Homes Plus Limited (202004002)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004002

Homes Plus Limited (previously ,South Staffordshire Housing Association)

23 December 2021

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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door, damp and mould and slabs.
2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould from 2014 –2019.

Jurisdiction

3. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 (e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about damp and mould from 2014-2019.
5. Paragraph 39 (e) of the Scheme says that “The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion: were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”.
6. The resident explained that when he moved into the property after signing for it in December 2014, he noticed damp and mould in the property and expected the landlord to address this. He explained that no one did.
7. The landlord stated that it did not hold records which showed that the resident raised damp and mould issues at the start of the tenancy; it explained that its void records had some repairs, but these were not about damp and mould. It said that it first received reports of damp and mould in 2015 as a result of which it arranged surveys and a PIV installation unit.
8. The resident said that at the time he lost his new furniture which he brought to the property and that contractors who installed the PIV unit damaged his belongings. He also said that he had to chase the repair (the PIV unit) several times.
9. In response, the landlord acknowledged that there was a delay in completing the repair and it apologised, it said that at the time it compensated the resident for the contractor’s actions/damaged items. It also said that it had not seen evidence that the resident raised his report of damaged furniture to it (in 2015) and it did not have sight of evidence (such as photographs). The resident questioned if he would have been responsible for providing such evidence and said that any photographs taken at the time of the damaged furniture would not be available now.
10. The Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s dispute and his outstanding dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response to his request for compensation (in 2020) for these events (from 2014 onwards). However, there is no evidence that the resident raised his concerns as a formal complaint at the time and prior to 2020. Nor is there any evidence that it was escalated to the Ombudsman within 12 months of a final response prior to 2020. Therefore, this complaint outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme.
11. The remaining investigation has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould (in 2020), the repairs to the front door and the paving slab.

Background and summary of events

Background

12. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord and the tenancy was signed in December 2014. The property is a two bedroom bungalow with a garden. The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s actions during the time that the resident was a tenant in this property (there is evidence the resident might have since moved).
13. The landlord states that no vulnerabilities are listed however the resident suffers from MS and highlighted this to the landlord in his complaints.
14. The landlord is obliged to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, drains gutters and external pipes, outside walls, doors (including necessary painting and decorations), internal walls, skirting boards, doors and door frames, door jabs, thresholds, floors and ceiling (but not painting and decorating), major internal plaster work, repair of installations and common parts, and decoration of interior (“within reason to ensure that the premises is in a good state of internal repair at the start of the tenancy …”) and to carry out all repairs for which the landlord is responsible for within a reasonable timescale.
15. The repair policy states the timescale for repairs, which range from emergency (4 hours), non emergency (will depend on service standard or service level agreements in place), planned works (varied timescales) and more. In respect of the repair priorities, a leaking door (or water ingress from the door) is not specified in the right to repair statutory timescales. The landlord is expected to resolve repairs within a reasonable timeframe (Landlord and Tenant Act 1985).
16. The landlord is expected to keep the property “fit for human habitation” and uphold the resident’s right to expect “freedom from damp” for the term of the tenancy (Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018).

Summary of events

17. In March 2020 the resident raised a repair to the front door, after historic repairs had not resolved the issue. The resident explained that water was leaking in from the door.
18. In June 2020 the resident reported that the paving slabs in the back garden were loose and a trip hazard. The repair records state that the job to repair the slabs was not raised until 6 October 2020.
19. On 26 August 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord. His complaint about the damp and mould (and the loss of furniture when he moved in) and the handling of the PIV installation (the delay and impact) are not within the scope of this investigation. The landlord responded at stage one on 11 September 2020 and booked an inspection for 18 September 2020. The response also said that the PIV unit was fixed in the property 2 years ago. It acknowledged that the damp and mould was making his MS worse, and that he was sleeping elsewhere.
20. In September 2020 the landlord raised repairs to the front door.
21. The resident escalated the complaint on the 4 December 2020.
    1. He explained that the bedroom which had been replastered due to mould required redecorating but he could not do this himself due to his progressive MS and he could not afford the decorators.
    2. The landlord took pictures of the front door and said he would get this done for him but it had not.
    3. The surveyor had not completed the work to the paving slabs.
    4. He said the damp and mould affected his mental health.
22. The landlord issued its stage two response on 18 December 2020.
    1. It acknowledged the outstanding items from the resident’s escalation (decoration, water ingress from front door and work to the slabs incomplete).
    2. It said that it partially upheld the complaint.
    3. It apologised for the delay in completing the work to the slabs and chased the repair team for a date to attend this job.
    4. It asked a surveyor to inspect the door to decide on the remedial works required (to resolve the water ingress). Due to annual and Christmas break, it said the surveyor would contact the resident in the new year to arrange this appointment.
    5. It did not assess the impact of its failing or offer any compensation.
23. The resident escalated his complaint (landlord’s records suggest this was on 13 January 2020).
    1. He had “constant headaches” and his breathing had been compromised, he would get short of breath.
    2. He explained that every time it rained, he would wake up to water in the hallway floor and this had been ongoing for a year.
    3. In escalating the complaint, the resident completed a form and this asked about “the impact this complaint had on you and/or your family”. In response, the resident explained that he has “secondary progressive MS the final stages of MS I have lived with mould and damp from December 2014”. He said that the floor repair had been ongoing for a year.
    4. He explained that he wanted the mould and damp resolved, the slabs to be fixed (as they were loose and dangerous), and for the door to be repaired so that he did not have puddles in the property after rainfall.
24. On 21 January 2021 the landlord and resident discussed the complaint and the landlord’s records noted a series of actions it took to address the repairs.
25. It visited the property and discussed the resident’s concern about the slabs, front door and the damp and mould. It noted that the resident was fine with the decoration in the bedroom and was available for 27 January 2021 for this (it did this as a gesture of goodwill and this followed plaster work which it carried out historically).
26. Its records show that the paving slab repair was completed after the operative assessed this and said that it “needed re-bedding to level up”. The records state that resident was satisfied with the work (with pictures to show the repaired flooring, 21 January 2021).
27. The records also show that it considered that the mould was due to lifestyle and condensation. It considered photographs of the area which it considered to be “normal condensation, possibly not opening the windows so there is a moisture build up”. The landlord said that it would also contact ‘EnviroVent’ (an extractor and ventilation company) to arrange an inspection to assess the PIV unit to make sure that it was functioning properly.
28. The landlord’s internal record also state that the “new door is covered under the LSA of the major repairs and is therefore on a 60 day time period”.
29. On 27 January 2021 the landlord emailed the resident a holding letter in place of the stage three response and explained that it required more time to investigate this and would respond by 5 February 2021.
30. The landlord issued its stage three response on 2 February 2021.
    1. It explained that it was not escalated to stage three as the outcome would be no different. However, it went on to provide a response on the outstanding issues.
    2. Repairs to the front door that remain unresolved:
       • The front door was replaced in 2018 (following historic repair issues, which are not in the scope of this investigation). Then, on 9 March 2020 the landlord received another report about the door becoming loose and letting water in. It said that it attended to repair it but then this was raised again (water ingress from the door when it rains and further works required). This was not acted on. A job was raised on 29 June 2020 but the resident was isolating and following the complaint another job was raised on 28 September 2020 and attended on 13 October 2020 (to fix the door frame).
       • The delay in the repair to the door (in 2020) was because it was only undertaking emergency repairs during the lockdown, there was a further delay when the resident was isolating.
       • An inspection was carried out on 21 January 2021 and this established that the door was beyond repair and needed replacing. This was raised and was due to be completed within 60 days (in accordance with its published timescales).
       • Due to the government restrictions and Brexit, there was a delay with the manufacturer so “any delays that occur will be a result of the manufacture and not (the landlord)”. It said it would contact the resident about delays.
    3. Mould issues within the property and damage this caused to his personal belongings:
       • The landlord acknowledged that the resident said that he was still experiencing mould in the property. It said “the location of the mould against the windows suggest that this is cold spot and is due to condensation and lifestyle rather than damp within the property or the fabric of the building. We have enclosed a leaflet on how to manage condensation for guidance”.
       • It also said “As a precautionary measure we have requested that EnviroVent carry out an inspection of the PIV unit to ensure that this is working correctly. They will run a diagnostic report to ensure that unit is being used correctly. They will contact you directly to arrange the appointment and following their inspection if further work is required we will contact you to advise”.

d. Relaying of the slabs:

• The landlord said that the resident first reported that the slabs had become a trip hazard on 9 June 2020.
• It said that during this time the landlord was only undertaking emergency and urgent repairs due to Covid-19 lockdown and the relaying of the slabs were not considered as an emergency or urgent repair.
• The landlord said that the work was completed on 21 January 2021 and it attached photographs of the completed works.

31. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman’s triage and mediation team his outstanding issues (April – May 2021). The resident explained that the front door had been leaking for a year and a half. The resident advised that the hallway had been ruined due to water damage from the leak, and that puddles would form there. The resident advised the landlord said the door will be delivered in two months and that he had MS and could not afford to replace items and the floor in the hallway was “ruined” due to rain water.
32. The resident explained that the slabs were faulty, and this damaged the door, causing the leak. The resident said that he was advised by a surveyor that they would replace the slabs but the contractor only adjusted them, so the leak continued.
33. In June 2021 the resident confirmed that he sought for the bedroom to be replastered and repainted and the floor was ruined in the hallway as the front door was still leaking.

Assessment and findings

34. There was a delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about repairs to the slabs and the front door.
35. The resident raised his report about the slabs in June 2020. The landlord completed it in January 2021.
36. The landlord explained that the delays were due to Covid-19. However, the landlord did not take steps to repair this even when it was able to from around August 2020. It only repaired this in January 2021. This was not reasonable.
37. The resident disagreed with the repair that the landlord carried out. He explained that the slabs should have been replaced. However, the landlord is entitled to rely on the assessment of its operatives in respect of the slabs. The operative provided the landlord with its view (that they needed to be adjusted, not replaced) and then it gave the landlord pictures of the repaired slabs and an update that the resident was happy with this (January 2021).
38. The Ombudsman is not in a position to determine if the repair was satisfactory or not, it can only consider the landlord’s response to such a report. It is unclear if the resident communicated his continued dissatisfaction after this date to the landlord. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of the concern that the slabs were affecting the door. The evidence shows that the repair was completed (although after an unreasonable delay).
39. The resident raised his report about front door in March 2020 (after the landlord replaced this several years before). The landlord initially considered repairing it and said that it raised a job accordingly, however this was delayed due to the resident self isolating (June/July 2020). The door repair remained outstanding until the resident raised it again in his complaint. The landlord raised this in September and attended to in October 2020. However, this still did not resolve the repair (leaks) and the landlord eventually inspected it and confirmed that it required replacing in January 2021. The landlord then provided the resident with the timescale of 60 days in February 2021 to replace the door. At present it is not clear if this took place.
40. There has been an unreasonable delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report about the door. It did not respond with a sense of urgency despite the resident’s reports about “puddles” in the hallway after rainfall. Nor did it consider offering compensation given the inconvenience caused by its delay.
41. Although there were points of delays which were beyond the landlord’s control, such as the delay between March – June/July 2020, the landlord did not take reasonable steps to respond in a timely manner to the repair during those occasions where it could have done. It only diagnosed the problem with the door (that it needed to be replaced) following the resident’s continued dissatisfaction and escalation of the complaint and after its previous attempts had failed.
42. The landlord did not acknowledge or address the impact of the door repair (and water ingress) such as the resident’s reports about dealing with puddles of water after rainfall and the inconvenience this caused. This was despite the resident’s known vulnerability.
43. The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timeframe when it could, and it failed to demonstrate that it considered interim support to deal with the impact of this (eg lay down temporary materials to protect the carpets or ask its operative about temporary sealant on the doors to stop the water ingress while the repair was outstanding, if possible).  The landlord did not respond reasonably to the resident’s repair report about the door.
44. In respect of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, the landlord assessed that this was condensation based on some photographs of the affected areas. There is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord carried out a thorough damp inspection, given that there was also a known outstanding repair of water ingress into the property. This was unreasonable. The resident held the right to expect freedom from damp and the landlord is obliged to take reasonable steps to address reports, especially when it is aware of an outstanding repair involving water ingress and a historic damp problem in the property.
45. It was reasonable for it to arrange for EnviroVent to inspect the PIV system to see if this was still working as it should. It is unclear if this took place after the conclusion of the complaint response.
46. It was reasonable for the landlord to offer to decorate the bedroom as a gesture of goodwill following its plastering work. This took into account the resident’s personal circumstances (that he has MS and could not arrange this).
47. The landlord acknowledged the delays in its repair service. However, it did not demonstrate a reasonable response to this by assessing the impact on the resident such as the distress and inconvenience. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer compensation to address the detriment which the resident evidently experienced.

Determination (decision)

48. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door, damp and mould and slabs.

Reasons

49. The landlord did not respond within a reasonable timeframe to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door or slabs. The water ingress continued while the repair was outstanding. It did not offer to provide interim support or take steps to fulfil its repair obligations during those times when it could (ie in line with Covid-19 guidelines for landlord repair services).
50. The landlord did not take reasonable steps to investigate the resident’s continued report of damp and mould. It considered from looking at photographs of the affected area that this was caused by condensation and gave him a leaflet. It did not arrange an appropriate damp inspection. This was despite the known outstanding water ingress.
51. The landlord had the opportunity to offer redress to the resident under the complaint process in line with the dispute resolution principles (to put things right). Access to redress is important in fair and timely dispute resolution, and in this case the landlord missed the opportunity to provide this. In addition to distress and inconvenience, the resident experienced time and trouble.
52. The resident is vulnerable and communicated his circumstances to the landlord, however, there is limited evidence that the landlord took this into account in its overall response to the repair reports to the front door, slabs and the mould and damp.

Orders and recommendations

53. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation of £400 for distress and inconvenience and time and trouble.
54. Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to confirm that:
55. The front door of the property has been replaced as required and that the PIV unit inspection has been arranged.
56. It has arranged an appropriate damp inspection to address any outstanding reports of damp and mould.