Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Homes Plus Limited (202312600)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202312600

Homes Plus Limited

21 June 2024


Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse of the resident’s property.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a three–bedroom house which began in May 1995. On the side of the property is an outhouse which is split into three areas. There is a coal house and a toilet on one side and an area housing the electric meter and electric hot water/heating system on the other side of the outhouse.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 24 September 2021 to report that the door to the outhouse was loose.
  3. The landlord instructed a carpenter to attend the property. The carpenter attended on 29 September 2021 and, following an inspection, noted that the upper half of the brickwork above the door moved when the resident locked the door. Whilst the carpenter made an adjustment to the door he considered the structure to be dangerous and instructed the resident not to use it. The carpenter sent the landlord an email on 29 September 2021 about the outhouse in which he stated, “needs to be seen to [be] believed, how a serious accident hasn’t happened”.
  4. The landlord asked for a further inspection to be carried out which happened on the same day. Following this an email was sent in which the operative explained “there is no door to the toilet or original brick lintel which in part is why there is movement to the adjacent front coal house wall and there is no door to the right hand room”. The operative added “providing the coal house door stays shut and the back door is kept closed the structure remains sound. Tenants have been advised not to use the outhouse until such time as repairs take place”. The operative’s view on the repairs involved removing the flat roof of the outhouse and the associated timbers as well as removing the internal divide walls and raising the level of the coal house floor.
  5. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 8 October 2021 noted that it asked a contractor to price up the repair works to the outhouse. The landlord set out an explanation of the work needed, in keeping with the email it had received on 29 September 2021.
  6. The resident called the landlord on 11 October 2021 chasing up the repairs. She was informed that, as the visit had only recently taken place, the landlord would be in touch in due course.
  7. The resident made a significant number of calls to the landlord chasing up the work as she had yet to hear back from the landlord. The first group of calls took place between 3 November and 14 December 2021 although there were other calls in January and March 2022. Then there was a second cluster of calls made by the resident between 22 April and 8 June 2022. The resident explained in her call on 9 May 2022 that she was due to have a new smart meter fitted at the property for which the utility provider needed access to the outhouse.
  8. The notes of the resident’s telephone call to the landlord on 8 June 2022 noted that she had received a callback on 26 May 2022 from the landlord. However the landlord has not provided this Service with any detailed notes of the contents of that call and what had been discussed.
  9. The resident raised an online complaint with the landlord on 15 June 2022. She explained that, following the carpenter attendance and follow up visit in September 2021 during which photos, videos and measurements had been taken “I was told it was an emergency repair and said noone was to use the building as it was so unsafe and that it was basically [sic] condemned”. The resident added she had been informed that the repair would be fixed within the next couple of weeks. She added a further inspection had taken place although it was not clear when this had occurred, during which measurements had been taken again but no works had taken place and no one had contacted her. Following further contact with the landlord a surveyor had finally attended on 15 June 2022 and “informed me that they wouldnt be knocking the building down but would just be repairing any broken bricks and replacing the roof I also informed him of the problems I face with using my electric meter as it is too high and above the air source heat pump but was told this would probably not be moved as of the cost to do so”.
  10. The landlord phoned the resident on 16 June 2022 following receipt of her complaint. The notes of the call noted that the resident could not remember the names of any of the individuals who had attended the property previously. The landlord’s notes recorded that the resident had been chasing up on the issue since October 2021.
  11. The landlord’s internal communication on 17 June 2022 contained the notes of the inspection undertaken on 15 June 2022. These set out that the outhouse was in a bad state and needed substantial works undertaken to it including the roof of it. The inspection also observed some structural cracking and so the landlord requested a structural report on the property.
  12. The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 27 June 2022. It explained:
    1. A carpenter and inspector had attended to the property on 29 September 2021. However it accepted that nothing further had happened from there despite the resident contacting it many times over the matter. It added this “failure stemmed from the Senior Surveyor leaving the business”.
    2. It apologised for this occurring and set out that there was no correct handover of cases when some members of staff had left. It added it had recently “implemented a file sharing system that collates inspection reports, photographs and emails that are automatically transferred over to new staff members and thus reduces the risk that outstanding repair issues getting unduly delayed”.
    3. A surveyor had visited the property on 15 June 2022 and reported lots of work needed to be done to the outhouse. The surveyor had stated the resident was “completely safe and he does not think the structure dangerous”. However due to concerns about structural cracking, a structural survey had been requested which the landlord expected to take place within the next three weeks. Once the structural report had been received the landlord would “best assess the next steps and remedial works needed”. It added it would diarise to chase the report and “further chase works orders and timescales following this”.
  13. Following the structural survey taking place on 11 July 2022 a report was provided to the landlord on 20 July 2022. This report noted that there was a number of staggered hairline cracks to the main property. The report recommended remedial works to the main property including repairing the cracking to the walls. In terms of the outhouse the structural survey report recommended “that the outhouse superstructure is demolished and rebuilt adopting the original foundations where possible. The new structure should be built to current design codes and meet current building regulations”.
  14. The resident contacted the landlord on a number of occasions from 30 August 2022 onwards concerning the repairs to the outhouse. She left a number of messages for the landlord.
  15. The resident completed an online complaint form for the landlord on 10 February 2023. She set out the history of the complaint and explained that she had previously made a complaint in 2022, after which there had been some movement on the matter and operatives had attended the property. As a result she had dropped the complaint. However the workmen who had turned up could not do anything “because the job was bigger than what they had been told”. She added the issue had drained her emotionally and had affected her mental health. She stated this was “not only the worry of the building coming down on someone but the water and electrics mix is also alarming Ive had a new meter on hold for fitting for two years because of safety and the positioning of the air pump that was fitted preventing workers getting to the meter”.
  16. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation to stage 2 on 17 February 2023. The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 17 March 2023. It stated:
    1. Following the structural survey carried out on the resident’s home it had identified work required “to reinforce the brickwork in your home, remove and replace any cracked bricks, and remove and renew the brickwork to your outbuilding”.
    2. It did not have the capacity to complete the works in house and had requested quotes from three of its approved contractors. It added there had been a delay to works beginning as the external contractors had not supplied it with the quotes and it was liaising with them over the matter. It apologised for this and stated it would confirm the start date as soon as possible. It added it would provide an update to the resident within the next 28 days and the complaint would remain open until the works had been completed.    
    3. During the period when the work was carried out the resident would be decanted.

Events since the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process.

  1. The landlord’s internal correspondence from 23 March 2023 enquired as to whether the quotes from the contractors had been received back and how close it was to appointing one to do the work. It contacted the resident the following day to provide an update. The resident explained to the landlord that she wanted to stay in the property when the work was carried out.
  2. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 27 March 2023 noted that, due to the high cost of the work, three quotes were required.
  3. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 7 July 2023. She explained that whilst the landlord had done an asbestos test on the property, it had not shared the results with her. She added the landlord’s repairs had been delayed without reasons and that she had suffered from anxiety, breathing problems and depression. The resident set out that she wanted the landlord to knock down the outhouse and rebuild it as well as pay compensation for the lack of communication, stress and physical impact.
  4. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 11 August 2023 asked for an update to the repair works. The response the landlord received from its repairs team was that the contractor would let it know the following day of the start day of works. It added that the works would take an estimated three weeks. The landlord confirmed to the resident that the start date of the works would be 23 August 2023.
  5. The works were carried out at the property between 24 August 2023 and 10 September 2023. Following completion of the works, an inspection was carried out on 4 October 2023 and a snagging list was compiled and passed to the contractor to complete.
  6. The resident telephoned the landlord on 11 October 2023 to chase the follow up work needed on the outhouse. She followed this up with another call on 17 October 2023. The resident was informed at this time the matter was being chased up with the contractor.
  7. The landlord’s internal correspondence on 28 November 2023 confirmed that the works on the snagging list had been completed. It added that there were further works which were not associated with the complaint which needed to be completed. These included self levelling of the outhouse and the installation of drainage from the downpipe of the outhouse to run to the main property downpipe and the renewal of the guttering to the rear of the property. These works had been booked in to be undertaken on 8 December 2023.
  8. Whilst some of the works encompassing the rear guttering and the downpipe were completed on 8 December 2023, due to the main drains being blocked and requiring cleaning the other works could not be completed at that time. Further works were raised on 13 December 2023 and the works were completed on 14 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the outhouse of the property.

  1. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s initial concerns about the outhouse in September 2021. It made arrangements for an operative to attend, this was scheduled five days after the initial issue had been raised by the resident. Following the visit by the landlord’s operative, he sent the landlord an email outlining his concerns about the outhouse. The landlord acted reasonably to this by asking for a second inspection to take place. This was arranged on the same day as the visit by the first operative. The second visit, undertaken by an inspector as opposed to a carpenter, determined that whilst the outhouse doors both at the front and back remained shut the structure remained structurally sound. The second operative suggested further work for the outhouse which included the removal of the roof as well as the internal dividing walls.
  2. It has not been made clear to this Service what information was shared by the landlord and its operatives with the resident at the time concerning the nature of the works required. However the resident was made aware of the need to keep the outhouse door and the rear door to the outhouse shut, and her constant chasing up with the landlord about the works show that she was aware that the repairs were needed to the outhouse.
  3. The landlord has accepted that the resident made a number of calls to it over several months over the matter. It has stated that a total of 12 calls were made by the resident enquiring as to the repairs to the outhouse. In its stage 1 response the landlord set out the outstanding repairs were in part not picked up because the senior surveyor had left. The landlord also said that, whilst it had requested a quote for the repairs, as the request had not contained enough detail a quote had not been received. Th landlord has provided evidence that it had requested a quote for the works on 8 October 2021 and it had set out the works in keeping with the second of its operatives’ report of 29 September 2021. However, it has not provided any evidence to this Service from its contractor which explained that the contractor needed further information in order to provide the quote. Neither was there any other evidence that it had sought further information from its operative to provide additional detail of the required works.
  4. Even if the landlord’s senior surveyor, whom the landlord states was aware of the matter had left employment, its record keeping of the required works together with the constant chasing by the resident on the matter ought to have alerted it to the outstanding works which had not been progressed. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord, and the impact of this on the resident would have increased the distress and inconvenience that she was feeling at a time when concerns had been raised over whether the outhouse was structurally sound.
  5. In the stage 1 response the landlord accepted that there had been failings in its systems. It informed the resident that it had put in a system which meant that going forwards it would collate inspection reports and emails to new staff members, ensuring the chance of outstanding repairs becoming unduly delayed was reduced.
  6. Despite saying this following the structural survey being undertaken at the property in July 2022 there were further delays caused by the landlord of a number of months. The landlord stated that, due to the cost of the work recommended after the structural survey, it needed to obtain three quotes for the work. This was reasonable. However from the information which the landlord has recently provided to this Service it would appear that only two quotes had been requested on 22 November 2022. The landlord had then sent a chaser to one of these parties and requested a quote from another contractor, only on 2 March 2023, which was after the resident had escalated her complaint to stage 2. The landlord has added that it has been unable to locate any evidence as to whether the quotes requested in November 2022 had been chased either verbally or by phone call by it. It stated this was as the individual responsible for this had left employment and their phone calls had not been recorded. This was a serious failing as it was at odds to the system which the landlord had stated it had put into place after the events at stage 1 to ensure delays had been reduced in the event of staff leaving.
  7. Overall it was clear that following the visit to the property in June 2022 which had highlighted cracks to the property that the works required extended past repairs to simply the outhouse. Instead there was a need for structural works to the property. As a consequence the project became much larger than had originally been envisaged.
  8. Of the three quotes which the landlord had requested from its contractors, only one had responded and this was several weeks after it had issued the stage 2 response to the resident, in April 2023. Whilst this was four months prior to the work to the outhouse and property starting, the landlord has confirmed that an asbestos survey had been required of the property which had taken some time. Following the survey the sewerage pipe to the property had needed to be replaced, which had taken more time.
  9. Following further chasing by the resident as to when the work would actually take place the landlord confirmed a start date with the contractor. Whilst the contractor did not turn up on that day (23 August 2023) it confirmed this to be the case with the resident and agreed it would attend the following day.
  10. Whilst the majority of the work to the outhouse had been completed by 10 September 2023, there had been some outstanding works and snagging issues which needed to be resolved. Even after the snagging issues had been resolved the landlord discovered further work was required which took an additional two months to be finally resolved (from November 2023 to January 2024). The landlord should have, in light of the prolonged delay taken to resolve the issue of the outhouse, considered the work which had been scheduled for the outhouse in July 2022 and carried out an update to try to establish whether any further work was required. This was a missed opportunity by it in trying to ensure there was no further delay to the resident before the works needed on the outhouse had been completed. This was especially as it had already been in excess of two years since the issue with the outhouse had come to the fore.

 The landlord’s record keeping.

  1. In terms of the repairs required to the property the landlord has informed this Service that, whilst it was aware the resident had been calling it since October 2021, there were no open jobs which had been raised on the system. As a result the resident’s requests for updates had been sent directly “by email to inspectors and repair supervisors who did not respond and the client team variations mailbox which was not a live/used email and was therefore not being monitored”. It added that this mailbox had been closed down in the last quarter of 2021 however, despite requesting the mailbox was removed, this had not been done. This was a failing by the landlord in not ensuring that tasks were created or that in the case of personal emails being sent to individuals that these were followed up by it. It also failed to make its staff aware that the mailbox being used for the emails was not active.
  2. Following the stage 1 response the landlord continued to make errors with the management of the repairs records. It has explained that the major works supervisor who had been looking into the matter after stage 1 had left and it the individual had not had their calls recorded. As a result the landlord was uncertain as to whether the quotes requested from its contractors had been chased up.
  3. Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in respect of this complaint and the impact on the resident has been to cause her a degree of distress and inconvenience. These recording failures amount to a failing on the part of the landlord.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the outhouse.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

  1. Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. Arrange for a member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident an amount of £350 in respect of its handling of the repairs to the outhouse to recognise the delays in completing the works the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to her.
    3. Pay the resident an amount of £150 in relation to its record keeping and the resulting distress and inconvenience.

 Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping processes against the recommendations in the Knowledge and Information Management spotlight report (available on the Ombudsman’s website).
  2. The landlord should undertake a review of its process in relation to ensure that the process of communicating with third parties, internally and with residents is recorded centrally, and not individually. This will minimise the risk of delays caused as a result of individuals dealing with issues having left employment or being away for extended periods of time.  
  3. The landlord should ensure that any email mailboxes or addresses which it uses are correct and up to date. It should take steps to ensure that any obsolete mailboxes/addresses are deleted.