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

Homes Plus Limited (202326578)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202326578

Homes Plus Limited

20 November 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 is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of condensation in the loft.
    2. Reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen.
    3. Associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house, owned by the landlord, where she resides with her husband.
  2. The resident raised a formal complaint to the landlord on 13 June 2023, stating that it had failed to complete repairs to her kitchen. She said she had outstanding repairs, was frustrated that she had to keep reporting the issues, and it was impacting her physical and mental health. It had failed to arrange appropriate appointments and used cheap materials to complete repairs. She also referred to using a dehumidifier in her loft to keep it dry and prevent damage to her bedroom ceiling and electric wiring.
  3. In its stage 1 complaint response on 5 July 2023, the landlord responded to each of the resident’s concerns. This included actions it had taken in relation to resolving issues with the kitchen and loft, poor workmanship and materials, and communication relating to appointments. It apologised for its service failures and offered compensation of £150. (It did not provide a breakdown of its compensation offer).
  4. The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on the same day. She said she was unhappy with the level of compensation offered, that the repairs remained outstanding, and repeated that the matter was impacting her and her husband’s health.
  5. In its stage 2 response on 23 August 2023, the landlord set out the actions it had taken and its proposal to resolve the matters. It apologised and increased its compensation offer to £400. This comprised £200 for the delay in inspecting the loft and £200 for delays in completing the kitchen repairs.
  6. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and brought her complaint to this Service. She wanted it to complete the outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

  1. In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident advised that the repeated visits to her home by repairs operatives, and failure to resolve the matters, had impacted her and her husband’s physical and mental health. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health or finances, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress that was likely caused, as a result of any service failure by the landlord.
  2. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.f. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. Should the resident wish to pursue matters of health further, she can consider this via the courts.
  3. The resident advised this Service that she moved into the newly built house in 2017. She had experienced problems with condensation in the loft and defects with her kitchen from the outset. She believed that the kitchen defects were a result of water damage prior to installation. While we do not dispute this, given the time that has elapsed, it is difficult to now rely on the landlord having retained sufficient evidence. It is essential that residents raise matters with landlords within a reasonable timeframe and then progress these issues to the Ombudsman in a reasonable timeframe thereafter if they are not satisfied with how a landlord responds to the complaint. This has limited the extent to which this Service can investigate.
  4. Our position is in accordance with paragraph 42.c. of the Scheme which says that the Ombudsman may not consider 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 12 months of the matters arising.
  5. The role of the Housing Ombudsman is to assess the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint to ascertain whether it took reasonable steps to resolve complaints within its internal process. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the events from December 2022 regarding the condensation in the loft, and June 2021 in relation to kitchen repairs, leading up to its final response on 23 August 2023. Any events following its stage 2 response are mentioned in this report for context purposes only.

Reports of condensation in the Loft

  1. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of condensation in the loft. In its stage 1 and 2 responses it apologised for the delays in completing inspections and that initial work undertaken did not resolve the issue. It offered compensation of £200 in total for its identified failings.
  2. When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and offer to complete repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with our dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. The landlord’s records show that the resident made a report of damp in the loft on 2 December 2022, and it arranged to inspect the loft on 22 December 2022. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it had scheduled the inspection 20 days after receiving the resident’s report due to its volume of work. It acknowledged that it should have undertaken an inspection within 10-days as outlined in its repairs policy.
  4. In the landlord’s inspection of the loft, on 22 December 2022, it found no signs of damp or mould, or that it needed to carry out any treatment. However, it raised an order to install 2 roof tile vents to help with condensation. It installed the roof vents on 12 January 2023 to increase airflow to the loft.
  5. While there was a delay in inspecting the loft, as acknowledged by the landlord, its actions were appropriate and demonstrated that it had listened to the resident’s concerns and attempted to resolve the issue.
  6. Shortly after the installation of the vents, the resident reported that she was still experiencing the problem. The landlord approached its development team to establish whether there may be a latent defect. While its development team confirmed that it was not a known problem, other properties had reported similar concerns. It advised the resident that it would not be a “quick fix” and that it needed to investigate further. It also approached its developer who stated that as the handover of the properties was 6 years prior, it fell outside the warranty period.
  7. It was appropriate for the landlord to carry out further investigations given that it had received reports from other properties, and that the installation of the vents had not resolved the matter.
  8. The landlord carried out a further inspection on 2 March 2023 with its development and building inspector. It advised the resident on the following day that an investigation was underway. She made further contact on 14 and 27 March 2023 stating that the loft was constantly wet, repeating that this was causing distress and financial concerns due to running the dehumidifier. It advised that it had referred the matter to NHBC, and it was waiting for a response.
  9. In April 2023, the landlord’s records indicate that it received a letter from the local authority housing standards compliance officer. It stated that the resident had claimed disrepair at the property. It considered a further inspection but noted that it had already completed 2 inspections and had all the information needed and was waiting for a response from NHBC. This was appropriate given it had previously inspected on 2 occasions and was still investigating the root cause.
  10. The landlord’s records of 25 April 2023 referred to the NHBC advising that the matter would be invalid if the resident had stored materials in the roof space. It planned a further inspection for 26 April 2023 to check the underfelt used in the roof space. This was to ensure that it was the correct specification and the felt used was breathable material. It would consider further action once it had the results. This demonstrated that the landlord was continuing to try to find a resolution to the problem.
  11. The landlord carried out an inspection on 26 April 2023, took a sample of the underfelt for testing, and explained the findings of the NHBC. It noted that there were a lot of items stored in the loft and chipboard overlaying the joists and insulation. It is not known whether it gave advice to the resident about removing her stored items from the loft to help prevent condensation. This would have been appropriate given that it may have been contributing to the issue.
  12. The landlord’s records show that it made further investigations with its developer about the roofing specification on 11 May 2023. It said that that the installation of roof vents had not resolved the matter. It stated that the roofing felt used did not seem to be a breathable product and was causing maintenance issues. It is not known whether the developer confirmed that the felt was the correct specification, or whether further action was required in relation to this.
  13. In June 2023, the local authority compliance officer visited the resident’s home. The landlord’s records indicate that it had reported that it had been unable to see much in the loft due to the stored items.
  14. In its stage 1 response the landlord set out the actions it had taken since receiving the resident’s report. As the roof vents had not resolved the issue it upheld the complaint. It had raised a further job to check that the loft insulation was not tucked into the eaves and vents, blocking them so no air could circulate. It apologised and offered £150 compensation which included the cost of running the dehumidifier. (It should be noted that its compensation offer of £150 was combined with delays in completing kitchen repairs, which are discussed later in the report).
  15. The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the delays for which it offered compensation. It demonstrated that it had attempted to resolve the matter by installing vents, but this had been unsuccessful. It proposed further inspections and demonstrated that it was committed to investigating and resolving the matter.
  16. The landlord’s records of 10 and 21 August 2023 discuss the dehumidifier being on the landing, meaning that the loft hatch was open. It referred to warm air rising into the loft. However, the resident had advised that the dehumidifier was in the loft, the cable was plugged in on the landing, preventing the hatch from closing fully. It diarised to attend in November 2023 to carry out a further inspection to assess the condensation. It completed the inspection on 21 August 2023 which showed that the eaves were clear of insulation and there was no sign of condensation. It recommended adding 2 further tile vents.
  17. In its stage 2 response the landlord said that it understood the resident was unhappy with its offer of compensation and that the roof repairs remained outstanding. In its response:
    1. It repeated the actions it had taken since receiving her report.
    2. It stated that it had completed a survey on 21 August 2023 and would also arrange a date to post inspect the loft to check the condensation levels in November 2023. It asked her not to use the dehumidifier prior to the inspection in November. It advised her to contact it if she had any concerns about the loft before the inspection was carried out and it would arrange an earlier inspection.
    3. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to carry out an inspection after she reported that the roof tile vents had not resolved the issue, and the length of time for the loft survey to take place following an inspection on 30 June 2023. It increased its compensation offer to £200.
  18. The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for the delays the resident experienced. It demonstrated that it was committed to continuing to try and resolve the issue. Its compensation offer was also reasonable and in line with this Service’s remedies guidance for maladministration in the range of £100 to £600.
  19. We appreciate that the delays, from reporting the issue in December 2022 to when remedies were put in place in December 2023, would likely have been frustrating for the resident. However, it was appropriate for the landlord to carry out investigations with its development team, developer, and NHBC. It appropriately apologised for the delays in completing the inspection and that its initial attempts had failed to resolve the matter. It demonstrated that it had continued to try to find a resolution to the issue.
  20. We, therefore, find that the landlord has made an offer of redress, prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in the loft.
  21. We have made a recommendation in relation to clarifying whether the felt used was of an appropriate material and monitoring the situation should the resident make any further reports.

Reports of outstanding kitchen repairs

  1. In her complaint, the resident said that she had contacted the landlord numerous times, yet her repairs remained outstanding. Her complaint included that:
    1. Some of the kitchen repairs had been done, including a repair to the loose water damaged kickboards, which had again become loose.
    2. She had a new kitchen repair for another cupboard which she had reported that day, due to a broken hinge.
    3. She was “frustrated and fed up” with the constant need to keep getting repairs done. The materials used were “cheap and inferior” when the property was built, and nothing lasted.
    4. It was not easy trying to get repairs done as nobody seemed to know what they were doing. She had been told that there were no repairs outstanding. It was causing her physical and mental health issues, and she could no longer cope with the situation.
    5. The appointments system did not work. She had several text messages to say that someone would visit, she had to text back to say appointments were not suitable due to her husband being in hospital. She also complained that operatives would attend, to make a note of materials needed, then leave without completing any repairs.
    6. She had spent hours making telephone calls, writing emails, and complaining.
  2. It is not disputed that there were delays in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen. In both its stage 1 and 2 responses it apologised for the delays and offered compensation totalling £200. We have therefore considered whether the landlord’s redress (apology, offer to complete repairs, and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily.
  3. The evidence provided to this Service shows that the resident reported repairs to her kitchen units on 17 June 2021. She reported 2 broken cupboards which would not stay closed as the hinges were worn. There was a cupboard door which was rotten, and the kickboard was water damaged. She also reported the veneer coming off a cupboard door. She made further reports on 2 December 2022 and the landlord’s records show that an inspection was required to determine if any repairs were needed as the cupboards looked to be in reasonable condition.
  4. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that the inspector failed to make an appointment or carry out an inspection until the resident raised the matter again. The resident chased the landlord in March 2023 and its records show there were no outstanding repairs at the time. In April 2023, the landlord again stated that it needed to complete an inspection of the kitchen following a visit from a local authority compliance officer. This demonstrates a record keeping failure and that the landlord was likely not monitoring repairs effectively.
  5. The landlord’s records show that it attended on 9 May 2023 but failed to gain access. It intended to carry out repairs to the wall units to ensure the doors closed properly, replace the hinges to the sink unit as they were rusting, and to replace and refix the water damaged plinths. It left a calling card asking the resident to get in touch to re-book the appointment. The resident responded the following day asking that repairs be delayed for 2 weeks while her husband was in hospital.
  6. The landlord re-raised the job for 23 May 2023 but failed to gain access. The landlord acknowledges that this was an error, and it had not taken note of the resident’s request to delay the repairs by 2 weeks. On 1 June 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say that repairs could be resumed and it attended on 6 June 2023. She contacted again on 8 June 2023 stating that some repairs had been undertaken but some remained outstanding.
  7. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had asserted that the kitchen was water damaged when it was installed. It said it had no control over what materials had been used when the property was built as this was the builders choice. It was responsible for the repairs and had to replace items “like for like” or as close as possible to ensure a good match to the rest of the kitchen units. Its response included as follows:
    1. Repairs had been completed within its service level agreement, however, from previous inspections no jobs were raised to replace the plinths, for which it apologised. Following its visit on 30 June 2023, it raised jobs to complete the outstanding repairs. It listed the repairs that it would undertake and apologised for failing to secure the plinths on a previous visit. It would arrange a suitable date to complete the repairs and keep her informed.
    2. It acknowledged that its housing management system automatically sent text messages when a job was booked. It agreed that the process was not ideal and said it was improving its systems and was envisioning that it would be live at the beginning of the next financial year. Its new system would improve communication and would provide alerts for the status of repairs. This meant that there would be no need to chase for repairs that were outstanding. It apologised that its operative did not attend and that she was not notified sooner of a cancelled appointment.
    3. It took failures to communicate effectively seriously and was committed to improving its systems and processes. Her complaint would be used to remind staff of the importance of communicating between departments in a timely manner so not to cause delays.
    4. It offered £150 compensation (This included the delays for the condensation in the loft).
  8. The landlord’s response appropriately apologised for its poor communication and demonstrated learning from the complaint. It also acknowledged that it had failed to raise repairs to complete the work. However, it did not demonstrate that it had investigated its repairs history or how long the repairs had remained outstanding. It would also have been helpful for it to consider how it sets out its offers of compensation. This would improve clarity and understanding of what it has considered for each complaint element.
  9. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said that it had attended to complete the outstanding work to the kitchen. It acknowledged that she was still waiting for a veneer to be installed under the kitchen sink and for it to resecure the plinths. It had been trying to source a suitable product from its supplier and it had now received this. It had agreed an appointment with the resident for 31 August 2023 and apologised for the delay. It offered £200 compensation in recognition of the delays in completing the repairs and the impact this had on her chasing responses.
  10. The landlord’s response was appropriate in acknowledging the further delays and apologising. Its records demonstrate that it completed the repairs on 31 August 2023. However, this was over 2 years since the resident initially reported the repairs. Its compensation offer was not proportionate to the delays experienced by the resident.
  11. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it said that it had failed to complete the repairs in a timely manner in June, July, August, and November 2023. It also acknowledged that:
    1. It had failed to communicate effectively and did not note the resident’s request to avoid dates when her husband was in hospital.
    2. The repairs had remained outstanding since June 2021 and its stage 1 complaint response had failed to address this. Given the 2-year delay which already existed at the time of the Stage 1 Complaint response, the compensation offered was inadequate. Its stage 2 response also failed to recognise this, and its increased compensation offer (£200) was also inadequate.
  12. Given the delay of over 2 years to complete the repairs, and the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident, we find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen.

Associated complaint

  1. The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. Stage 1 complaints are responded to within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
  2. The resident raised her complaint on 13 June 2023. The landlord provided its response on 5 July 2023, 16 working days later, and 6 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  3. The resident asked to escalate her complaint on 5 July 2023 and received a stage 2 response on 23 August 2023, 35 working days later, and 15 working days later than its complaint policy timescale.
  4. While the delays were not significant, this would likely have added to the resident’s frustration and distress. We, therefore, find service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Scheme the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of condensation in the loft.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of outstanding repairs to the kitchen.
    2. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to pay directly to the resident, the sum of £450, this is broken down as follows:
    1. £400 for distress and inconvenience, time, and trouble, for the delays in completing the kitchen repairs. (This includes £200 offered in its stage 2 response which can be deducted if already paid).
    2. £50 for time and trouble, distress, and inconvenience for its complaint handling failures.
  2. Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord must provide evidence of its compliance with the above orders.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should pay to the resident £200, offered in its stage 2 response relating to the delays inspecting the roof space, if not already paid.
  2. The landlord should clarify whether the felt in the loft was of a breathable material and if it needs to complete any additional work to the loft space. It should also consider further inspections should the resident report any further concerns.
  3. We recommend that the landlord considers how it sets out compensation offers and explains how it attributes its calculations to each complaint point for clarity.