the landlord’s response to this issue was proportionate. The landlord might want to consider taking photographs of any future blockages so it can provide evidence to residents if required.
23. The resident has made clear that while a substantial part of her complaint was about the delay in the landlord fixing the issues with the drain, she remained very unhappy about the landlord’s communication and the general level of service it offered. She would like to see accountability for this.
24. The evidence shows there are occasions where the resident clearly did not receive a timely response to her email communication. These occasions apparently continue to the present day. There were occasions where the landlord promised it would contact the resident with an update within a given timescale, and that did not happen. There may be a valid reason for this, including holidays, unexpected staff absence or competing priorities. However, the landlord should do what it can to honours promises it makes, and better manage resident expectations by providing updates if it is unable to meet expected timescales. The resident did sometimes have to reach out to the landlord for updates on why works had not been carried out as expected.
25. The landlord acknowledged internally that communication had been poor at times and an apology was warranted. It considered this may have been because too many people had been involved, and so it established a named contact responsible for communication with the resident. This Service agrees that an apology would be an appropriate remedy for these lapses as well as establishing a named contact in an effort to prevent similar errors in the future.
26. There were occasions where errors were made with jobs being raised when repairs were reported. In November 2022, an error to log a job properly resulted in a contractor attending later that afternoon rather than within an initial 4-hour window. In December 2022, the resident experienced sewage rising up through her shower and kitchen sink. While a contractor attended the following day and resolved the issue, there was a delay and confusion caused primarily by a failure of the call handler to correctly raise an emergency job. The Ombudsman recognises that the nature of this repair issue would have been particularly distressing for the resident and any delay, however small in this situation would have added to her distress. The landlord should do what it can to ensure incidents like this are minimised through adequate staff training and monitoring. Aside from this incident where there was a short delay, the landlord was raising works appropriately and the reports were being responded to within a reasonable timeframe.
27. This Service understands the resident has been frustrated over the multiple delays that prevented the works being immediately undertaken to resolve the drainage issue. Lapses in communication and errors in jobs being raised would no doubt add to these frustrations. The landlord encountered multiple challenges while trying to resolve the drainage issue, and it responded without undue delay to fulfil its repair obligations. It offered its apologies to the resident for the delays experienced, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, was a fair response under the circumstances.

Determination

28. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, including the presence of mould and a drain replacement.

Recommendations

29. The landlord should consider taking photographs of any future drain blockages so it can evidence its claims of the cause of the blockage.
30. The landlord is recommended to review its record keeping procedures around logging repair jobs to ensure repair jobs are raised correctly, reducing the risk of jobs being raised incorrectly as has happened in this case.