Brighter Places (202319862)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202319862

Brighter Places

27 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 a water leak, subsequent remedial repairs and damage to the carpet at the resident’s property.
We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. At the time of events another housing service provided the repairs service for the landlord. In this report we have referred to them as ‘the repairs service’. The landlord’s website shows that it has recently stopped working with the repairs service and began working with a new repairs contractor.
Records show that, after the resident’s neighbour reported a water leak from the roof on 17 July 2023, the landlord attended as an emergency repair the same day. At the end of July 2023, the resident sent an email to the repairs service. He said he had just found out about the leak following his return from holiday. He referred to arrangements that had been made for a surveyor from the repairs service to inspect his property on 1 August 2023.
On 8 August 2023, the resident complained to the landlord about its handling of the leak and resulting repairs. Amongst other things he said:
1. communication was poor and he did not know when work would be completed.
2. he wanted the landlord to complete internal repairs to his walls and sash window.
3. he wanted compensation for the damage caused to his property and the stress caused.
At the beginning of September 2023, the repairs service contacted the resident to check his availability for a contractor to attend on 7 September 2023. Subsequently the resident told it he was unable to take leave from work that day. He said the assessment of internal work would need to take place in October 2023 when he had time off work.
The repairs service provided a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 18 September 2023. It said:
1. replacement of the sash window needed to be authorised and arranged by the landlord.
2. it would complete a pre-inspection of the work required to plaster the walls in the week commencing 23 October 2023.
3. it would mould wash the bedroom and living room on 25 October 2023.
4. as the resident had not been available on 7 September 2023 it had been unable to assess compensation in respect of damaged items.
Following further correspondence with the resident, the landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process at the beginning of October 2023. In communication around this time, the resident said:
1. he was concerned about the lack of communication between the landlord and the repairs service.
2. there had been a “battle” with the repairs service as to what was being done to remedy issues with the sash window, despite the surveyor previously stated it needed to be replaced.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 October 2023. It said:
1. the resident had waited longer for repairs than it would expect.
2. there had been delays in accessing the roof due to issues with the scaffolding.
3. access to the roof was completed on 2 August 2023.
The landlord said it agreed that the communication it had sent about the sash window repair had not been clear. It said it had contacted the repairs service about the visit its surveyor had made to the resident’s home, and the recommendation that the sash window be replaced. It said it was “unfortunate” that the repairs service had not saved a record of this survey. It asked that the resident send it a photograph of the window.
The landlord noted that it had spoken with the resident about the damage to his carpet. It said that, although it would normally be appropriate for him to make a claim under his contents insurance, it had agreed to cover the costs of this. It awarded him £350. It set out that a repairs manager would attend on 25 October 2023 to outline the schedule of work and that a damp and mould surveyor would attend the same day to inspect areas of concerns.
Records show the repairs service attended the resident’s property at the end of October 2023 to complete a temporary window repair and plastering work. Following this, at the beginning of November 2023, the landlord agreed to increase its award to the resident to £550, plus £27 towards the cost of him running a dehumidifier.
The resident told us that the level of compensation the landlord had awarded him was satisfactory. e He also said that he was also satisfied with the internal repairs to the walls and the work since completed to replace the top of the sash window. However, he said he was still unclear about whether all external work identified had been completed. He said he also had concerns about an ongoing smell of damp in some rooms within his property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord has no repairs policy. However, on its website it sets out that:
1. it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. it will attend non-emergency repairs within 3 months.
The landlord’s compensation policy outlines that it may offer compensation for loss, damage, or inconvenience due to actions by it or its contractors. It says that loss or damages claims will be subject to investigation by insurers.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its aim to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days, and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days.

Handling of a water leak, and subsequent remedial repairs and damage to the carpet

In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord acknowledged that the length of time the resident had waited for repairs was longer than it would usually expect. It had attended the leak as an emergency on the day it was reported. However, it said in its stage 2 complaint response that issues with scaffolding resulted in it not being able to complete roof repairs until 2 August 2023. It told us that scaffolding initially arranged 27 July 2023 was delayed until 2 August 2023 due to parking issues. We acknowledge this delay may have been unavoidable, but there is no evidence the landlord or the repairs service communicated with the resident about what was happening to progress work. It would have been appropriate for it to do so to reassure him about what action was being taken to resolve the leak issue.
The landlord also noted in its stage 2 complaint response that there had been some challenges arranging a mutually convenient time for internal work to the resident’s property. Records show that the resident was unavailable for the proposed inspection of 7 September 2023. He requested this be undertaken at the end of October 2023 when he was next able to take leave from work. This was a delay that was beyond the control of the landlord. However, we have seen evidence of earlier poor management of the work. While records show the repairs service arranged for its surveyor to inspect the resident’s property on 1 August 2023, there is no record of this inspection or of any subsequent action by that surveyor to arrange the internal repairs.
The landlord did not dispute that this inspection took place, but it was unable to trace any record of the report from this inspection. The repairs service subsequently told the landlord that the report had not been saved to the case file. This was a record keeping failing, which the landlord acknowledged, and it would inevitably have delayed the progress of repairs.
The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that its communication about the sash window was not clear. We agree. It raised repairs in respect of the window on 31 July 2023. Following the inspection of 1 August 2023, the resident understood that the surveyor had recommended the window should be replaced. We have seen communication the resident had with the repairs service on 7 September 2023. The repairs service said that at this time that this would need to be referred to the landlord for action. The landlord’s internal records refer to communication between it and repairs service about the work needed to window. But there is no evidence the landlord or the repairs service appropriately communicated with the resident about any work that could be completed to the window in the interim.
It is apparent that this caused the resident frustration, which he expressed in his subsequent complaint. At this time, he said the communication around the next steps to be taken following the surveyor’s visit had been extremely poor. Even when responding to his complaint at stage 1, the repairs service provided no clarity about how his concern about the sash window could be addressed in the short-term. It said only that a sash window replacement would need to be authorised and arranged by the landlord. The repairs service subsequently took steps to arrange temporary repairs to the window. However, given the resident had reported how this window was causing internal water damage, it should reasonably have agreed and set out earlier its intention to consider temporary repairs.
Temporary repairs were eventually completed by the repairs service on 25 October 2023, which was when the resident was next able to take time off work. The landlord told us that subsequent work has been completed to replace part of the window, and the resident has confirmed that this work has resolved the issue. We acknowledge that it may have been appropriate for the repairs service to refer the matter of window replacement to the landlord. However, it should have clearly communicated this to the resident at the outset and explained what it would do to complete temporary repairs. That it did not do so was a failing. It could have avoided some of the frustration and concern the resident experienced trying to establish how it would address the window issue.
The landlord acknowledged in its stage 2 complaint response that it could improve how it communicated with the resident about the repair/replacement of the window. It said that it had now put in place a more formal handover process when repairs were more complex. That was a positive action. We have recommended that the landlord review whether it now has adequate processes in place with its new repairs contractor for communicating and progressing more complex repairs. This should include reviewing how it communicates and updates residents about such repairs.
Records we have seen detail plastering repairs to the resident’s internal wall at the end of October 2023. Subsequently, further work was completed to this wall after drying issues were identified by contractors in April 2024. The resident told us that work has since been completed to internal walls, and that he has not experienced further water ingress.
Following additional correspondence with the resident after its stage 2 complaint response the landlord agreed increased compensation of £550. It said that this was based on what the resident has told it about the cost of replacing carpets, wallpaper, and the challenges he had communicating with it about repairs.
The resident told us he was content with the level of compensation the landlord had paid him and that he was able to clean the carpet rather than replace it. We consider the level of compensation the landlord agreed to pay the resident was appropriate in the circumstances. It follows that we have made a finding of reasonable redress in respect of its handling of the leak, subsequent remedial repairs, and the damage to the carpet at the property.
We have noted, however, that the resident has expressed concerns that he has not been told of whether external wall issues have been full resolved. We have seen details of external rendering work completed on 7 September 2023. However, subsequently, in December 2023 the landlord’s surveyor identified further work was needed to the building. The landlord told us this external work was completed on 18 January 2024. However, given the resident’s concerns about the possibility of issues reoccurring, we have recommended that the landlord contact him to confirm the external work that has been completed since the leak of July 2023.
The resident also told us that he remains concerned about some fine cracks in the ceiling and above a curtain rail. We have recommended that the landlord contact the resident about this so it can appropriately advise him about whether this is a repair it would undertake.

Complaint handling

The landlord recorded internally that it received the resident’s initial complaint on 8 August 2023. It passed the complaint to the repairs service for response under stage 1 of the complaints process. Records show that the repairs service contacted the resident in August and early September 2023 to discuss his complaint. However, its eventual stage 1 complaint response was not sent to the resident until 18 September 2023. That was 3 weeks outside the landlord’s target response times set out in its complaints policy. While the repairs service was engaging with the resident during this time to agree a date to start internal work, it is unclear why it delayed responding to his complaint.
In line with the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (the Code), a complaint response should be provided when the answer to the complaint is known, not when the outstanding actions to address the issue are completed. In addition, the repairs service’s response did not acknowledge or apologise for the delay in its response. It should reasonably have done so. We have recommended that the landlord review whether it has sufficient processes in place, when passing complaints to other parties for response, to ensure that its target complaint response timescales are met.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 6 September 2023 stating that he wanted to escalate his complaint. In response, the landlord appropriately explained how he could escalate his complaint once he had received the stage 1 response. In subsequent communication it appropriately explained to him that it would now escalate his complaint. The landlord’s eventual stage 2 complaint response on 19 October 2023 was timely, addressed the points the resident had raised. The landlord also agreed an appropriate compensation award following further communication with the resident shortly after the stage 2 response.
We have found some failing in the repairs service’s delayed response to the resident’s initial complaint. As outlined earlier, we have also found that the repairs service could have done more to set out how it intended to address any temporary repairs needed to the resident’s window. However, with consideration to all the circumstances we have found that the award already made by the landlord appropriately recognises the frustration and concern the resident experienced as a result of these failing. We have therefore made a finding of reasonable redress.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Housing Ombudsman there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s:
1. handling of a water leak, and subsequent remedial repairs and damage to the carpet at the resident’s property.
2. complaint handling.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. pay the resident £577 previously awarded, if it has not done so already.
2. contact the resident to:
  1. confirm the external repair work it has completed since the leak in July 2023.
  2. discuss his concerns about cracks on the walls and ceiling and consider and advise on whether it is a repair it will undertake.
  3. discuss his concern about the smell of damp within some rooms, and the consider any appropriate action in respect of this.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. review whether it now has adequate processes in place with its new repairs contractor for communicating and progressing more complex repairs. This should include reviewing how it communicates and updates residents about such repairs.
2. review whether it has sufficient processes in place, when passing complaints to other parties for response, to ensure that its target complaint response timescales are met.
3. consider implementing a repairs policy.