ForHousing Limited (202302381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302381

ForHousing Limited

21 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 delays to repairs in the property and the compensation awarded.

Background

2. The resident was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom property. She lived in the property with her 2 children. She has since moved to another property.
3. The resident raised a number of repairs on 3 November 2022. This was due to damp and mould issues in the bathroom, bedroom, and kitchen. The landlord aimed to complete the works by 6 January 2023. Due to an admin error the works were completed later, between 16 January 2023 and 4 April 2023.
4. As part of the works the kitchen was removed. The resident raised a complaint on 26 January 2023 stating that she only had a microwave to cook with. She also advised the works meant she had additional costs in fuel bills. The resident requested that a new kitchen be fitted, as the old one had damp and mould on it.
5. The landlord responded to the stage 1 on 28 February 2023. It stated that there were some works outstanding, and confirmed the dates these would be completed. It advised that it had offered the resident assistance from the live–well fund for heating, but that the resident had refused this due to timing. It offered £75 compensation.
6. The resident escalated the complaint on 7 March 2023. She stated that she had no kitchen for over 3 weeks and no way to prepare meals for herself and her children. She stated that she relied on takeaways which had been an additional cost to her. She also stated that she had been informed she would be decanted, but that this never happened. She stated the work was not completed, and £75 was insufficient given the inconvenience she had suffered.
7. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 12 April 2023. It advised that there had been an access issue on 14 February 2023. The landlord restated that the resident had been offered a referral to the live–well fund, which the resident did not accept. It offered a further £50 in compensation and a £25 fuel voucher. It also stated that a decant was not needed for the works to be completed.
8. The resident remained unhappy with the offer, and with the works not being completed. She raised the complaint with the Housing Ombudsman. Due to the complaint coming to the Ombudsman, the landlord revisited the matter. On 7 December 2023 the landlord agreed to increase the compensation to £2,565 in total. This was the original £125, an additional £2,000, and an offer to clear arrears of £440 on the resident’s account. The resident accepted this offer and has since moved out.

Assessment and findings

9. On reporting the repairs, the landlord raised a works order which was the appropriate response. However, due to an administration error, this was cancelled and re-raised, which caused a delay. The landlord’s policy states that repairs for damp have a priority time frame of 40 working days. The landlord did not meet this timescale. The Ombudsman also considers this time frame to be excessive, particularly when considering routine repairs have a time frame of 30 working days. The landlord should consider its response times for damp. It should do this in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould.
10. It is unclear exactly when the kitchen was removed, although based on the evidence it appears to be on or around 16 January 2023. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s decant policy and its repairs policy does not give specifics about when a resident might need a decant. The landlord stated that the resident did not need a decant. The Ombudsman would usually consider that a decant would be necessary in the case of having no working kitchen for a number of weeks.
11. The stage 1 response confirmed that some works were outstanding. The Ombudsman has been provided with a large number of works orders. However, it is unclear from these what works remained outstanding at what time. The landlord should have been keeping the resident informed of the progress of the works and what the works were for. There is evidence that the landlord kept the resident updated on timescales, but not specifics of the work.
12. The landlord eventually completed the works, however there was a significant delay from the original target date of 6 January 2023.The landlord advised the Ombudsman the works were completed by 4 April 2023. Although the Ombudsman has seen an internal email dated 5 July 2023 in which the landlord noted some minor works which had not been completed.
13. The time without a kitchen is noted to be between 3-4 weeks. There is some debate with the landlord and resident regarding whether the kitchen was useable. The landlord stated both the microwave and cooker could be used, however records indicate the kitchen itself had been removed. When considering whether a kitchen is useable, the landlord should consider all aspects. This would include an area to prepare food and an area to store food and cooking utensils.
14. Given the delays to the works, and the inconvenience particularly during the period there was no kitchen, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s offer at stage 2 of £125 was insufficient. The landlord should have considered the inconvenience to the resident, and any financial disadvantage the resident faced due to the works.
15. The landlord reconsidered its offer and added an additional £2,440 after the complaint had reached the Ombudsman. Whilst the Ombudsman encourages landlords to continue to work with their residents to resolve matters even after the internal complaints process has been completed, we do not encourage this solely on the basis the complaint has gone to the Ombudsman. This is to ensure consistency and transparency. The Ombudsman notes that we would have unlikely awarded this level of compensation, however we are encouraged to see that the landlord has considered the inconvenience the resident faced and has come to a solution that is agreeable to both parties.
16. Due to the compensation being insufficient at the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process, the Ombudsman considers there was service failure in the delays to the repairs in the property and the compensation awarded. The Ombudsman will not make further compensation awards as we consider the amount agreed to be sufficient. The resident has confirmed this amount has been paid. The Ombudsman will not order any further works inspections as we are satisfied that that the works are complete, and the resident has subsequently moved out.

Determination

17. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the delays to repairs in the property and the compensation awarded.

Recommendations.

18. The landlord should consider its repairs policy against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould, if it has not already done so. It should consider whether the timescales it provides for damp repairs is in line with a zero-tolerance approach.
19. The landlord should revisit its repairs policy and consider whether guidance is required on when a decant might be needed.