Futures Housing Group Limited (202012466)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202012466

Futures Housing Group Limited

28 February 2022

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 concerns:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a two-bedroom first floor flat. The tenancy started on 12 March 2007; at the time the landlord was known as Amber Valley Housing.
In her complaint raised with the landlord in January 2021, the resident said some of the repairs needed had been “ongoing” since 2018 and referenced repairs that had been provided by the landlord in 2019.
The landlord’s repairs records show it raised a number of work orders in 2018 and also during November 2019 and December 2019 in respect of repairs reported by the resident at that time.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord in early January 2020 regarding the standard of these repairs carried out however this complaint was closed by the landlord on 22 January 2020. As the resident did not bring a formal complaint to the Ombudsman about the repairs carried out prior to 2020 that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 22 January 2020 within a reasonable timeframe, this report will not investigate this complaint.
This investigation will consider events from March 2020 when the resident reported that a repair was needed to her pantry window. This led to the resident raising a formal complaint with the landlord on 6 January 2021 which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process on 1 March 2021.

Summary of Events

On 2 March 2020, the resident reported a leak from the pantry window which the landlord’s repair team attended on 25 March 2020. On 14 September 2020, the resident made a further report of water getting in through the pantry window which the landlord’s repair team attended on 29 September 2020. It is unclear from the landlord’s repair log what repairs were provided on these occasions.
On 6 January 2021, the resident emailed the landlord advising she had sent photos of the pantry window “a year on” and said despite its two previous visits, the issue with water ingress had not been resolved causing dampness to the surrounding plaster. She requested the landlord to log a complaint about this.
During a call on the same date the resident also reported that the lino flooring needed fitting to the stairs and that the bathroom and kitchen windows would not close properly. Around the same time the resident raised issues concerning damp at the property and the second bedroom internal door not shutting properly.
The landlord’s repair records indicate that an operative attended on 11 January 2021 to address the issue with the windows not closing.
On 11 January 2021, the landlord also confirmed to the resident that it had raised a job for its repair team to address the issue with the second bedroom internal door not shutting properly. It confirmed an appointment had been made for 25 January 2021.
On or around 22 January 2021, the resident contacted the landlord chasing an update in regards to her complaint. She said she needed details to send to Environmental Health (EH). The landlord replied advising it was sorry to hear the issue with the window had not been resolved. It said it had booked an appointment for its surveyor to attend on 9 February 2021 and asked the resident if this was a convenient time.
Within the landlord’s internal communications dated 26 January 2021, it acknowledged that the repairs to pantry window were still outstanding and that a surveyor had been booked for 9 February 2021 to assess this issue. The landlord’s notes state it also arranged for a surveyor to attend on 1 February 2021 regarding the damp issue.
Within the landlord’s internal communications dated 26 January 2021, it also referred to the repair to the internal bedroom door being outstanding. Its notes stated the appointment that had been booked for 25 January 2021 had to be rearranged to 3 February 2021 as the engineer it allocated to this work was off sick. The landlord’s call noted indicate it been tried to contact the resident to discuss this but had not been able to speak to her. The landlord’s repair records indicate this job was subsequently completed on 3 February 2021.
The landlord’s surveyor visited the property on 1 February 2021. The landlord’s internal communications indicate the resident answered the door to the surveyor but that she did not allow access as an appointment had not been arranged with her and it was inconvenient.
The landlord called the resident on 5 February 2021 regarding her complaint. Its notes indicated the resident asked for a different surveyor than the one who had visited on 1 September 2021 to assess the repairs. As well as the issue with the pantry window and surrounding plaster work, she reiterated there was a damp issue and said there were gaps in stairs and plaster cracks and that lino needed fitting to the stairs. The landlord arranged for a different surveyor to attend on 11 February 2021.
The landlord’s internal communications indicate that the surveyor attended on 10 February 2021 to carry out an initial inspection. He noted:
1. There was no mould at the property but could see some signs of water ingress. He intended to inspect the roof space on 11 February 2021 when he would return with the damp contractor to see if there were any issues or damp.
2. Water was entering the flat from the pantry window recess into the wall. Previously applied silicon had not resolved the issue. Noted that the window needed to be taken out and refitted along with the brick work repointed once all required works have been identified.
3. The flooring on the stair risers were coming away from the stairs but he did not think this was caused by dampness but proposed get the flooring refitted which would allow a closer inspection of the staircase. He also noted repairs were needed to address gaps in two areas of the stairs.
4. There were some cracks in the plaster at a high level possibly caused by the water ingress through the roof and the pantry ceiling looks water damaged both of which can be repaired once we have solved the damp/water issue)
The inspection scheduled for 11 February 2021 was delayed until the next day as the surveyor was waiting humidity monitors. The surveyor advised the resident of this.
The landlord advised the resident on 12 February 2021 that it was extending the 19 February 2021 timescale to provide a complaint response in order to ensure a thorough investigation into the issues raised. It said its surveyor would be providing an update once they had determined which repairs were to be carried out within the property.
The surveyor attended the property on 12 February 2021 with the landlord’s damp contractor to inspect and survey the property including the roof. The landlord’s internal communications 2021 show they reported the findings from the survey to the landlord on 18 February 2021. The findings stated that no damp or water ingress was found in the property but high levels of condensation in the bedroom wall was identified. To rectify this the damp contractor intended to install insulating boards including “skimming and painting”.
The landlord’s records show the damp contractor would also: complete the works to the pantry window and external brickwork and address two other issues raised for the first time by the resident during the survey on 12 February 2021. These related to the internal PVC strip around the front door coming away and cracking around the bathroom window.
On 19 February 2021, the landlord issued a stage one complaint response. It advised that the surveyor had inspected and had agreed the following repairs:
1. Its damp contractor would install insulating boards to the wall in the identified bedroom (Including skimming and painting).
2. Its damp contractor would carry out works to pantry window and external brickwork.
3. Its damp contractor would carry out work to internal PVC strip around front door which was coming away
4. Its damp contractor would carry out work to plaster around bathroom window which was cracked.
5. Its flooring contractor would re-fit stairs flooring.
The landlord said that both contractors would contact her in due course to make the necessary arrangements for access. It asked for the resident to keep it updated as the works progressed. It said it had reviewed the resident’s repairs history and summarised the repairs that it had provided from August 2018.
In her reply email to the landlord dated 19 February 2021 the resident said it had omitted information referring to visits and inspections prior to 2020.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 25 February 2021 it instructed the damp contractor to complete the previously agreed works.
The landlord issued a final response to the resident on 1 March 2021. This advised the resident that it had the right to deny her stage two of its complaints procedure if she was unable to provide supplementary evidence which she wished to be considered. It did not refer to the issue of the current outstanding repairs however the landlord did respond to the concerns raised by the resident in her 19 February 2021 email. However, as these related to matters that have not been considered in this investigation, the details have not been included in this report.
The landlord’s internal records show that on 11 March 2021 the landlord instructed its flooring contractor to replace the entrance and stairs flooring at the property.

Post final Response

On 19 March 2021, the surveyor inspected the property again with the Council’s EH. In their letter to the resident dated 19 March 2021, EH said the landlord had committed to undertake the works outlined in its stage one response. They also referred to the landlord having inspected the loft space and finding no damp.
On 17 May 2021, the resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord had replaced the lino on the stairs but the work was not to a good standard and the stairs were “more dangerous than ever”. As the standard of the repair has not been through the landlord’s internal complaints process, the Ombudsman will not consider this concern in this investigation.
The resident also told the Ombudsman on 17 May 2021 that the landlord had not carried out the repairs promised in the final response or improved damp and cracks in walls.
The resident contacted the landlord on 29 June 2021 to advise that the damp contractor had attended to complete works to the pantry window and surrounding plasterwork but had left without finishing the job.
The landlord attended the property on 30 June 2021 and confirmed to the resident on the same day what, from the works promised in the final response, were still to be completed as well as confirming a new repair. It advised that these works were booked in for 5 July 2021.
The resident raised a new complaint with the landlord on 1 July 2021 regarding its handling of the repairs.
The landlord’s surveyor’s internal email of 14 July 2021 stated he had visited the property and all repairs had been completed except for a “minor” issue with the new flooring on the stairs but it would ask the contractor to go back to rectify this.
The resident told the Ombudsman on 19 September 2021 that there was still an issue with the lino and the freshly painted wall had started to crack. She said that she made additional complaints to the landlord on 30 July and 24 August 2021. As these complaints have not yet exhausted the landlord’s internal complaint process, they will not be considered in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property.

Under the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property.
The landlord’s repairs policy states it will normally either repair or come out to inspect standard repairs within 10 to 25 working days and that further visits may be needed to resolve some problems. Its policy says standard repairs include issue with internal doors, external windows, replacing seals around doors and also flooring repairs.
Between 6 January 2021 and 10 February 2021, the resident raised a number of repairs with the landlord that she said were needed to her property.
These included:
1. Issues with 1 bathroom window and 2 kitchen windows which affected her ability to close them. This was resolved when the landlord’s repair team attended on 11 January 2021 to repair the windows.
2. An issue with the internal bedroom door closing. Its repair team attended on 3 February 2021 and followed this up with a work order raised on 12 February 2021 for 2 replacement internal doors which were fitted by 20 March 2021.
Therefore, the landlord addressed these issues within the timescale stated in its repairs policy as such it acted appropriately when handling these repairs.
The resident had also raised issues concerning:
1. Water seeping in through the pantry window.
2. The lino on the stairs was coming away.
3. Damp
4. Cracks in the internal walls.
The landlord arranged for its surveyor to inspect the property on 1 February 2021 in regards to the damp issue reported. The resident did not allow the landlord’s surveyor access when they visited on this date as she said no appointment had been made and it was at an inconvenient time. There is no evidence to show the landlord provided the resident with advance notice of this appointment. As it is good practice for the landlord to do so, its failure to do so was a service shortcoming.
However, the landlord re-arranged this appointment for 11 February 2021 when it agreed to the resident’s request for a different surveyor to attend who would survey the property to assess damp, cracks in the walls as well as the water ingress through the pantry window. It is unclear from the available evidence as to why the resident had requested a different surveyor and it is not usual practice to permit a resident to choose a particular operative however by agreeing to her request, the landlord acted reasonably.
Through this inspection and a further inspection by the surveyor on 12 February 2021 which was also attended by the landlord’s damp contractor, it was identified that there was no damp at the property but that there were high levels of condensation in the bedroom wall. To address this, the surveyor/damp contractor proposed installing insulating boards to the bedroom wall. The landlord confirmed this to the resident in its stage one response when it explained the works would include skimming the plasterwork and repainting the wall.
Regarding the water ingress coming into the property through the pantry window recess, the resident had reported this issue on two previous occasions in March and August 2020. Its surveyor’s notes from the inspection in February 2021 refer to the previous repairs that had been carried out which he said had been made by applying silicon to the internal side of the window as well as new plastering. He considered that in order to fully repair the leak, the window needed to be taken out and refitted and the external brick work repointed once all required works had been identified. As the earlier repairs had not fully resolved the issue, it was reasonable to expect the landlord to apply a different approach in order to rectify the problem. The landlord confirmed to the resident in its stage one response that the proposed work to address this leak would be undertaken by its damp contractor.
Further, due to new issues raised by the resident during the inspection, the landlord advised in its complaint response that they would also carry out: a repair to the front door as it had been identified that the PVC strip around the frame was coming away and; re-plastering around the bathroom window which was cracked. The landlord also confirmed that its flooring contractor would be installing new lino to the stairs.
Therefore, as the landlord arranged for its surveyor and damp contractor to inspect the property to investigate the repairs reported and as these inspections were carried out within the timescales cited in its repair policy, the landlord acted appropriately in this regard.
Further, the landlord acted reasonably by confirming to the resident in its stage one response the works that were needed to address the issues. However, the landlord did not give the resident any indication of the likely timeframe for the repairs to be completed. Further, as at the time of the landlord’s final response on 1 March 2021, the works had not begun and the landlord did not mention the outstanding repairs in this response.
The evidence indicates that the landlord did instruct its damp and flooring contractors around this time and also that it attended a joint inspection with EH on 19 March 2021, whereby it confirmed that it would complete the works previously promised. However, the lack of information given about expected timescales for completing the works was unhelpful. It was also reasonable to expect the landlord to ensure the works were carried out by its contractors within a reasonable timeframe of committing to the works during its complaints process. In the circumstances of delays, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident informed about these.
The landlord’s records show the entrance and stairs lino had been replaced by 2 June 2021 and evidence of the parties’ communications in June and July 2021 provided to the Ombudsman indicate the remaining repairs were completed by early July 2021. Nonetheless the landlord’s insufficient communication about this to the resident and a lack of evidence to show it promptly followed up on the promised repairs constitutes a failure in the service provided by the landlord.
Additionally, in its stage one response the landlord did not refer to the issue of “high-level” cracks in the wall that its surveyor had identified were present and suggested needed repairing. Cracks in the wall was one of the issues reported by the resident in January 2021 and she also told the Ombudsman in June 2021 that this issue not been addressed. As there is no evidence of the landlord repairing the cracks in the wall that had been identified by its surveyor, this was also a service failure by the landlord.

Complaint handling.

The landlord operates a two stage complaint process however it says the second stage appeal process will only be invoked “in rare circumstances” and where the complainant has supplementary evidence they wish to be considered.
In its final response, the landlord referred to its right to “deny” the resident of its complaints procedure if she was unable to provide supplementary evidence. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes clear that a stage two complaints process ensures that a resident has the opportunity to challenge any decision by correcting errors or sharing concerns via an appeal process.
Whilst in its final response, the landlord advised it was not invoking its appeal process due to a lack of supplementary evidence from the resident, it did respond to the concerns raised by the resident in her 19 February 2021 email. However, as these did not directly relate to the repairs reported in January 2021 rather to events prior to 2020 that have not been considered in this investigation, the details have not been included in this report.
Therefore, by providing a final complaint response which did respond to the resident’s further concerns raised in her escalation request, there is no evidence of the landlord failing to follow its complaints process or adhering to the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s reports of repairs needed to her property.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord addressed some of the repairs raised by the resident promptly and within the timescales referred to in its repairs policy. For other repairs raised including damp, cracks and water ingress through the pantry window it arranged inspections by its surveyor and damp contractor within an appropriate timescale of the resident raising these repairs. However, the landlord failed to confirm to the resident during its complaint process when the repairs identified would likely be completed. It also did not address the issue of high-level cracks in the walls. The lack of communication around this and the subsequent delay by the landlord in delivering the repairs promised was a failure in the service provided.
Whilst the landlord said it was not invoking its stage to appeal process when handling the resident’s complaint raised in January 2021, it explained this was because no supplementary evidence had been provided which was in accordance with its complaints process. In any event it replied to the resident’s further concerns raised in her escalation request as such there is no evidence of it not following its complaints process or the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. Pay the resident £200 in compensation comprising of:
  1. £150 for its insufficient communication regarding the timeframe for the delivery of the works promised during the complaints process;
  2. £50 for its failure to address cracks in walls that were reported by the resident and confirmed by the surveyor.
2. Consider what works may be needed to address “high-level” cracks in the walls at the property if it not already done so and if still required by the resident. The landlord to confirm in writing to the resident any action it intends to take.
3. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord address or escalate the resident’s new complaints she raised with it following the final response dated 1 March 2021 if it has not already done so.