Broadacres Housing Association Limited (202207664)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207664

Broadacres Housing Association Limited

28 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including a leaking stop tap, damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the bathroom to be replaced.

Background

The property is a 3-bedroom house and the resident has an assured tenancy which started on 29 January 2007.
The landlord’s records showed that the resident had mobility issues.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the landlord is required to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises…[including]…drains, gutters and outside pipes…inside walls, floors and ceilings…basins, sinks, baths and toilets”.
The resident is required under the terms of the agreement to allow the landlord’s staff, contractors or its agents access at all reasonable times to inspect the property or carry out repairs.

Summary of events

The landlord’s records show that it carried out a condition survey on 12 October 2021 and confirmed that the bathroom was due for replacement in 2030.
On 7 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to report damp on the floorboards and skirting boards, possibly from a leaking stop tap in the bathroom. The landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on 11 March 2022 and booked an appointment for an inspection on 15 March 2022. However, the resident phoned the landlord on 15 March 2022 and explained that she had missed the appointment. The surveyor rebooked the appointment to attend on 17 March 2022.
On 18 March 2022, the landlord raised an order to repair the leaking stop tap affecting the bathroom. The landlord’s records show that a plumber attended on 24 March 2022 and carried out repairs.
On 24 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to request a new bathroom following the leak to the stop tap. She reported that the leak had caused plaster to come away from the walls and caused damage to the skirting boards.
The resident and her MP contacted the landlord on 28 March 2022 and reported dampness, damaged kitchen taps and sink and evidence of mice/rats. The landlord responded by raising an order for one of its surveyors to attend the property to investigate.
The landlord raised an order on 28 March 2022 to investigate bare wires on the heating thermostat. The landlord’s records show that its contractor completed repairs on 29 March 2022.
On 4 April 2022, the resident phoned the landlord and reported seeing rats in the garden and mouse droppings in the property. The landlord raised an order on the same day (4 April 2022) for the council’s pest control team to carry out any required work to eradicate the reported mice/rats. The council’s pest control team advised that it had laid bait and followed the matter up until there was no evidence of rodent activity but that she should tidy the garden as a preventative measure. The date the council attended is unclear from the information seen.
The landlord raised an order on 4 April 2022 to repair a leaking waste pipe under the kitchen sink. (The landlord’s repairs log shows the job was completed on 11 April 2022).
On 6 April 2022, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property and produced a schedule of works following the leak from the stop tap. The landlord raised an order on 7 April 2022 for structural works to be carried out to the hallway, bathroom and kitchen following the leak.
The landlords records show that it contacted the resident on 19 April 2022 to book in the structural/damp works but did not get an answer on the resident’s landline. It therefore sent a text message to the resident advising her of appointment dates for 25 April and 3, 4, 5, 6 and 13 May 2022 to carry out structural and joinery work. The message stated that the appointments could be moved if they were unsuitable for the resident.
The landlord raised an order on 20 April 2022 for a specialist (external) contractor to treat mould in the property.
On 25 April 2022, the landlord attended the property to review the specification prior to starting the work, which was due to start on 3 May 2022.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 May 2022 with appointment dates for the kitchen works. It stated that it would carry out the kitchen repairs while the specification of works for the rest of the property was being reviewed. The landlord’s record’s stated that the resident refused access for it to commence the works to the kitchen on 3 May 2022 as she had requested a new bathroom and had been advised that it was not due for renewal for another 11 years.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2022 to make a complaint because:
1. She had requested a new bathroom and had not received a response. However, she was subsequently told that the bathroom was not due to be renewed for 11 years.
2. The resident stated that the bathroom was in poor condition and therefore could not understand the logic in repairing the bathroom and hallway walls to remedy the damp and not renewing the complete bathroom.
3. She stated that the bathroom had been the source of leaks for years and this had caused the problems.
4. The resident stated that she was happy for the landlord to replaster the wall between the stairs and the living room.
5. The resident added that she was also complaining because of the lack of communication from the landlord’s technical team.
On 5 May 2022, the landlord raised an order to reapply silicone sealant around the bath and to inspect the sealant around the ground floor windows as the resident had reported mould around the windows. (The landlord’s repairs log shows that the inspection was carried out on 13 May 2022).
The landlord’s records state that its kitchen supplier attended the property on 12 May 2022 to deliver the materials to repair the kitchen, however, the resident did not provide access, despite previously having been advised of the appointment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 17 May 2022 to request an update regarding the works. She confirmed that the bathroom leak had been resolved but the resulting damp still needed to be sorted out.
The landlord attempted to contact the resident on 17 May 2022 on her mobile phone and landline to discuss a further inspection.
The landlord sent its stage one reply on 17 May 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had double-checked the specification of work and considered it to be correct.
2. The landlord did not believe that a new bathroom and tiling were required as the leaks had been caused by a leaking stop tap which was not connected with the bathroom.
3. The landlord suggested that as the resident was unhappy with its decision, it would arrange for a different surveyor to inspect the property to provide a second opinion.
4. In response to the resident stating that communication had been poor, the landlord said it had reviewed its records and found multiple attempts to contact the resident by phone and email since she reported the issue on 28 March 2022. The landlord said it had contacted the resident on 6, 19, 22 and 25 April 2022 and on 3 May 2022. Home visits had been carried out on 6 and 25 April 2022.
5. The landlord requested the resident to make contact to arrange the second inspection.
On 18 May 2022, the landlord attempted to contact the resident by phone and it visited the property, however, it was unable to establish contact and therefore it left a card at the property.
Following contact from the resident on 24 May 2022 regarding a leaking stop tap in the bathroom, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 30 May 2022 and reviewed the specification. He added some work to it and produced a report which stated:
1. The property was in a poor state due to overcrowding and some damage caused by the resident.
2. The tree would need to be removed from the garden to ensure its roots would not cause future damage to the property. A CCTV drainage survey could then be undertaken.
3. The resident confirmed that the landlord’s contractor had carried out mould treatment but the resident did not allow access upstairs for the surveyor to check the work.
4. The bath had been installed by the resident but one of the legs was not sitting correctly on the floor, which was allowing the bath to move and the silicone sealant to be disturbed.
The landlord raised an order on 30 May 2022 to repair a leaking radiator valve in the kitchen. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the repair was carried out on 1 June 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 June 2022 and stated that she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one reply because:
1. The bathroom stop tap had previously leaked on various occasions and in her view had damaged the living room flooring.
2. The resident stated that the previous work to the guttering and downpipes had not been done correctly, which she said had caused dampness in the 2 bedrooms and in the loft. She added that her belongings in the loft had been damaged by mould.
3. The resident mentioned that her children had health issues which were not helped by the dampness.
4. The heating control dial had been hanging off the wall for 10 days and was not reported even though one of the landlord’s staff had been made aware (it was raised as an emergency when she reported it 10 days later).
5. She stated that there was “blackness” around the top of the house because the gutters were blocked and there was dampness under the stairs due to the leaking stop tap.
6. She stated the living room floor had been ruined and the skirting boards had become warped due to dampness.
7. The resident outlined problems she had experienced with the external stop tap. She had contacted both the water company and the landlord to repair the stop tap.
8. The resident stated that she had lived with the dampness and draughts for 20 years and was requesting compensation. She also requested the landlord to renew the bathroom and to clean the top of the house as she said it looked “scruffy”.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that from 1 to 10 June 2022 it was waiting for the water company to replace the external stop tap to enable the structural works to be carried out.
On 13 June 2022, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the water company attended the property on different occasions between 13 and 20 June 2022 but were unable to obtain access. The landlord’s notes stated that the landlord had been unable to deal with a leaking stop tap in the bathroom because it was unable to turn off the water supply until the water company had replaced the outside water supply tap, which was broken.
On 16 June 2022, the landlord contacted the water company regarding the external stop tap. The company advised that they had visited on 15 June 2022 but were unable to access the property.
On 17 June 2022, the landlord’s contractor carried out joinery works to the kitchen, which were part of the structural works that had been specified by the surveyor.
The resident phoned the landlord on 20 June 2022 and asked for a reinspection of the bathroom as she had found damp and mould on the walls now that she had stripped the wallpaper.
The landlord emailed the resident on 21 June 2022 and provided her with the contact details for the water company.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 4 July 2022 and established that the stop tap in the bathroom was still leaking. He added works to the original specification, including work to address the damp and mould identified by the resident after stripping the wallpaper.
The landlord raised an order on 4 July 2022 to remove the old silicone from around the front door and reseal around the whole frame. (The landlord’s repairs log shows that the work was carried out on 15 July 2022).
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply and covering email on 8 July 2022 in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed it had visited the resident’s property on 6 July 2022 and seen the leaking stop tap first hand.
2. The landlord’s surveyor had produced a detailed specification of works based on his inspection. However, the landlord confirmed that if it identified additional damp proof works while on site, these would be completed at the same time.
3. The landlord said it had asked its technical team to inspect all the downstairs flooring to ensure that any damp was found and resolved.
4. The landlord suggested that its housing support team meet with the resident to discuss how the disruption could be minimised to the resident and her young children during the works. The landlord confirmed that the work would take several days to complete. It requested the resident to confirm her agreement for its housing support team to work with her.
5. The landlord stated that the water utility company would need to replace the external water supply tap so the landlord could shut off the water during the work. The landlord said it understood the water company had previously visited but the resident had not been home.
6. The landlord said as a gesture of goodwill it would replace the flooring in the bathroom and complete the tiling around the fixtures in the bathroom.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 July 2022 to report there were maggots under the kitchen cupboard and that the quality of work carried out to the kitchen had been poor.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

The landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022 to check she agreed with its proposal to assign a Housing support officer to help support the resident through the works.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 to raise a complaint about the kitchen. In response, the landlord raised a recall job for the contractor to overhaul the kitchen sink as the resident had reported it was leaking. The landlord completed the additional work to the kitchen on 24 August 2022.
The landlord’s records show that one of the landlord’s managers visited the resident at her home on 26 July 2022. The resident advised the landlord that she had not yet contacted the water company to arrange for the stop tap to be replaced. The landlord reminded her that the works could not begin until the stop tap had been replaced. The landlord agreed to assist her by contacting the water company on her behalf. The landlord also discussed the option of the resident vacating the property while works were underway, however, the resident said she preferred to remain in the property during the works.
The council’s pest control team advised the landlord on 28 July 2022 that in response to the landlord’s referral about rodents, it had laid bait and followed the matter up until there was no evidence of rodent activity. The council advised the landlord that the resident should tidy the garden as a preventative measure and also mentioned there may have been a hole in the outside wall that needed sealing up.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 August 2022 and stated that her children had been sick and had skin allergies as a result of the dampness. She also stated that she had experienced depression as a result of the property condition.
The resident notified the landlord on 11 August 2022 that the water company had attended and repaired the stop tap. The landlord raised an order to repair the internal stop tap on the same day and completed the repair on the same day.
The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 11 August 2022 and produced a specification of works to the kitchen.
Following further advice from the council’s pest control team, the landlord raised an order to block a small external hole, which may have been an issue and completed the job on 24 August 2022.
The structural damp works began on 28 September 2022 and were completed on 5 October 2022.
On 3 November 2022, the landlord and the resident signed to say that as a goodwill gesture it would replace the tiles in her bathroom to the specification of her choice.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that on 28 November 2022 it removed the tree from the garden, which its surveyor had previously stated could cause a problem in the future.
On 17 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property and identified that mould was present. The landlord therefore arranged for a specialist dampness contractor to carry out an inspection on 27 February 2023. The contractor confirmed that there was mould present in 2 bedrooms and the living room caused by condensation. The mould treatment was completed by the specialist contractor on 2 June 2023 .
From December 2022 to July 2023 the resident reported on different occasions that the stop tap in the bathroom was again leaking. The landlord attended each time and carried out repairs. The landlord’s surveyor also attended at different times to check for leaks and dampness in the bathroom. Various works were carried out by the landlord, including replacing the pipe boxing in the bathroom, clearing the wall cavities, replacing laminate flooring in the living room and hallway, renewing the bath panel and resealing around the bath.
The resident wrote to this Service on 21 August 2023 and reported that she was waiting for the landlord to replace a waste pipe in the manhole outside her kitchen door. The resident stated that toilet waste was accumulating in the manhole and this was creating unpleasant smells and attracting flies.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint that she had experienced dampness in the property for 20 years. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 2022 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2022 is made in this report to provide context.
The resident also stated in her stage 2 complaint that her children’s health had been affected by dampness and on 5 August 2022 she advised the landlord that she had suffered depression. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health and that of her children, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.
The Ombudsman has received information showing events that took place in relation to the property after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 8 July 2022. For example, the resident wrote to this Service on 21 August 2023 and reported a defective waste pipe inside a manhole situated immediately outside her property. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable to only investigate matters up to the date of the final response. Information following the landlord’s final complaint response has, however, been included in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including a leaking stop tap, damp and mould

The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that there are 3 priority timescales for carrying out responsive repairs: emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours, urgent repairs are completed within 5 working days and routine repairs are completed within 15 working days. It states that pre-inspections by a property surveyor may be required for more complex works or, for example, where the nature of the repair is unclear.
The policy adds that surveyors should consider whether jobs can be grouped to obtain efficiencies and can be undertaken as planned works. Some of the examples quoted are new kitchen units, external works such as fences, and cleaning out or replacing gutters and rainwater pipes.
The policy also states that if the same repair is reported within 28 days of the repair being carried out, the landlord will offer to re–attend by the end of the next working day from the point at which the repair is reported. The policy describes these as ‘repair recalls’.
This assessment initially considers the landlord’s handling of the reported leak to the stop tap and the associated dampness affecting the bathroom and other areas in the property.
On 7 March 2022, the resident reported damp on the floorboards and skirting boards and she stated that this was possibly from a leaking stop tap in the bathroom. The landlord’s surveyor contacted the resident on 11 March 2022 and booked an appointment to attend on 15 March 2022. As the resident had reported damp, it was reasonable that a surveyor had contacted her in a timely manner to arrange an inspection. Dampness can be caused by a range of factors and therefore it was appropriate that a surveyor should attend to diagnose the cause of the dampness.
The surveyor arranged to visit the property on 15 March 2022 but the resident did not provide access. The surveyor therefore rescheduled the appointment for 17 March 2022. Despite the resident not providing access on the appointed day, the landlord’s surveyor acted reasonably by offering a new appointment to take place shortly after the original appointment.
The surveyor reported the leaking stop tap and the landlord raised an order on 18 March 2022 to repair the stop tap. The repair was attended by a plumber on 24 March 2022 and the landlord’s records show that he completed the repair on that day. As the job had been raised on an urgent priority code, to be completed within 5 working days, the landlord responded within the appropriate timescale.
The landlord raised an order on 28 March 2022 to investigate a report of bare wires on the room thermostat which had come loose and was hanging from the wall. An operative attended on 29 March 2022 and secured the thermostat. The operative had therefore responded appropriately within 24 hours as the order had been categorised as an emergency.
The resident reported to the landlord on 28 March 2022 that there was dampness, damaged kitchen taps and sink and evidence of mice/rats. The landlord again raised an order for a surveyor to inspect the property. The surveyor inspected on 6 April 2022 and produced a schedule of repairs. As a result of the inspection, the landlord raised various repair orders on 7 April 2022 to carry out “structural works” to the hallway, bathroom and kitchen following the leak from the stop tap.
It was reasonable that a surveyor should carry out a further inspection having arranged for the stop tap to be repaired. It was also reasonable that the surveyor produced a schedule of repairs as the evidence indicates that various parts of the property had been damaged by the leaking stop tap. The inspection had taken place just over a week after the resident had reported further issues on 28 March 2022 and just over 2 weeks after the plumber had reported fixing the stop tap. The landlord therefore carried out the re-inspection within a reasonable timescale.
The landlord raised an urgent order on 4 April 2022 to repair a leaking waste pipe under the kitchen sink. The job was completed on 11 April 2022, which was within the landlord’s 5 working day timescale for urgent jobs.
The landlord was due to commence works to the kitchen on 3 May 2022, however, the landlord’s records state that the resident refused access because she wanted the bathroom to be renewed. The landlord was therefore unable to begin the work on the scheduled date. As residents are required to give the landlord and its contractor access to carry out repairs, it was reasonable that the landlord had scheduled the work and had expected the resident to provide access. The resident also did not provide access for the kitchen suppliers to deliver materials to the property on 12 May 2022.
The resident had stated in her stage one complaint that she was dissatisfied with the proposed works and questioned why the landlord was not planning to renew the bathroom. The landlord’s response to her request for a new bathroom is considered later in this assessment, however, in its stage one complaint the landlord stated that it had double-checked the specification of works and found it to be correct. As the resident had complained about the proposed works, it was reasonable that the landlord had checked the specification to ensure it was satisfied the proposed works were correct.
The landlord also offered in its stage one reply to arrange for a different surveyor to inspect the property to provide a second opinion. This was again a reasonable step by the landlord to reassure the resident that that the required works had been correctly specified.
The surveyor carried out a further inspection on 30 May 2022 to review the original specification. As a result, he added further work to it and produced a report. The work included refixing the bath as his notes stated that the bath had been installed by the resident and was not sitting correctly on the floor. Although the bath had been installed by the resident, it was right that the landlord had agreed to resecure it as the surveyor had identified it as one of the potential causes of leaks and therefore dampness.
As previously stated, a plumber had carried out repairs to the leaking stop tap on 24 March 2022. However, it was later established that the stop tap was leaking again. The landlord had advised the resident in June 2022 that it was unable to replace the leaking stop tap until the water company had replaced its external water supply valve, which was defective. This would enable the landlord to shut off the water supply to the property to allow the stop tap to be replaced. As the landlord could not replace the internal stop tap without shutting off the water supply, it had no option but to wait for the water company to replace the defective water mains valve.
The evidence shows that during June 2022, the landlord was waiting for the water company to replace the broken external water valve and between 13 and 20 June 2022, the water company had attended the property on different occasions but had not been able to obtain access. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord had requested the resident to liaise directly with the water company. The landlord had chased the water company on 16 June 2022 and they had confirmed that they had visited the property on 15 June 2022 but had not been given access.
The landlord confirmed in its stage 2 reply dated 8 July 2022 that the water company would need to replace the external mains valve so that it could turn the water supply off in order to replace the leaking stop tap. The landlord also offered the services of its housing support team to assist the resident. This was appropriate as the landlord was aware there had been problems with the water company accessing the property.
The resident advised the landlord on 26 July 2022 that she had not yet arranged for the water company to replace the external water valve. The landlord reminded the resident that the internal works could not begin until the water company had replaced the main mains valve. The landlord agreed to contact the water company on the resident’s behalf. The landlord had therefore been supportive in agreeing to contact the water company so that the internal works could begin.
The resident advised the landlord on 11 August 2022 that the water company had replaced the external mains valve. The landlord therefore raised an order on the same day to replace the leaking stop tap in the bathroom and the work was completed the same day. The landlord had therefore taken prompt action to replace the stop tap as soon as it was made aware that the water company had replaced the external mains valve.
The structural damp works began on 28 September 2022 and were completed on 5 October 2022. Therefore, although the works had taken 6 months to commence after the resident had contacted the landlord on 28 March 2022, there had been mitigating factors, including:
1. Delays in the water company replacing the mains water valve due to access problems.
2. The resident refusing access as she believed a new bathroom was needed.
3. Missed appointments and other access issues.
Taking these factors into account, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord dealt with the defective stop tap and the resulting dampness reasonably because it had arranged inspections to specify the required works and had arranged for the works to be carried out in a reasonable timeframe. The landlord had also been supportive towards the resident because:
1. It offered assistance from its housing support team.
2. It had carried out various home visits.
3. It had offered to contact the water company on the resident’s behalf.
4. On 26 July 2022 it had discussed with the resident the possibility of moving out while the work was in progress (the resident had declined this offer).
5. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord had agreed to replace the bathroom flooring and tile around the bathroom fixtures.
In addition to the stop tap and associated dampness, the resident had reported other issues including the present of rodents, a loose thermostat, a leaking radiator valve, the presence of mould, resealing around the front door and a reported lack of communication from the landlord’s technical team. These issues are considered in the following paragraphs.
The resident had reported evidence of rodents on 28 March 2022 and then on 4 April 2022. The landlord therefore raised an order for the local authority to carry out the required treatment to eradicate any rodents. As the local authority provides a pest control service, it was reasonable that the landlord had raised an order for the local authority to carry out the necessary treatment. The council advised the landlord on 28 July that it had laid bait and followed the matter up until there was no evidence of rodent activity.
The council had advised the landlord that there was a small external hole through which rodents may have been entering the property. The landlord therefore raised an order to block the hole and this work was completed on 24 August 2022. Therefore, following advice from the council about a possible entry point for rodents, the landlord had taken appropriate action to seal off the potential access point.
The resident stated in her stage 2 complaint on 10 June 2022 that she had been waiting 10 days for the thermostat to be made safe as the surveyor had noted it during his inspection on 17 March 2022. It is not clear from the evidence seen whether the surveyor had noted the loose thermostat during his inspection, however, the landlord did not address this point in its stage 2 reply. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had not addressed the reported delay in refixing the thermostat. The resident was clearly worried about the reported exposed wires from the thermostat, particularly as she had a young child at the time.
The landlord raised an urgent order on 30 May 2022 to repair a leaking radiator valve in the kitchen and the repair was completed on 1 June 2022. The landlord had therefore carried out the repair within the appropriate timescale for urgent repairs.
The resident had reported the presence of mould and the landlord therefore raised an order on 20 April 2022 for a specialist contractor to investigate the mould. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the contractor carried out the mould treatment. However, during the surveyor’s inspection on 30 May 2022, the resident confirmed that mould treatment had been carried out in the property. The landlord had therefore arranged for the mould treatment to be carried out within a reasonable timescale after it had raised the order on 20 April 2022.
The surveyor reported that during his visit on 30 May 2022 the resident had not allowed him access to the upstairs rooms to inspect the work. As the mould treatment had been carried out by a contractor, it was reasonable that the landlord’s surveyor should want to inspect the quality of the work carried out.
The landlord raised a routine order on 4 July 2022 to remove the old silicone from around the front door and reseal around the whole frame. The work was completed on 15 July 2022, which was within the 15-working day timescale for routine jobs. The work was therefore carried out within the appropriate timeframe.
The resident stated in her stage one complaint that the communication by the landlord’s technical team had been poor. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman shows that the landlord had contacted the resident on various occasions since she had reported problems with the stop tap and other issues in March 2022. For example, home visits had been carried out on 6 and 25 April 2022 and appointments had been made in April and May 2022 to carry out the structural and joinery works. Based on the evidence seen, the landlord made reasonable attempts to keep in contact with the resident during April and May 2022 through home visits, booking appointments, making phone calls and sending text messages.
Overall, the evidence shows that the landlord took reasonable steps to address the leaking stop tap, the dampness works and other repairs reported by the resident during the period that has been investigated by the Ombudsman. Where delays occurred, these were generally beyond the control of the landlord; for example, the delays in the water company replacing the external mains water valve and the access problems. The evidence shows that the landlord was supportive and offered assistance from its housing support team.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for the bathroom to be replaced

The Government’s Decent Homes Standard (DHS) states that a decent home should have reasonably modern facilities and services, which includes a reasonably modern bathroom (30 years old or less). However, a home with a bathroom that is over 30 years old would not automatically fail the DHS unless there are at least 2 other facilities that require modernisation, such as the kitchen. Landlords are able to programme modernisation works in accordance with their priorities and resources in order to ensure their homes meet the DHS.
The landlord’s Decent Homes Policy and Procedure states that it will carry out stock condition surveys at intervals of no more than 5 years.
The landlord carried out a stock condition survey of the property on 12 October 2021 and identified that the bathroom was due for replacement in 2030. Therefore, in line with its policy, the landlord had inspected the property against the DHS and assessed the condition of the bathroom and determined when it was due for replacement.
The resident contacted the landlord on 24 March 2022 to request a new bathroom following the leak to the stop tap. The landlord’s surveyor attended the property on 6 April 2022 and produced a schedule of repairs. This was reasonable as the surveyor was able to assess the condition of the bathroom and other parts of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 3 May 2022 to complain that she had been told her bathroom was not due for replacement for 11 years. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of the conversation referred to by the resident, however, the landlord confirmed in its stage one reply on 17 May 2022 that it did not consider a new bathroom was necessary. In providing its response, the landlord had relied on the findings from its surveyor’s inspection on 6 April 2022. As such, the landlord was entitled to rely on the conclusions of its expert who had inspected the property and therefore the landlord had acted reasonably. However, the landlord offered to arrange an inspection by a different surveyor to provide a second opinion. This was also reasonable as it showed that the landlord was prepared to review the findings of the surveyor who had inspected the property.
A different surveyor inspected the property on 30 May 2022 and added some additional works to the schedule of repairs. However, the second surveyor also did not recommend the full replacement of the bathroom. The landlord did, however, offer in its stage 2 reply to replace the flooring in the bathroom as a goodwill gesture and complete the tiling around the bathroom fixtures. This was a positive gesture by the landlord as it recognised that the resident had experienced disruption caused by the leak/damp.
Overall, the landlord was clear with the resident that the bathroom did not require renewal based on its stock condition survey and the inspections carried out by its surveyors. The landlord’s property records showed that the bathroom was due for renewal in 2030. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably by taking an evidence-based decision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of various repairs, including a leaking stop tap, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for the bathroom to be replaced.

Reasons

The landlord took reasonable steps to address the leaking stop tap, the dampness works and other repairs reported by the resident during the period that has been investigated by the Ombudsman. Where delays occurred, these were generally beyond the control of the landlord. The landlord was supportive and offered assistance from its housing support team.
The landlord relied on the findings from the stock condition survey and its surveyors who had inspected the bathroom and concluded that it did not require renewal. The landlord therefore took a reasonable, evidence-based decision that it would not renew the bathroom.