Great Places Housing Association (202318095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318095

Great Places Housing Association

20 December 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. The repairs including damp and mould in the property.
2. Designating the resident as a new tenant rather than an existing one.
3. The increase to the resident’s rent.
4. The resident’s request for the deduction from his deposit to be repaid.
5. The resident’s complaint.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has complained about the landlord designating him as a new tenant rather than an existing tenant. This was not raised in the resident’s original complaint to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord did not have the opportunity to investigate this as part of its complaint process.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s designation as a new tenant rather than an existing tenant is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Any issues that have not been subject to a formal complaint, the resident can address directly with the landlord in the first instance through its complaints process. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, he is able to refer it to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation.
Paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme says the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that concern the level of rent or service charge, or the amount of the rent or service charge increase. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s complaint to this service concerns the increase to his rent. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme, the complaint about the increase to his rent and service charge is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme notes the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator or complaint-handling body. The resident requested his deposit be repaid. The landlord in its stage 2 complaint response said the resident could refer the matter to the deposit protection service (DPS) who would act as an independent adjudicator.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the complaint about the resident’s request for his deposit to be repaid is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident has confirmed he contacted the DPS regarding his deposit.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. His tenancy began in November 2022. The property is a 2-bedroom flat.
The resident was a tenant of the landlord prior to November 2022 but moved to another of the landlord’s properties due to antisocial behaviour (ASB) from his neighbour. Repairs to the property were required before he could proceed with the transfer.
The resident states that on 23 December 2022, he made a formal complaint to the landlord. This service has not received a copy of this complaint. The landlord’s records show on 2 January 2023, it received an email from him concerning his complaint. The resident said:
1. The property was vacant for several weeks in which time repairs were supposed to have taken place.
2. The landlord completed the repair in the bathroom but never completed the repair. The condition of the bathroom has become worse and black mould had started to appear.
3. He was unable to use the main bathroom. A smell of mould was coming from the bathroom. The bath panel was rotten, and water damaged, and the flooring was waterlogged underneath the surface.
4. The bathroom heater was rusting and required replacement.
5. The paintwork had been rushed and it would take him time and money to correct this. Yet, the landlord attempted to deduct £250 from his deposit for paintwork for his previous property when it had not decorated it in 12 years.
6. The previous tenant had left the en-suite bathroom covered in filth, which he was unable to clean. Parts of the shower base was missing, the shower head needed replacing and the plug hole had rusted away. Furthermore, the leak had stained the en-suite bathroom ceiling.
7. The flooring was warping due to it not being laid properly. When sealing the flooring it had sealed in dust which caused another issue.
8. The oven and hob plug sockets were not properly sealed. This meant they were unsafe.
9. Part of the door frame had come away. He reported this on the day he moved into the property. This posed a security and safety risk.
10. He was seeking compensation for any re-decorating costs he would incur. He also requested compensation for taking time off work for remedial work to be done.
On 7 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said:
1. It raised a repair to the bathroom ceiling. The repair was raised as a low priority, as the damage was classified as minor.
2. The hard ply bath panel had sustained water damage and needed replacing.
3. It re–painted the property prior to him moving in. However, due to the leak it would require repainting. Once the ceiling repair was complete, it would instruct its external contractor to complete the job.
4. It had inspected the bathroom wall heater which had very minor signs of rust which was purely aesthetic. It confirmed the heater passed the electrical safety check.
5. It raised a repair to the front door frame.
6. The resident had mentioned a missing shower base panel. However, the landlord said this was not evident before he moved into the property. It had checked the inventory photos and could not see what the shower base panel he referred to as it was not present when the resident moved in.
7. The grout and seals around the shower cubicle looked in good order. It confirmed the shower head was in good working condition. While the chrome finish on the plug hole cap had worn, this was fair wear and tear.
8. During the move-in process, it did not see any signs of warping to the flooring or carpet. However, it would instruct its carpenter to attend and inspect the cause.
9. It would source and fit a replacement for the kitchen tap filter.
10. The oven and hob plug sockets passed the electrical safety check.
11. Both parties should try and arrange times and dates to allow it to carry out repairs. This was to minimise the disruption caused.
On 16 February 2023, as the resident remained dissatisfied with the complaint response, he sought to escalate his complaint. The resident:
1. Disagreed with the landlord saying the repair to the bathroom ceiling was a minor repair. His tenancy start date was delayed from the 5 September 2022 to the 11 November 2022.
2. Said there was black mould which would suggest there was some moisture or a leak. It was supposed to be resolved more than 2 months ago, therefore he disagreed with it was a minor repair. He also referenced the lack of communication from the landlord.
3. Requested copies of the photographs taken of the shower. He wanted the landlord to fit the correct shower piece as the base panel fitted was incorrectly.
4. Advised the oven and hob plug sockets had not been fitted correctly. As it was near the hob and kettle, it was a health and safety matter.
5. The lino flooring in the bathroom had not been fitted correctly and was warping.
6. Said the landlord had failed to address all the issues mentioned in his original complaint. This included the flooring in the main bathroom which appeared to be waterlogged and would need inspecting, painting works were rushed, there was mould and limescale from the previous tenant that he was unable to get clean and the lino would require resealing.
7. Said he was unhappy that he had taken unpaid time off work because it did not do the repairs it was supposed to. The property was empty for 12 weeks before he moved in, and he felt that was ample time to carry out the repairs.
8. Disputed he prevented entry into his property. He was unable to accommodate the times and dates suggested due to work.
On 30 March 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response and:
1. It apologised it had not met the high standards it had set itself for delivering excellent service.
2. Clarified there was a major repair to remedy the leak which caused damage to the apartment walls and floors. Therefore, the repair to the bathroom ceiling was minor.
3. Said it had instructed its in–house contractors to attend to complete the final remedial works. However, there was a large backlog which created a delay.
4. Advised it looked like there was a continuing leak. It asked for confirmation when he first reported the water ingress as the presence of mould would indicate that the leak had returned. It advised this would need remedying as soon as possible and asked for the resident to provide dates and times for a contractor to attend to resolve the issue.
5. It said it could not see a shower base panel in the photographs before the resident moved into the property. It requested the resident to provide photographs so it could investigate further.
6. Instructed a contractor to attend to the issue regarding the oven and hob plug sockets not being fitted correctly.
7. It had instructed its contractor to attend and investigate the issue regarding the lino not being fitted properly and to inspect the flooring in the main bathroom.
8. It acknowledged the paint work was not to the expected standard. It said it no longer used the contractor who carried out the paint work and a new contractor would attend and rectify the issue.
9. Asked for evidence of mould and limescale. It had reviewed the photographs from the previous inspection and could not see evidence of mould and limescale.
10. There was substantial amount of work required to the property which involved removal of parts of ceilings and walls, drying out time, and removal of flooring before the property was ready to be moved into.
11. Said at no point was it suggested or requested the resident should take unpaid time off work to allow access for contractors. It did say there was occasions such as leaks where urgent attention was required and the contractors needed access to the property. It had offered options relating to access and chaperones at the property.
12. Told the resident the works were disruptive and could not be completed around him.
13. It confirmed all major works had been completed. The tenancy was allowed to proceed as only works to the corner of the bathroom was left to be completed. It apologised the oven was not ready and said it was due to miscommunication.
14. It advised him to contact the deposit protection service (DPS) if he disagreed with the deductions from his deposit. It also referred him to the tenancy agreement regarding the handling of his deposit.
On 19 August 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response as it claimed it had or would raise repairs, but nothing had been done since his first complaint. Therefore, he referred his complaint to this service. He requested the landlord should complete repairs and decoration of his property. The resident also was seeking an apology and compensation for his living conditions, the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the impact on his health.
On 15 May 2024, the landlord offered the resident compensation totalling £1000, having previously offered £700 in compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property affected his health and work life. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s concerns, it is beyond the ability of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or inaction) and the impact on the resident’s health or work life. These matters are more suited to consideration via the courts or a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of his reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB) and contractors trying to gain access to his property without his knowledge or consent. This report has not considered these matters. Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman cannot consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a further complaint with the landlord if he has not done so already. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, he is able to refer it to the Ombudsman for a separate investigation.

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement says the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property including internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, floors, ceilings, and plaster work, but not including the decoration of these.
The landlord’s responsive repair policy says some repairs may affect the decoration of the home. If this happens the area will be made good following the repair. However, it is not able to make good access panels, hatches, ducts, or ducting covered with wallpaper, tiles, carpet, wood, laminate, or other finishes. In these circumstances customers will be advised before work is started.
At the time the resident made her complaint, the landlord operated a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its customer feedback policy said it would provide a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging a complaint. The landlord aims to provide a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledgment. If it is unable to meet this deadline, it will provide an explanation and a date on which the response will be received by the resident. It says an extension will not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time of this complaint said that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where there is likely to be a delay at either stage, the Code states landlords should contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response time, which should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.
The landlord’s customer feedback policy says where financial compensation is being considered, each case will be reviewed on its merits. The landlord will consider whether any statutory payments are due, if any quantifiable losses have been incurred as well as the time and trouble a resident has been put to and any distress and inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s remedies and resolution policy says examples of where compensation may be awarded is:
1. Where an unreasonable delay is identified.
2. Where incorrect or inadequate information or explanation is provided.
3. When its policies and procedures have not been followed without good reason or explanation.
4. When there is evidence of unprofessionalism by colleagues or representatives working on behalf of the landlord.

Landlord’s handling of the repairs including damp and mould in the property.

In May 2023, this service published our spotlight on Knowledge and information Management. Prior to the resident moving into the property, the landlord’s records show it did raise repair works to the property. However, on several occasions it failed to failed to record its or its contractors’ actions when completing repairs. On 16 August 2022, it raised a repair to clean and complete a full decoration of the entire property. However, its records do not show the date when this was completed. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. By not accurately recording information, the landlord itself was confused whether repairs had been raised or completed. Its email dated 3 August 2023; shows it was unsure why the repair to fit a new bath panel on 6 April 2023 was cancelled. It said it would seek clarification over other repair work that was listed as completed and inspected following completion.
On 18 August 2022, the landlord raised works to remove and replace the carpet and lino in the property. Its records show this was completed on 9 September 2022. However, the resident says the lino repair has not been completed to a satisfactory standard as new lino has been placed on previous existing ones, causing mould. Therefore, an inspection of the property would be required to determine whether works are required to the lino in the property.
There have been several repairs regarding a leak in the bathroom. On 27 September 2022, the landlord raised a repair as the property had a leak. Records show an appointment was scheduled for 11 October 2022; however, its records do not provide a date of completion, or the action taken. On 25 October 2022, it said the leak had been fixed and therefore requested the damaged bath panel, damaged vinyl and skirting board in the bathroom be repaired and replaced. Its records do not show apart from the vinyl work the appointment dates, what repairs were completed and the date of completion. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to ensured it recorded the date and types of repairs carried out in the property. On 10 November 2022, it reported another leak to the bathroom. The landlord could have considered delaying the start of his tenancy agreement or alternative arrangements for the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated it considered this.
It may take a landlord multiple attempts to complete repairs. It raised a repair on 6 March 2023, and this was completed on 12 April 2023. However, this did not resolve the issue as the leaks were reported on several occasions including 29 February 2024. The landlord’s record’s show this was not completed until 10 May 2024. The resident has said the leak was not repaired until September 2024. Due to the delay in completing the repair and the landlord advising it would be difficult to complete repairs around the resident and tried to make arrangements concerning access to the property, it should have considered a temporary decant for the resident. There is no evidence the landlord considered this.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 January 2023, to report mould in the property. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on damp and mould sets out what we expect from landlords where damp and mould are concerned. It says landlords should take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould, carry out proactive intervention, and communicate effectively with residents. It also says that where a landlord may need to carry out significant works, it should consider whether it should move the resident from the property at an early stage. The landlord has not demonstrated that it took such an approach. The landlord should have considered whether there were other factors responsible for the leak or whether there were any risks to the resident. The landlord’s records show the issues had not been resolved and further reports were made on 29 February 2024 regarding mould in the bathroom. Its records show the repair was not completed until 10 May 2024. However, on 14 August 2024, it raised a repair regarding the smell of mould in the property, but no mould was presents. Its records show this was completed on 10 September 2024 but does not explain the outcome or the action taken.
It was fair of the landlord to say the bathroom wall heater did not require replacement as it had been tested and had passed the electrical safety check. Its records show an electrical check in the property was completed on 21 November 2022. It does not specify what checks where completed, but it is reasonable for a landlord to trust its contractors reports regarding electrical safety checks being completed.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it would raise for the bath panel to be replaced due to water damage. However, on 25 October 2022, the landlord records show it was aware of the damage to the bath panel, and it required replacement. Its records do not show when this was completed and what action was taken by its contractor. On 21 March 2023, it raised a replacement of the bath panel with an appointment scheduled for 6 April 2023. However, no completion date is record in its records. On 31 May 2024, its records show the issues remain unresolved as it raised a repair to replace the bath panel. An appointment was scheduled but there is no confirmation whether the replacement had been completed. The resident says the bath panel was replaced in September 2024. This was a delay of 23 months as its records show the landlord was aware it required replacement which is not in line with its repair responsibilities which amounts to a failing.
In his complaint, the resident raised concerns regarding the front door of the property. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said it could raise a job for an in-house joiner to complete this work. This service cannot see any record that a repair to the front door was raised or completed. The resident says a repair to the front door were completed but has not provided a date for completion.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 7 February 2023 said it would raise repairs regarding the leak in the bathroom, carpet and flooring and issues regarding the hob and oven wiring in the property. However, its records show the repairs were not raised until 6 March 2023. The landlord has not explained why there was a delay in raising these repairs. The repairs to the oven and hob, were not completed until April 2023. This was a delay in raising repairs over more than 2 months after the resident made his complaint. By not immediately raising a repair, it led the resident to escalate his complaint to the landlord and this service.
The resident raised a complaint regarding being unable to clean mould and limescale in the shower cubicle from the start of his tenancy. The landlord was fair in advising it had consulted photographs taken prior to the resident moving into the property and there was no evidence of this. Having reviewed the photographs there is no evidence of mould or limescale in the shower cubicle prior to the resident moving into the property.
Throughout his complaint, the resident said the condition of the property and the handling of the repairs were having a negative impact on his health. The landlord could have offered or referred the resident to additional support due to him mentioning on several occasions issues concerning his health. The landlord has not demonstrated it did this.
The landlord’s records show it was still trying to arrange appointments to resolve the resident’s concerns regarding repairs to the property. Its contractor states it was having difficulty in arranging appointments with the resident, however the email stated this was in March 2024. This is more than 1 year after the resident first made his complaint to the landlord. The landlord’s internal communication dated 30 May 2024 said there were repairs still outstanding, therefore a further inspection of the property is required to determine which repairs are outstanding and need action.
Compensation of £1000 offered after the resident’s complaint completed the landlord’s internal complaint process. This was for the delay in carrying out works to the property. However, this offer was made following completion of the landlord’s complaint process. By this point the resident’s complaint had been accepted for investigation by this Service. Due to this a finding of reasonable redress cannot be considered.
The Ombudsman determines there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints. Having considered its handling and recording of repairs to the property, there were delays in raising repairs and completing repairs, although it is noted that some of the delays were due to matters outside of the landlord’s control. Further, there were failings in the landlord’s recording information in its records. Therefore, a further £300 should be awarded to the resident in compensation in addition to the £1000 offered after the complaint process.

Complaint handling

On 2 January 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 January 2023. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 7 February 2023. This was 21 working days after the complaint acknowledgement which is outside of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint timescales. The complaint response was 26 working days after the resident made his complaint which is outside of the Ombudsman’s timescales. The landlord said it did notify the resident of the delay in providing its stage 1 complaint response. However, the resident informed the landlord he did not receive notification and requested a copy of the email. The landlord has not demonstrated it did provide the email to the resident, and this service has not seen a copy of the email. The landlord failed to address the delay within its subsequent stage 1 complaint response which amounts to a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address all the points raised in the resident’s complaint. Its failure to adequately address his concerns meant that he needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution.
The resident sought to escalate his complaint on 16 February 2023. The complaint acknowledgement was issued on 6 March 2023. The landlord has not explained why it took more than 13 working days to acknowledge the resident’s complaint escalation request. The stage 2 response was issued on 30 March 2023. The Code outlines that landlords should reply within 20 working days. The landlord has not provided a reasonable excuse as to why it took until 6 March 2023 to acknowledge the complaint. Additionally, the Code expects landlords to issue a stage 2 response within 20 workings. This was issued 31 working days after the resident sought to escalate his complaint. The delay in acknowledging the complaint or responding within the timescale per the Code amounts to a failing.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged it did not meet the service standards it had set for itself. Therefore, it should have considered awarding the resident compensation. On 30 March 2023, when issuing its stage 2 response, it did offer £100 compensation for its handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests the level of redress should be between £100-£600 for maladministration. The level of compensation offered in the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. The Ombudsman therefore finds that the landlord’s offer amounts to reasonable redress of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs including damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of designating the resident as a new tenant rather than an existing tenant is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.d. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling the increase to the resident’s rent is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for his deposit to be repaid is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident an overall compensation award of £1400. This is composed of:
  1. £1000 offered in its email dated 15 May 2024, if it has not already done so for its handling of the repairs including damp and mould in the property.
  2. £100 offered in its email dated 30 March 2023, if it has not already done so for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
  3. A further £300 for the failings identified in this report regarding the handling of repairs and damp and mould in the property.
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and the landlord must provide this service with evidence of the above payment within six weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange and complete an inspection the property. Within 2 weeks of this visit, the landlord is to write to the resident with details of its inspection and provide a time specific action plan if further repairs to the property are needed. The landlord is also to confirm with the resident whether mould in the property has been resolved. The landlord is to provide a copy of the letter to this service.