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

Magna Housing Limited (202315970)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315970

Magna Housing Limited

14 July 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:
    1. Response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB).
    2. Response to reports of damp and mould at the property.
    3. Handling of reports of blocked drains/toilet.
    4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association and the property is a 1 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord has vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.

Landlord’s obligations

  1. The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will repair and maintain the drains and toilets, amongst other things. It says that the resident is responsible for clearing blocked toilets unless the blockage is due to a defect in the system. It explains that it operates a 1 working day repair time for defects involving blocked or leaking foul drains where there is no other working toilet in the property.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will treat any job as a priority repair when there is a serious, immediate risk to customer’s health and safety.
  3. The landlord’s anti-social behaviour (ASB) policy explains it will adopt a reasonable and proportionate response when responding to reports of ASB and will use a harm-centred approach when assessing the impact of ASB. It also says:             
    1. It will communicate clearly to explain ASB behaviour and its approach, so residents can understand what they can expect from it.
    2. It will agree an action plan at the start of the case, setting out the respective responsibilities.
    3. It will use a wide range of tools and powers when dealing with ASB and it may use mediation or conflict resolution service to resolve disputes.
  4. The landlord’s damp, condensation and mould procedure explains that where reports are made it can arrange a survey to diagnose the root cause of the issue.
  5. The landlord’s complaints policy, applicable at that time, explains that stage 1 complaints will be responded to within 10 working days and a stage 2 complaint will be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

  1. Following reports of ASB by the resident, the landlord logged her contact as a formal complaint on 21 February 2022. The resident raised further complaints about the same issues in 2023 and on 12 October 2023, this Service passed the resident’s complaint to the landlord asking it to respond by 3 November 2023.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2023. It apologised for the delay in responding. It said:
    1. For repairs of ongoing toilet and blocked drains. It would attend on 13 November 2023 to reseal the bath and on 6 December 2023 to repair window sealants in the bedroom and lounge. It said that although remedial work was carried out to the drains 2 years ago by the developer, it would arrange for an external contractor to conduct a camera survey of the drains and make good any repairs.
    2. Mould issues. A surveyor would attend on 16 November 2023 to conduct a damp and mould inspection.
    3. Request for a fence. It would look to have a low-level fence fitted to help reduce dog fouling in the area.
    4. Reports of ASB. It noted reports of ASB and nuisance from a neighbour and that reports had been made to the police. It said it would liaise with the police and open an ASB case while it investigated matters.
    5. It apologised to the resident and offered £250 in compensation to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by the drain problems and the delay in escalating reports of ASB.
  3. On 22 December 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response. It noted the resident’s escalation request from 4 November 2023 and claims that the resident’s hearing had been damaged as a result of its work to investigate drain blockage. It said:
    1. In response to reports of ASB. Its email from 7 December 2023 explained the police had not received reports since June 2023 and the investigation was not ongoing. It said the police did not raise concerns about drug use or supply and there was no further action with the ASB case. However, it explained what the resident should do if she had further reports. The landlord also said that due to previous reports of ASB it had purchased and installed a video doorbell to help the resident feel secure. After looking at video footage sent by the resident, it did not feel the neighbour was deliberately trying to intimidate or harass the resident. It explained that the police would take the lead in investigations about drug dealing and that if the allegations were proven it would look into the actions it could take.
    2. For the drain issues, it referred to its previous email where the resident was told there was not a problem with the drains. It said the amount of toilet roll/wipes could be causing the blockage. The landlord explained that a 2 weekly drain rodding was not feasible for a responsive repairs service. But it would treat drain blockage as an emergency (within 24 hours) given the urgency of the resident’s medical condition.
    3. It said it could not deal with the resident’s reported hearing loss and said she was free to take her own advice on redress.
    4. It found there had been a “huge” amount of correspondence between the resident and landlord. It was satisfied that it had responded in a timely manner and had followed up on reports of ASB with the police and directly with the neighbour.
    5. It repeated its stage 1 response and said its offer of £250 compensation was a reasonable offer in line with its policies. It said it would attend with the surveyor so that any final concerns could be agreed and it could put things right.

Assessment and findings

Scope

  1. Over the course of the resident’s complaint and in communication with the landlord and Ombudsman, the resident has said that previous work completed by the landlord has caused damage to her hearing. The resident has also described the impact of her situation on her overall health. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impact on health or wellbeing. However, this Service has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident in light of her personal circumstances.

Response to reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB)

  1. The above complaint relates to ASB concerns about a neighbour living in the property above the resident’s property. In June 2022 the resident made allegations about her neighbour selling drugs. The landlord opened an ASB case at that time and it worked with the police in light of the allegations made. The police agreed to conduct walkabouts in the area and the landlord updated the resident about this. Following this, the landlord closed the ASB case in March 2023. When considering the responsibility for investigating the criminal allegations lied with the police and the landlord continued to work with the police, the approach adopted by the landlord was appropriate.
  2. In April and May 2023 the resident made further reports about the neighbour. These included noise from “stomping” feet in the property above, looking at her property and repeated allegations of selling drugs. Following these reports, the landlord reviewed available video footage and explained its findings, that it did not feel the neighbour was deliberately trying to intimidate or harass the resident. It also told the resident that the police were looking into the allegations of selling drugs and it continued to work with the police. The landlord’s adopted a reasonable approach, as per its policy, in response to concerns about the neighbour looking at the resident’s property and allegations of selling drugs. This was appropriate.
  3. Throughout October 2023, the resident repeated allegations about her neighbour “openly dealing drugs”, banging feet, loud music being played and that they had “drummed” their fingers on her bedroom window. In the landlord’s stage 1 response, it said it would open an ASB case and continue to liaise with the police about the reports. On 23 November 2023 the landlord and police visited the area and the police concluded they had no concerns about the neighbour. The resident was updated at that time and within the landlord’s stage 2 response (also from December 2023) it explained no further action would be taken and told the resident what to do if she had further reports of ASB. The landlord’s approach here, in relation to the allegation about the neighbour selling drugs, was appropriate and in line with its ASB policy.
  4. However, it is unclear what the landlord did to support the resident in relation to her reports of noise from the property above. While she made 2 reports about the neighbour between May and October, the evidence shows the landlord did not discuss this with her until January 2024. The landlord missed opportunities to support the resident on the noise issue for almost 8 months. It missed further opportunities to address the concerns as part of its internal complaints process. It did this despite the resident telling it the ASB was impacting her health due to past experiences. This was not appropriate.
  5. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s allegations of her neighbour selling drugs was appropriate and in line with its policy. However, its handling of reports of noise was not appropriate and it took almost 8 months to discuss this with the resident. It is noted that when it did meet with the resident, she was happy with the outcome of the meeting and there is no evidence of further noise disturbances. When considering all the factors combined and the impact the 8 month timeframe would have had on the resident in light of her vulnerabilities, the landlord’s failing here amounts to a maladministration.

Response to reports of damp and mould at the property

  1. The resident initially reported mould problems at the property on 29 September 2023. The landlord appropriately said it would arrange a mould inspection at that time. The resident made a further report of a “severe problem” with damp and mould on 4 October 2023. The landlord appropriately attended for an inspection on 23 October 2023 but was not given access to the property.
  2. The landlord notes say that it attended on 26 January 2024 and found “very small amounts” of damp and mould around the bathroom window seals. However, this was not a damp and mould inspection. It took the landlord until February 2024 to attempt a further inspection, the timeframe of 4 months to rearrange an inspect was not appropriate. It remains unclear if the landlord has conducted an inspection of the property.
  3. Overall, between October 2023 and February 2024, the landlord made 3 attempts to inspect the property following reports of damp and mould. While its attempts to inspect the property were unsuccessful, it took too long to rearrange its inspections following the no access in October 2023. It remains unclear if the landlord has conducted an inspection to diagnose the root cause of the issue as per its policy. This was not appropriate or in line with its wider obligations when handling reports of damp and mould. When considering this, its attempts to inspect the property and its visit to the property, the landlord’s handling of report of damp and mould amounts to maladministration.

Handling of reports of blocked drains/toilet

  1. It is not disputed that the developer completed works to the drain system between 2021 and 2022.
  2. The landlord’s repairs log from 26 April 2023 says that it had received reports of issues with drains and the toilet at the property. The landlord raised a repair the same day, this was appropriate.
  3. The resident raised further issues with a blocked toilet on 17 May 2023 and told the landlord that the drain needed to be checked and cleared every 2 weeks. The landlord acted appropriately in looking at the drain issue and in explaining the outcome of this to the resident, that it had found no problem with the drains. The resident made further reports of a blocked toilet in June and September 2023. The landlord acted appropriately in attending the same day for each of these reports.
  4. An internal email from 12 October 2023 notes that following previous inspections the landlord found that the drains were in line with building regulations and showed no signs of disrepair. However, on 19 October 2023 it instructed a contractor to conduct a further drain survey of the property and within its stage 1 response it told the resident that it would conduct a camera survey of the drains and make good any repairs. While the landlord’s request for a drain survey was reasonable, especially in light of the repeated concerns raised by the resident, there is no evidence to show it completed this survey. This was not appropriate.
  5. Within its stage 2 response the landlord missed an opportunity to identify that it had not done what it said it would within its stage 1 response in relation to the drain survey. Instead it referred the resident to its contact from May 2023 repeating how there were no issue with the drains. It remains unclear whether the landlord has completed a drain survey. This is not appropriate.
  6. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately in attending the property the same day following the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet. It was reasonable for it to explain why it could not conduct fortnightly checks for blockages but said it would treat the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet as emergency repairs. However, the landlord’s handling of reports of a blocked toilet fell short when it failed to conduct a drain survey despite saying it would. Within its stage 1 response it appropriately apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused by the impact of the ongoing drain issue and offered the resident £250 in compensation. The landlord said part of the compensation amount was to recognise a delay in its handling of ASB, however it has not said what portion of the compensation offer was for this. As such the compensation amount of £250 has been considered under this aspect of the resident’s complaint. The amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance, when considering this and the circumstances of the case, the compensation amount satisfactory resolves this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The landlord recorded the resident’s contact from February 2022 as a complaint. However, there is no evidence to show it responded to the complaint at that time. This was not appropriate.
  2. In February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord and said she had got nowhere with her contact with the complaints department. Despite the resident’s expression of dissatisfaction, the landlord did not trigger its complaints process at that time. This was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s failure to trigger its complaints process on at least 2 occasions meant the resident had to contact this Service. On 12 October 2023, this Service asked the landlord to respond to the resident’s complaint. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 4 November 2023 and apologised for not responding by 3 November. The resident escalated her complaint on 4 November 2023. However, the landlord failed to issue its stage 2 response until 22 December 2023. The landlord stage 2 response exceeded the 20 working day timeframe set within its complaints policy by 14 days. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  4. Overall, the landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. Despite repeated attempts to raise a complaint the landlord failed to trigger its complaints process, for almost 17 months, until this Service passed it the resident’s complaint. When it did eventually trigger its complaints process, it failed to respond within the timeframes it said it would. The landlord’s complaint handling amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Response to reports of anti-social behaviour.
    2. Response to reports of damp and mould at the property.
    3. Complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of reports of blocked drains/toilet.

Orders

  1. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing and within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  2. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £1,100 compensation within 4 weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
    1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of ASB.
    2. £250 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of damp and mould at the property.
    3. £350 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
    4. £250 it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
  3. The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks of date of this report the landlord should contact the resident to establish any ongoing issues with the condition of the property. If ongoing issues are reported it should conduct an appropriate inspection of the property within this timeframe (4 weeks of the date of this report). Within 2 weeks of its contact with the resident and inspection (if required), the landlord should confirm in writing to the resident and this Service, the actions it will take to address any issues with damp and mould and the drains. It should confirm:
    1. If work is required to the property in relation to damp and mould. If it is required, it should explain what is required and provide a schedule of work.
    2. If it decides work or further investigation is required to the drains, it should provide a timeframe for this. However, if it decides no further work or investigation is required it should explain this in writing.