Longhurst Group Limited (202230008)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230008

Longhurst Group Limited

24 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the kitchen.
2. The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has decided to investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord since 2019. She occupies the property with her son who has anxiety and additional needs. The resident also experiences anxiety. The landlord is aware of the household’s additional needs. The property is a 2-bedroom house. The landlord is a housing association.
In November 2022, the resident reported a leak under the kitchen floor. The landlord’s contractor attended and removed the kitchen flooring but could not identify the cause of the leak. After this the resident did not hear anything further from the landlord. The resident chased the landlord on 3 occasions but was unable to make any progress and made a stage 1 complaint. The landlord attended and investigated the area behind household appliances. It identified an issue with pipework to a dishwasher and noted an area of damp and mould and a damaged skirting caused by the leak. The landlord tightened the pipework and said it suspected this was the cause of the issue. It said it would return the following week to check there was no further issue.
The landlord returned as planned and confirmed the loose pipework was the cause of the issue. It organised remedial works to the kitchen units and damp area to take place later in January.
In its stage 1 complaint response it apologised for the delay in responding to her complaint and for the delay in carrying out repairs to the kitchen units and treating the damp and mould. It said its contractor would attend on 30 January 2023 and complete all outstanding works. It offered a total of £200 compensation.
On 31 January 2022, the contractor attended but was unable to complete any works. It stated not enough time or tradespeople had been allocated to the job. On the same day, the resident requested to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She requested additional compensation for the inconvenience and asked the landlord to provide its earliest date for the works to take place. The landlord arranged its contractor to attend on 20 February 2023. The contractors attended but found the work required was too extensive to be completed in the time allocated.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 15 March 2023. It offered its sincere apologies for the service she had received, and for the condition the kitchen had been left in since she reported the issue in November 2022. It said its contractors would attend on 13 March 2023 and be on site for 5 days. It offered £10 per day for loss of use of the kitchen, and an additional £400 compensation in recognition of the inconvenience and distress caused. The work to the kitchen was completed on 17 March 2023.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response and escalated her complaint to this service. To resolve the issue the resident wants the landlord to improve its service delivery.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen

The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy. It categorises responsive repairs as:
1. Emergency repairs – attend within 4 hours safe and make safe.
2. Appointed Urgent repairs – complete within 7 calendar days.
3. Appointed routine repairs – complete within 28 calendar days.
On 25 November 2022, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen. The landlord’s contractor attended and removed the kitchen flooring back to the concrete base. It could not identify the source of the leak and referred the matter back to the landlord for further investigation. The resident received no further communication from the landlord on the matter. This was unfair and unreasonable and caused the resident worry and uncertainty. When a landlord is not able to complete a repair at the visit, the Ombudsman expects the landlord to communicate its plan to the resident in a timely manner.
On 7 December 2022, the resident spoke to the landlord’s call centre and was told the job had been ‘closed on the system’. The resident then had to spend time explaining events to the call handler. She was told that she would be called back but did not receive a call. The landlord did not demonstrate good customer care when it did not keep its promise to call her back. On 8 December 2022, the resident made a stage 1 complaint about the issue. (The landlord’s complaint handling has been investigated later in this report). On 9 December 2022, the resident had to chase the landlord again for an update. The situation was frustrating for the resident. The Ombudsman finds the landlord and contractor failed to communicate effectively about the outcome of the job on 25 November 2022. Over a period of 3 days the resident had to chase the landlord to find out what was going to happen next. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord visited on 19 December 2022 and suggested the cause of the leak was loose pipework behind kitchen appliances. It tightened the pipework and said it would return on 3 January 2023 to make a final decision. It documented the sink unit, wall and skirting were affected by mould and would need to be replaced.
The landlord returned on 3 January 2023 and confirmed the cause of the leak was loose pipework. It organised major works to be carried out to the kitchen units, walls, skirtings, and floor, on 30 January 2023. The contractor attended on this day but decided it could not complete any works because not enough time had been allocated and not enough tradespeople had been booked. The Ombudsman finds the landlord and its contractor failed to appropriately plan staff and resources which resulted in disappointment and distress for the resident.
In its stage 1 response the landlord offered its sincere apologies for the issues and offered £200 pounds and a £50 love to shop voucher. It reassured her that it had spoken to its contractors to ensure the situation would not happen again. As part of its complaint response the landlord rebooked the repair appointment for 20 February 2023. Between 30 January and 20 February 2023, the resident had to put up with a kitchen that was unpleasant to use. The removal of appliances meant the damp and mouldy areas were exposed which produced an unpleasant smell in the kitchen necessitating the use of a fan. It had no flooring, appliances had been repositioned in locations around the kitchen, causing a loss of functional space and had to be powered by extension leads. The resident informed the landlord an extension lead had overheated. The situation and condition of the kitchen caused considerable anxiety and distress to the resident. The Ombudsman considers the situation was avoidable.
On 20 February the contractors attended. On this occasion the kitchen works could not be carried out because preparatory works such as plastering, and relocation of electrical sockets had not been completed prior to the contractor’s arrival. This is evidence that together, the landlord and contractor again failed to appropriately plan to identify the scope of works, dependencies and tradespeople needed. This was unreasonable and left the resident exasperated and distressed for a second time. It undermined her trust and confidence in the landlord and meant she had to continue contending with a cluttered and unpleasant kitchen while she awaited the next repair appointment.
On 21 and 24 February 2023, the resident’s mother phoned the landlord to inform it that the stress of the situation was causing the resident to become very ill. She also expressed they did not believe that it was appropriate for her to live in the property with the kitchen in its current state. The documents provided show the landlord was apologetic and empathetic. It made good efforts to secure the earliest return date from its contractor.
The landlord booked a third appointment for the works to take place over 5 days between 13 and 17 March 2023. It arranged a surveyor to oversee the repairs and tradespeople during the week. In the circumstances this was appropriate. It advised the resident the kitchen would be out of use for 5 days and offered the resident hotel accommodation for those days. This was helpful and appropriate. The resident declined the offer of alternative accommodation. The landlord offered £10 per day per person meal allowance for the 5 days the kitchen was out of use. Based on 3 meals per day, this calculates as £3.33 available for each meal. The Ombudsman has weighed up this amount in the context of the cost of living and rising food prices and considers £10 per person per day was insufficient. The Ombudsman considers an appropriate daily amount would be £25 per person per day and makes an order for an additional sum of £150 to be paid to the resident.
On 15 March 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It expressed it sincere apologies for the state of the kitchen since November 2022. It offered a further £400 in compensation. This was appropriate in the circumstances.
The works were completed on 17 March 2023. This was 16 weeks after the landlord removed the flooring looking for the cause of the leak. The Ombudsman finds the landlord did not provide the level of service the resident was entitled to expect. It did not work in a joined-up way with its contractors resulting in no communication or information being provided to the resident, service failures and aborted appointments. The landlord did not demonstrate it had learned from the outcome of the first aborted appointment on 30 January 2023 because the same situation occurred again on 20 February 2023. Its disorganised approach meant it exceeded its appointed routine repairs timescale by many weeks. During this time, the resident had to contend with a kitchen in poor condition. The duration of the issues had a significant impact on the resident and caused serious inconvenience and distress to her. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the kitchen.
The landlord’s complaint responses and other documents provided to this investigation indicate it understands where things went wrong, and it has sincerely apologised. This is positive. The Ombudsman makes a recommendation for the landlord to have a joint case review with its contractor to maximise learning and reduce the possibility of the situation happening again.
The Ombudsman has considered the total amount of compensation offered by the landlord. This was £150 compensation and £50 voucher at stage 1 of the complaints process and £400 at stage 2. The compensation at stage 1 was comprised of:
1. £50 for costs in running a fan.
2. £50 for stress and inconvenience.
3. £50 for delay in carrying out repairs.
4. £50 love to shop voucher.
The Ombudsman considers this does not go far enough in the circumstances and makes an order for additional compensation of £50 for stress and inconvenience and £150 for the delay in carrying out repairs.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould at the property

The landlord has a damp and mould protocol contained in its repairs and maintenance policy. This shows it is responsible for conducting surveys, initial cleaning of affected areas with fungicidal wash, clearing blocked air vents and installing extractor fans. It classifies damp and mould as an ‘appointed routine repair’ which it will complete within 28 calendar days. It also has a damp and mould case management system.
Given that mould is potentially a Category 1 Hazard under the HSSHR rating system, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s 28-day timescale for investigating the mould was not timely enough. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould recommends landlords should ensure their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
On 25 November 2022, the landlord’s contractor attended the property in relation to a leak in the kitchen. The landlord’s contractor informed it that there was mould in the kitchen. It removed the kitchen floor on that day. The records do not demonstrate it took any further action after this. On 2 December 2022, the resident contacted the landlord concerned that she had received no communication from the contractor or the landlord about what was going to happen next. She informed it that mould was forming in additional locations around the kitchen. The records provided indicate she was told she would receive a call back, but this did not happen.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 7, 8 and 9 December 2022 to chase it up. It documented the resident was concerned about the health issues associated with mould and the potential impact on her young child. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that it carried out a risk assessment or enquired any further with the resident about any health or respiratory conditions that might be affected by the damp and mould. It also does not appear to have logged a case on its damp and mould management system. This was unreasonable. The resident told this service the landlord’s approach left her with a feeling the landlord did not take the potential risks of damp and mould to her families’ health seriously.
It organised an inspection appointment for 19 December 2022. It documented that the skirting was mouldy and rotten and the kitchen wall and sink unit and floor would need replacing. The landlord has not provided any evidence that it ordered a fungicidal wash. This was unreasonable and not in line with its damp and mould policy. The resident informed this service the smell of the mould was unpleasant, affected her sinus’s, and she had to run a fan to combat the musty smell in the kitchen. The Ombudsman’s view is that even if it was intending to carry out major works in the kitchen in the future it should have carried out a fungicidal wash in the interim.
The landlord visited again on 3 January 2023. In relation to the kitchen works, it raised several repairs to take place on 30 January 2023. But it still did not take any action in relation to the mould. This is further evidence the landlord did not take the situation of the mould sufficiently seriously. This caused distress to the resident.
The planned repairs on 30 January 2023 did not go ahead due to insufficient number of tradespeople booked for the job. The contractor told her it would return on 20 February 2023 and complete outstanding works on this date. This meant the mould continued to be untreated, and in the resident’s, view began to spread more widely. She contacted the local authority’s environmental health team for advice about the matter. The team visited the property and telephoned the landlord. It informed the landlord that the mould was a serious issue for the resident, and she was distressed about it. It asked it to deal with the repairs in a timely manner. In the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to log a case on its damp and mould management system (dynamics), and to inspect the mould to assess any progression since its last visit, but there is no evidence the landlord did this. This was a failing in its approach.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord and resident spoke about her kitchen repair complaint. During the conversation, the resident informed it that environmental health had inspected the mould. The landlord’s response was that it would deal with the mould during the kitchen repair appointment planned for 20 February. Considering the landlord was made aware of mould in the property 3 months earlier on 25 November 2022, the Ombudsman considers the landlord lacked urgency. This was unfair and unreasonable and caused the resident worry, frustration, and distress.
On 20 February, the contractor attended the property to carry out the kitchen repairs. It was unable to complete the repairs for the second time because preparatory works had not been completed. However, it did remove the mouldy plasterboard and the mould affected skirting boards. This was almost 3 months after the landlord was made aware of the presence of mould in these areas. This timescale was unreasonable and not in line with its 28-day appointable repair service commitment.
The landlord had a duty to be proactive and deal swiftly with the mould when it became aware of it, but it did not log a damp and mould case at any stage. The landlord appears to have viewed the mould as of secondary importance to the main kitchen repair. This was unfair and unreasonable and meant the mould was not attended too for 3 months until it began work on the kitchen repair. It has not provided any evidence that it carried out a risk assessment of the family or enquired about the impact of the mould on the families’ health. This was unfair and unreasonable. The landlord should have acted swiftly with a fungicidal wash in November 2022. The landlord’s approach meant the resident had to live with untreated damp and mould in the kitchen for longer than was necessary. The situation caused considerable distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould and makes an order for £500 compensation below.
The Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s damp and mould action plan presented to its Group Board in March 2022. This was updated in September 2023. The landlord is aware of the strengths and weaknesses in its approach to damp and mould. For example, it recognises that the classification of damp and mould as ‘routine’ under its repairs policy is insufficient. In September 2023, it stated its next step would be to implement a specific damp and mould strategy. The landlord should work towards completing this (if it has not already done so) and improving the timescales within which it will respond to reports of damp and mould. A recommendation is made below.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord has a 2-stage complaint process. It states it will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. It also says, ‘Where there are exceptional circumstances and this timescale is not possible, we will regularly communicate with the customer until the complaint is fully resolved.’ In relation to stage 2 complaints, it says it will respond within 20 working days. Where it is not possible to meet this timescale, it will provide an explanation and a date by which it will provide its stage 2 response. This will not exceed a further 10 working days.
In this case the resident made a verbal complaint on 8 December 2022. This means the landlord’s complaint response was due no later than 22 December 2022. The records provided show the landlord contacted the resident on the due date of 22 December 2022. It explained it had failed to acknowledge or respond to her complaint due to a backlog of complaints. The Ombudsman’s view is the landlord should have systems in place to ensure complaints are handled efficiently during periods of a high volume of complaints. At this stage, the landlord should have agreed a new response date with the resident, but it did not do this. On 13 January it wrote to the resident confirming it had extended the deadline to respond to her complaint. This is because it was trying to secure an appointment with its contractor to attend to her repair. The Ombudsman is of the view the landlord should not have delayed its complaint response while it was arranging the appointment. Point 5.5 of the Complaint Handling Code states ‘A complaint response must be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, not when outstanding actions required to address the issue are completed. Outstanding actions must still be tracked and actioned expeditiously with regular updates provided to the resident.
It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 17 January 2023. This was 16 working days past its due date (allowing for Christmas and new year bank holidays). In its stage 1 response it offered £50 pounds in compensation for its late response.
On 30 January 2023, the resident escalated her complaint to stage 2. This was because the actions the landlord promised in the stage 1 response were not completed. This is a further failing under point 6.5 of the Complaint Handling Code which states, ‘….any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion’. On 2nd February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident confirming it had extended the deadline to resolve the complaint. It did this on the grounds that it wanted to ensure she had received a contractor’s appointment. Again, the landlord should not have delayed its complaint response for this reason. In its complaint response it should have informed her that it was arranging a contractor’s appointment and then provide an update to the resident when the date was known. Additionally, the Ombudsman considers it should have been possible to organise an appointment for the resident within the 20 working days timeframe, so is unclear why the landlord decided to extend its response time for a second time. The records provided do not make clear if the resident was informed of her right to challenge the landlord’s timescale for responding to her complaint.
The landlord extended its complaint response time at both complaint stages on the grounds it wanted to secure an appointment with the contractor. Its policy and the complaint handling code state that extensions to complaint response times should only be used exceptionally and with good reason.
The landlord provided its final response on 15 March 2023. This means the landlord took 14 weeks to complete the complaints process. This was unduly long. In discussion with this service, the resident described the landlord’s complaint handling as an ‘ordeal.’ The situation caused the resident additional frustration and inconvenience on top of the substantive issue of the kitchen repairs and undermined her confidence in the landlord.
Looking at everything together:
1. It did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 1 complaint until the day the complaint response was due.
2. After it acknowledged the complaint, it did not provide its response by the revised due date. It wrote to her 3 days after to inform her it was extending its response time. This meant the stage 1 response was provided almost 6 weeks after she first complained.
3. Actions promised in the stage 1 response were not completed.
4. It extended the complaint response time at both complaint stages without good reason.
5. The overall length of time taken by the landlord to complete the complaints process.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. The Ombudsman has considered the £50 compensation the landlord offered at stage 1 for its complaint handling and considers this does not go far enough. The Ombudsman considers an additional amount of £100 would more appropriately reflect the delays, inconvenience and distress caused to the resident, and makes an order for additional compensation below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlords handling of kitchen repairs
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the Head of Housing must apologise to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of damp and mould and its complaint handling. (The Ombudsman considers the landlord has sincerely apologised in its complaint responses for its handling of the kitchen repairs, therefore no further apology for this matter is ordered ).
The landlord must pay an additional £950 in compensation comprised of:
1. £200 for delays in carrying out kitchen repairs.
2. £150 as an additional amount in respect of meal allowance.
3. £500 for its handling of the damp and mould.
4. £100 for delays in its complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must investigate why it did not raise a damp and mould case on its damp and mould management system at any stage. It should share the outcome of its investigation and actions it intends to take with this service.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the Orders.
Within 10 weeks the landlord should complete its damp and mould strategy and improve the timescales within which it will respond to reports of damp and mould. It should ensure its strategy complies with the Spotlight report on damp and mould, and its follow-up report published in February 2023.
Within 10 weeks the landlord should conduct a joint case review with its contractor to identify learning in respect of the kitchen repairs. It should share the outcome of the joint case review with this service.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should provide evidence it has complied with the Orders.

Recommendations

The landlord should allocate sufficient resources to ensure the timely handling of resident complaints.