Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202301029)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301029

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

30 May 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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the resident’s boiler, a leak from a pipe, and damage to a ceiling.
2. The resident’s concerns about damage caused to her carpet by the leak.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling as part of this investigation.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property. The tenancy started in October 2008. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord confirmed it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident confirmed to this Service that she and her son have health conditions and her son has a disability.
The resident said she reported a leak into her living room through the ceiling in September 2022. The landlord’s repair logs showed a repair was logged on 13 October 2022. On 28 October 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended and found there was a leak when the gas central heating was on. The boiler was switched off and the resident was advised to use an immersion for hot water until the leak was repaired. A repair to the boiler took place on 14 December 2022.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 January 2023. She said the following:
1. She had raised the issues with the repairs to the landlord in December 2022 but these were still continuing.
2. She had reported a leak through her living room ceiling when the boiler was being used.
3. The landlord’s contractor had attended on 26 October 2022. It had condemned the boiler, switched it off, and ordered parts.
4. The landlord’s contractor had attended on 14 December 2022 to fix the leak, the operative attending also fixed the boiler. However, the leak had continued through the ceiling again.
5. The landlord’s contractor had missed appointments on 5 January 2023 and 24 January 2023.
6. The landlord’s contractor had attended on 30 January 2023 while the resident was out and had capped the gas.
7. She was without heating and gas controlled hot water again.
8. She had not been able to get through to the contractor.
9. The house was cold, wet and mouldy.
10. She asked the landlord for compensation for the loss of heating and energy costs.

During email correspondence with the landlord about her complaint in February 2023, the resident asked the landlord to cover the costs of replacing her living room carpet. She said the carpet and underlay were waterlogged and damp from the leak. She said the cost of replacement was not recoverable through her own insurer as the cause had been a building issue due to a leaking pipe. The resident said the damage to the carpet had continued for 5 months.

The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 27 February 2023. The landlord said it was sorry for the service the resident had received from its contractor. It said the heating had been restored but the leak was still present. The landlord said once this was repaired it would rectify the damage caused to the ceiling. It confirmed a visit to the resident on 7 March 2023 to assess this. The landlord offered the resident £462 of compensation for the increased electricity costs and missed appointments.
The resident escalated her complaint on 28 February 2023. She said she expected the extra costs she had incurred and to be compensated for the damages.
The landlord provided its final response to the resident on 20 March 2023. It said the following:
1. It apologised for the time taken to resolve the issues.
2. It accepted the resident had received poor customer service.
3. The issues had identified a training need within its contractor’s skill set and it would be addressing this.
4. It had asked the contractor to investigate the damage to the resident’s carpets. The contractor would be in touch with the resident directly about this matter.
5. It offered the resident £896.75 of compensation, broken down as:
  1. £372 for a loss of heating from 1 November 2022 until 14 December 2022, and between 30 January 2023 and 15 February 2023.
  2. £90 for 3 missed appointments.
  3. £100.62 for additional energy costs for hot water.
  4. £334.13 for the reimbursement of items the resident had purchased to keep the household warm during the repair.
The resident told the landlord on 20 March 2023 that she accepted the £896.75 compensation for the loss of heating, energy costs, and the reimbursement of items purchased. She said the living room carpet was not a matter for the contractor. She said it was damaged because the leak was not fixed in a reasonable time. The landlord responded on 28 March 2023. It said the damage was a matter for the resident’s insurance because it was an unforeseen event and not down to a negligent act by its staff. The landlord advised the resident she had reached the end of its complaints process.
The resident remained dissatisfied and contacted this Service in April 2023. She said the repairs to the leak had been carried out in March 2023 and the living room ceiling and floor was repaired in April 2023. The resident said the contractor ripped up and removed the carpet and underlay in the living room which was mouldy. The resident said she wanted the landlord to compensate her for the carpet. The resident confirmed to this Service in May 2024 that she had not been able to use her living room fully since the leak, as it did not have a carpet, and the walls and wallpaper had been damaged by the repair to the ceiling.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In raising her complaint to this Service, the resident referred to the situation impacting upon her health. While this Service is able to assess the service the landlord provided, and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused, the investigation cannot directly assess any reported impact on health or the liability for impacts on health and wellbeing as this is better suited for the courts.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler, a leak from a pipe, and damage to a ceiling.

A landlord’s repair responsibilities are set out in law within the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations specifically mentioned in section 11. This provision extends to boilers and heating systems.
The landlord is obliged by the Decent Homes Standard to provide a reasonable degree of thermal comfort in all properties. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (the HHSRS) offers landlords a risk-based tool to enable them to consider potential hazards. Landlords have a responsibility to keep properties free from category one hazards, which includes excess cold.
The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for maintaining the structure and exterior of the premises in a reasonable state of repair. This includes internal walls, floors, ceilings, major plasterwork, and any installations it has provided for heating and hot water. It says the resident is to keep the interior of the property in a good clean condition and to keep the property in a reasonable decorative order.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it aims to resolve a fault at the first visit wherever possible. The policy says when a repair is reported, the landlord will complete repairs within 24 hours if it is an emergency and all other repairs within an average of 10 working days.
The landlord’s records noted that following an inspection to the boiler on 28 October 2022, the boiler was isolated and the resident was told to use an electric immersion for hot water. The repair to the boiler was completed on 14 December 2022. This was a timeframe of 33 working days. This took too long and the landlord had not met the timescales in its repair policy. The resident was without heating for a period of 47 days. The landlord’s delay here was excessive. As a result, the resident was without heating for a significant time over the winter months.
The resident told the landlord in her complaint on 30 January 2023 that water had been leaking through the ceiling again following the repair of the boiler and the contractor had missed appointments to repair this. The landlord attended the resident’s property to service the boiler on 30 January 2023 and capped the gas due to no access. The landlord did not provide evidence to demonstrate it had appropriately arranged this appointment with the resident. The landlord uncapped the gas on 15 February 2023. This was a timeframe of 12 days. This took too long and did not meet the timeframes set out in the landlord’s repair policy. The resident was without heating again for a period of 16 days.
The resident confirmed to this Service that she reported a leak to the living room ceiling in September 2022. The repair records provided by the landlord showed a repair was logged on 13 October 2022 for this leak. On 18 October 2023, the landlord’s records noted an uncontainable leak from the boiler. Further works were raised to investigate this on 4 November 2022. A repair was completed on 14 December 2022, but this did not resolve the leak. The leak was repaired in March 2023. This was 5 months after the landlord first logged the repair. This timeframe was not in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
The landlord arranged for contractors to attend, but the diagnosis process was slow. A record from 26 January 2023 stated a part had been ordered for the water leak on 9 January 2022. It was not clear why the repair was delayed further until March 2023. The landlord acknowledged the delay in its complaint response but did not provide a reason for this.
The repair to the damage caused to the living room ceiling was completed on 12 April 2023. This was 6 months after the leak had been reported. It was noted the ceiling was unable to be repaired until the repair to the leak had been completed. This caused the resident the inconvenience and distress of living with the damage to the ceiling for a period of 6 months. This again did not meet the repair timescales set out in the landlord’s repairs policy.
In bringing her complaint to this Service, the resident said her walls and wallpaper had been damaged following this repair in April 2023 and this work remained outstanding. It was not clear from the evidence provided when this had been raised with the landlord. However, a landlord is required to make good any decoration issues following repairs. While these events took place following the completion of the complaints process, the repairs themselves were a significant aspect of the complaint. As such, it is considered fair and resolution focused to include the resident’s ongoing concerns on this issue here. An order has therefore been made for the landlord to contact the resident, carry out an inspection of the damage and confirm any action it will take to rectify this.
While it took a long time to resolve the repairs, the Ombudsman does acknowledge that certain problems can be complex and take time to diagnose and parts be required. This Service expects the landlord to keep in communication with the resident and update them on the progress of the repairs. The resident followed up with the landlord on several occasions to find out what was happening with the repairs between October 2022 and March 2023.
The landlord failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair. It also failed to provide the resident with a timescale for the completion of the repairs in either of its complaint responses. It missed the opportunity to demonstrate it had adequate oversight of the repairs. As a result, the resident did not know when to expect the repairs to be completed. This caused her the time, trouble and inconvenience of continuing to chase this up with the landlord.
The resident also experienced difficulties with arranging repair appointments. She told the landlord on 8 December 2022 that she had contacted the landlord’s contractor multiple times but had not heard back. In her complaint to the landlord on 30 January 2023, the resident said the contractor had missed an appointment on 5 January 2023, and had sent text messages with short notice appointments. This demonstrated a poor level of customer service by the landlord. As a result, the resident had to take the time and trouble to chase up appointments with the contractor and landlord. The landlord did not demonstrate it had managed its contractor appropriately here. The landlord offered the resident £90 compensation for 3 missed appointments. This was an appropriate action to take.
It was noted the landlord took the appropriate step of providing the resident with fan heaters at the start of November 2022. The resident told the landlord on 5 December 2022 that she was “freezing cold” and the temperature in her home was 10 degrees with a high humidity level. She also told the landlord her and her son were both disabled and had health conditions On 8 December 2022, the resident told the landlord the heaters supplied were not enough. She informed the landlord of the vulnerabilities in the household again on 8 December 2022 and in February 2023.
The resident had confirmed the vulnerabilities within the household and the impact the outstanding repairs were having on the health of her and her son. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the cause of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. The landlord had not demonstrated that it considered the reported vulnerabilities of the household in its response to the boiler or leak repair.
The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable repair time, but this should depend on how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the resident had made the landlord aware of the serious impact the loss of heating, and leak, was having on her and her son’s health conditions. As set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight on repairs report published in March 2019, landlords must act promptly, particularly where issues are having a significant impact on residents. They should be aware of the needs of vulnerable residents and respond to this. The landlord here failed to enquire about and make appropriate decisions about the household vulnerabilities once made aware.
The landlord confirmed it did not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. It was evident the landlord had not taken steps to update its recorded vulnerabilities for the resident on its records. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress. The landlord failed to record the resident’s vulnerabilities once made aware. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded to ensure it records are accurate and up to date.
In its final complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the resident had received a poor service from the landlord and its contractor. It said the resident’s issues had identified a training need in its contractor’s skill set and it would discuss this with its contractor. This demonstrated the landlord had taken learning from the outcome of the resident’s complaint.
To provide a fair response, landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing both the main issue raised and any inconvenience that happened. When a landlord agrees that it failed to provide a service, the expectation is for the landlord to offer redress. The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through a total offer of compensation of £896.75. This was broken down as £372 for the time the resident did not have heating, £90 for the missed appointments, £100.62 for the additional energy costs, and £334.13 for the reimbursement of items the resident purchased during the time without heating to keep warm.
While the offer of redress made by the landlord shows good practice in trying to resolve complaints and learn from outcomes, the compensation was not appropriate for the failings identified. The resident has informed this Service that the delay to the repairs had a detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she had spent considerable time and trouble chasing the landlord for responses. The compensation focused on the loss of the use of the boiler and did not account for the delay to the repair of the leak. It also did not account for the continuation of the repair work to the ceiling until April 2023.
In summary, the landlord had delayed in completing the repairs to the resident’s boiler, leak and subsequent damage to the ceiling. The landlord had failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the repair or provide her with a timeline for the completion of all the work. The resident was without heating for 63 days in total over the winter months. The resident informed the landlord that the health of her and her son was impacted by the loss of heating. However, the landlord had failed to demonstrate that it had taken this into consideration in its handling of the repairs.
While the compensation of £896.75 went part way to resolving this for the resident, it was noted that £334.13 of this was the reimbursement of costs incurred by the resident. This compensation did not account for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident of being unable to use her living room fully for 6 months due to the leak and subsequent repairs. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler, a leak from a pipe, and damage to a ceiling. A further amount of £350 of compensation has been ordered in addition to the compensation previously offered by the landlord. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases where the landlord’s failures have adversely affected a resident, and the landlord’s offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her carpet by the leak.

The landlord’s compensation procedure says the landlord will accept responsibility for avoidable damage to a resident’s decoration, or loss or damage to personal property, where this cannot reasonably be expected to be covered by the resident’s own insurance.
In relation to damage, the policy says in cases where damage is due to building failure and not covered by the resident’s own insurance, the landlord’s liability for damage to the resident’s possessions will depend upon whether it can be shown the landlord had been at fault in some way. In this circumstance, a referral to its insurers will be appropriate.
The procedure says that when dealing with complaints and requests for compensation, consideration must be given to wherever an insurance claim is or may be appropriate. It says situations that give rise to an insurance claim may include where the loss has resulted from the landlord’s negligence or failure to act. Details should be referred to the Procurement, Facilities & Insurance Manager.
The resident had first raised her concerns to the landlord about damage to her living room carpet in an email she sent to the landlord on 5 December 2022. She told the landlord the carpet smelt from the leaking water and needed to be taken up.
The resident raised the issue with the landlord again during the complaints process on 9 February 2022 and requested compensation for the replacement of the carpet. She raised the issue again on 20 February 2022, and 23 February 2022. The landlord told the resident on 23 February 2023 that the replacement of carpets and fixtures and fittings would fall under the resident’s own insurance policy.
The resident had expressed her concern on several occasions that she felt the damage to the carpet was due to the landlord’s delay in repairing the ongoing leak. Considering the leak was ongoing for a period of at least 5 months, it was reasonable for the resident to raise this concern to the landlord.
While the landlord had told the resident the matter was for her own insurance, it did not demonstrate it had referred the matter to its insurer. The resident also told the landlord on 23 February 2023 that the excess on her own insurance was more than the cost to replace the carpet. The resident had been clear in correspondence to the landlord that she considered the landlord liable for the damage due to its delay in resolving the leak. The landlord did not provide evidence to show it had referred the matter to its Procurement, Facilities & Insurance Manager. The landlord here had not followed the insurance claims procedure as set out in its compensation policy.
Furthermore, the resident advised this Service that during the repairs to the living room ceiling and floor following the leak, the landlord’s contractor removed the damaged underlay and carpet from the property. She said it had been “ripped up entirely” and “left outside of the property”. This indicated further damage to the resident’s carpet during the repair.
The resident informed this Service she had not been able to claim on her home insurance. She said that following the removal of her carpet during the repair in April 2023 she had not had carpet in the living room and was not using this room fully. This had significantly impacted on the enjoyment of her home.
This Service was not able to comment on whether the landlord was liable for the damage to the resident’s carpet, because we do not have the authority or expertise to determine or award damages for liability in the way that a court or insurer might. However, the landlord had not referred the resident’s claim to its insurer. It also did not demonstrate that it had considered this in line with its compensation procedure. Given that the resident had informed the landlord she felt its delay to the repair of the leak had caused the damage to the carpet, and not only the leak itself, it was unreasonable for the landlord to not refer this to its insurer.
The carpet being taken up and damaged further during the repair in April 2023, was further evidence the landlord should have considered the resident’s claim under its insurance claims procedure. The landlord should have directed the resident to its insurance claims process as soon as she had raised her concerns about liability in February 2023. As a result of its failure to do this, the resident missed the opportunity to raise a claim. The resident has experienced the distress and inconvenience of damage to her carpet remaining unresolved for a timeframe of over 1 year and 7 months. This has impacted upon the full use and enjoyment of her home. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her carpet by the leak.
It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £500 to account for its failures here. This is in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for a failure which has adversely affected a resident and the landlord had failed to acknowledge its failings. This figure is not intended to reflect a reimbursement of costs incurred by the resident on this issue, nor is it intended to confirm liability or negligence on the part of the landlord. Instead, the amount has been calculated to reflect the landlord’s identified failures and how this impacted upon the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord has a 2 stage complaints process. The landlord will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. If a resident remains dissatisfied the complaint can be escalated to stage 2. The landlord will respond to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. If a resident raises additional complaints during its investigation, it will include them if they are relevant and the Stage 1 response has not been issued.
The Complaint Handling Code sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days and a stage 2 response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason. The Code also states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The resident raised her complaint on 30 January 2023. The landlord provided its response on 27 February 2023. This was a timescale of 20 working days. This did not meet the timeframe set out in its complaints procedure or the Code.
It was evident the resident had raised a complaint about the repair to the boiler, leak, and subsequent damage on 5 December 2022. The landlord did not provide evidence to this Service to demonstrate it had opened a complaint for the resident at this point. The Code states that a complaint should be raised when a resident raises dissatisfaction with the response to their service request. It also says a complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity. The landlord failed to demonstrate the action it had taken following this initial complaint. As such it had missed the opportunity to open a complaint investigation and address the resident’s concerns sooner. It also resulted in a protracted complaints process for the resident, and delayed access to this Service.
The landlord did not address all points of the resident’s complaint appropriately. The resident raised her concerns about the damage to her living room carpet during the complaints process. The resident had not explicitly referred to the damage to the carpet in her email on 30 January 2023. However, she had raised this during discussions about her complaint in February 2023 and raised the cost of damages in her complaint escalation on 28 February 2022.
The landlord did not fully acknowledge this part of the resident’s complaint in either of its complaint responses. It said it had asked its contractor to investigate the damage to carpets and contact the resident directly. However, this was in relation to the bedroom carpets and not the damage from the leak to the living room carpet.
This was a failure to fully address all parts of the resident’s complaint in its response. The landlord missed the opportunity to put things right for the resident and confirm to her its process on claims for damages. It was also not compliant with the Code. As a result, the resident had to follow up with the landlord after the complaints process on this matter to receive a final response on this.
The landlord attempted to resolve the substantive complaint through an offer of compensation. However, this offer did not account for the complaint handling failures identified.
Overall, the landlord’s complaint response at stage 1 took too long. The landlord did not demonstrate why it had not opened a complaint investigation for the resident in December 2022. The complaint responses also did not fully address the resident’s concerns about damage to her carpet. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £150 for the inconvenience, time, and trouble caused by its poor complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler, a leak from a pipe, and damage to a ceiling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her carpet by the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders.

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1896.75 compensation. This amount includes the £896.75 offered during the complaints process. Compensation not already paid, should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
1. £350 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s boiler, a leak from a pipe, and damage to a ceiling.
2. £334.13 as previously offered for the reimbursement of items purchased by the resident.
3. £372 as previously offered for the loss of heating during the repair period.
4. £100.62 as previously offered for the cost of heating water during the time of the boiler repair.
5. £90 as previously offered for the missed appointments.
6. £500 for the distress, and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about damage caused to her carpet by the leak.
7. £150 for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the damage to the walls and wallpaper following its repair to the living room ceiling in April 2023. The landlord is to confirm to the resident and this Service the action it will take to rectify this, and a timescale for completion.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations.

It is recommended the landlord reviews its staff training needs in regard to the importance of communicating with residents throughout the repair process.
The landlord to contact the resident to discuss any vulnerabilities that should be recorded for the household to ensure its records are accurate.