Places for People Group Limited (202337962)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202337962

Places for People Group Limited

22 November 2024

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. The resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs at the property.
2. The resident’s reports of her property being underheated.
The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord for a 3-bedroom house. The property was built in 2022, and the resident’s tenancy began in September 2022. As such the resident was the first tenant of the ‘new build’ property, which was within a defects period until September 2024. The property developer was obligated to complete repairs to defects within the defects period. The resident lives with her 3 children, 2 of whom she has told the Ombudsman are disabled. The Ombudsman asked the landlord for information about vulnerabilities the landlord had recorded for the resident and her family. It confirmed its awareness that one of her children has a neurological disorder.
The resident told the landlord in January 2023 that from 1 December 2022 onwards she had reported mould and water on the windowsills to the developer. She said they had suggested ventilating the property as the issue was people “breathing inside.” They also provided her with dehumidifiers and said the landlord would reimburse her energy costs. She did not use the dehumidifiers as she received no confirmation the landlord would reimburse her additional energy costs. She said a developer operative visited her property and they told her, her radiators were “too small.” She raised this with the developer whose official reply was that the radiators were “sufficient.” However, the resident was concerned the rooms in the property were cold, even with the heating on.
The resident reported two separate leaks at the property to the landlord on 9 November 2023. These were from her extractor fan, where there was also a damp patch, and from her child’s bedroom window. The landlord completed an emergency repair of the extractor fan on 10 November 2023. It then completed further repair to the fan on 7 December 2023. The window was repaired on 15 November 2023. The resident reported damp and mould patches to the landlord on 12 December 2023. It completed a damp and mould survey on 18 December 2023 recommending several actions to resolve damp and mould in the property. This included mould washes, window repairs using scaffolding, renewing plastering, and overhauling an exterior door. It completed all this further work except for the windows by 9 May 2024. It is unclear if the windows were repaired.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2024. The resident said her property was not getting warm and she had draughts in the bedrooms. She raised ongoing concerns with the repairs at the property. The landlord provided the resident with its stage 1 complaint response on 13 March 2024. It told her the following:
1. It apologised for the delay in rectifying issues related to damp and mould in the property since she moved in, in September 2022. It confirmed the property was in the “defect period” until September 2024.
2. It confirmed following the damp and mould survey it completed on 18 December 2023 it had raised several jobs. It acknowledged there was a lack of communication regarding the progress of the work. It also apologised that the resident received the quoted invoice for the roof works. It had visited her on 1 February 2024 to discuss outstanding issues. As a result, further work was scheduled for 25 March 2024.
3. It told the resident it could raise a claim with its insurer regarding the personal injury of her family. It offered £325 compensation. This was £75 for poor communication, £150 for distress and inconvenience and £100 for extra energy used for small electric heaters.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 March 2024. She said she had been expecting repairs by 25 March but all that was completed was a damp and mould wash. She was concerned the subcontractor was prepared to start working but received a call from the landlord. She said they were told to cancel the job as it would be completed by the landlord. She said damp and mould was only present upstairs and had raised the issue with the developer. She believed the property was underheated and was worried about the cold weather from autumn. She had further concerns about the impact on her children’s health.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 29 May 2024. It told the resident the following:
1. The issues it identified in its stage 1 response were not complete. It apologised for this and the impact on the resident and her family. It stated window repairs were outstanding as scaffolding had been set too low. It confirmed it would readjust this on 24 June. It confirmed it had completed all other outstanding repairs by 9 May.
2. It said it had completed two separate assessments which showed the property was underheated. It said this “indicated a property defect.” It said it was liaising with the developer to find a “prompt and effective solution”. It understood the urgency and said it would share regular updates.
3. It offered an additional £500 compensation. This was £100 for the delay in conducting the damp survey, £100 for the delay in commencing repair works, £100 for the quality of its communication and £200 for distress and inconvenience. The £500 offered was in addition to the £325 it previously offered.
On 5 June 2024, the developer said it believed the radiators that were installed were correct. It said as a goodwill gesture it would replace radiators in the bedrooms, living room and bathroom with larger units. It said it would replace the radiator in the kitchen if the landlord supplied the radiator. The developer asked the landlord how to proceed on 28 June. It is unclear on the landlord’s response at this time. The landlord asked the developer to proceed with the work to replace the radiators on 15 October 2024. It is unclear if this has since been completed.
The Ombudsman accepted the resident’s complaint for investigation on 4 September 2024. The resident told the Ombudsman she was concerned the property was underheated with no date for new radiators. She said despite agreeing to keep her updated on progress, the landlord failed to do this. She said it had also failed to pay her any compensation. On 6 September 2024, the resident told the landlord she had not received its compensation payment of total £825. On the same day, the landlord increased its compensation offer by £175 to £1000. This was for the “extended delay.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of assessment.

The resident said that her family’s health suffered because of how the landlord handled her reports of disrepair at her property. Whilst we do not doubt the resident’s comments, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her health has been affected by its actions or inaction. This is a legal process, and the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience that the resident experienced because of how the landlord handled the situation involving her property.
The landlord directed the resident to refer a claim to its insurer regarding personal injury. It is unclear if the resident has raised such a claim through the landlord’s insurance policy. The Ombudsman is unable to consider complaints about insurance claims. This is because the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions. The Ombudsman will however assess the standard of communication between the landlord and the resident on the matter. The Ombudsman is unable to determine liability as such matters require a legally binding decision, which the Ombudsman’s decisions are not.
In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response it offered compensation of £100 for its quality of communication. It also offered £200 for distress and inconvenience. In total, this was £300. It is unclear which of the complaint issues the landlord’s compensation offered reflected. As such the Ombudsman has split the £300 equally between the two substantive issues, £150 each. The landlord’s compensation offer at stage 1 has not been assessed in the same way as the landlord acknowledged no issues with the underheating issue. It is therefore concluded the compensation at stage 1 was only in relation to the leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs issue.
Both of the substantive issues assessed in this report include the landlord’s relationship with the developer during repairs that fall under the developer’s defects period. This period was in place until September 2024. The substantive issues being assessed do overlap. However, the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs issue and the underheating issue have been assessed separately for ease of reading. This also reflects the breakdown of the issues in the landlord’s complaint responses to the resident.

The resident reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs at the property.

The landlord’s Repairs Policy confirms its service standards to attend all non-emergency appointments by appointment at a time agreed with the resident. It aims to carry out repairs in a “right-first-time ethos.” It is committed to “demonstrating a high level of resident satisfaction” and “continually monitoring and reporting performance levels.” The landlord has 3 types of repairs as follows:
1. Emergency repairs are those that could cause risk to a resident’s health and safety or cause damage to the property that the resident can contain or render the property uninhabitable. It will complete these within 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs are those that can prevent damage to the property. It will complete these within 28 days.
3. Planned repairs are those that are non-urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than repair of a component. It will complete these within 90 days.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy also confirms it “eliminates wherever possible the impacts and effects of damp, mould and compensation.” It provides “ongoing advice and triage” and “implements remedies and ongoing monitoring” to ensure it “continuously improves” its service and “influences any asset investment.”
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards. Landlords should also ensure that their staff, whether in-house or contractors, can identify and report early signs of damp and mould.
The resident made the landlord aware of damp and mould at the property on 6 January 2023. The resident said she had raised the issue with the developer but was “unhappy” with their response. They suggested ventilating the property which the resident said she was already doing.
The developer also provided the resident with dehumidifiers and said the landlord would compensate her for energy costs. The resident said she did not use the dehumidifiers as she received no further contact from the landlord about energy costs. However, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence the developer informed the landlord about their agreement for the landlord to compensate the resident in this respect. In the absence of any evidence to confirm the developer had confirmed this to the landlord, no failure of service is attributable. It does suggest a concern about communication between the developer and landlord, however.
The resident also told the landlord on 6 January 2023 that she had previously spoken to the landlord about the damp and mould at the property. She said it “fobbed” her off, asking her what repair she wanted it to raise. The landlord should have used the resident’s contact to do several things. It should have been proactive in investigating the damp and mould at the property itself. This would have ensured it had full awareness of further steps it should take. It also should have investigated its communication with the resident and whether this was in line with it “implementing remedies.” Its failure to do this, at this stage, caused the damp and mould issue to remain unresolved for a prolonged period. Furthermore, the lack of communication between the landlord and developer was ineffective in supporting resolution of the matter.
On 9 November 2023, the resident reported two leaks. One from the extractor fan, which was causing a damp patch. The other report was a leak from her “disabled son’s” window. The landlord acted in accordance with its policy in completing repairs for both issues. It treated the leak from the extractor fan as an emergency attending the next day to make the fan safe. It completed the window repair on 15 November, which was within 28 days for an appointable repair. The landlord arranged an inspection of the roof for 22 November, but the subcontractor did not attend. The subcontractor later advised the resident they had made an error in booking the appointment. The inspection was completed on 7 December. It found that the extractor pipework in the loft was causing water to leak. In error, the subcontractor sent the quote for the repairs to the resident, which caused distress and confusion to her. It would later apologise for this in its complaint response, which was an appropriate response.
On 29 November 2023, the resident reported patches of damp and mould. She also said her child had “chest issues” since moving into the property. The landlord appropriately completed a mould wash and drilled ventilation points at the property on 18 December 2023. The landlord then took appropriate steps to arrange a damp and mould survey. It completed this within a reasonable timescale on 18 December 2023. The resident would go on to request a copy of the survey from the landlord on 24 January 2024 and 10 April 2024. It is unclear if the landlord would provide this following the resident’s last request. A recommendation will be made for the landlord to provide this to the resident.
The landlord raised work for the roof to install vent tiles on 22 December 2023. It completed this on 5 February 2024. This was a slight deviation from the 28 days in its policy for routine repairs, but the Ombudsman notes the period incorporated the Christmas period. On 2 January 2024 it raised a number of other works to be completed. This included repairs to the windows, external door, insulating the loft, completing further mould washes, and renewing the walls. Following this the resident reported a further leak from her child’s bedroom window on 10 January 2024. The landlord attended within an appropriate timescale, repairing the window on 15 January 2024. It also appropriately completed a mould wash on the same day.
The resident chased the outstanding repairs on 8, 18, 24, 26 and 30 January 2024. There is no evidence of the landlord or the subcontractor managing the resident’s expectations on the pending repairs throughout this period, adding to the resident’s frustration. The landlord attended the property on 30 January to “discuss the outstanding repairs”. It is of concern the landlord was not aware of this already at this point. It should have taken proactive steps to chase the repairs without the resident having to contact it on 5 separate occasions.
On 30 January 2024, the landlord scheduled an appointment for the outstanding repairs to be completed on 25 March. The resident escalated her complaint on 25 March. This was because the subcontractor attended on the same day and only completed a mould wash. They also agreed on a plan for the work that the resident was happy with. Whilst there the resident said the subcontractor was contacted by the landlord and told the landlord would complete the further repairs. The landlord’s action was wholly unreasonable. It had nearly two months to amend the scheduled repair. Its action to do this whilst the subcontractor was there mismanaged the resident’s expectations. It also added further delay to the completion of the work. The landlord did apologise for this in its stage 2 complaint response.
The landlord completed the outstanding repairs, other than the windows on 9 May 2024. In total, it took 128 days to complete these repairs. This meant it exceeded the timescale in its policy by 100 days. This delay caused much uncertainty and distress to the resident throughout. On 9 May the landlord found the scaffolding had been installed too low to complete the repairs to the windows. The reason for this error is uncertain. The landlord addressed the issue in its stage 2 complaint response, advising it would be readjusted on 24 June. It is unclear if the scaffolding was adjusted, and the windows repaired as agreed. The resident has not raised this in further correspondence with the Ombudsman, suggesting the issue is resolved.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the leaks were a contributing factor to the reported damp and mould at the property. The Ombudsman also acknowledges the landlord appropriately completed mould washes at the property on 18 December 2023, 15 January 2024, and 9 May 2024. Its delay in completing the full schedule of repairs meant no mould washes were completed between 16 January and 8 May 2024. The landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould, which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS, during this period. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. The landlord left the resident to manage the damp and mould at the property herself through this period. This caused her distress and inconvenience and made her feel it was not serious in supporting her with the issue on a day-to-day basis.
The resident raised on a number of occasions the impact she believed the damp and mould was having on her children’s health. She did this on 29 November 2023, 8, 26 January 2024, 25 March 2024 and 21 May 2024. The landlord did acknowledge her reports of the impact on the resident’s children in its complaint responses. There is no evidence of the landlord completing risk assessments of the resident and her family at any point. Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord acknowledging it should have expedited the repairs to alleviate the detriment to the family.
A risk assessment is crucial in informing the landlord’s decision-making at the outset. It also enables it to monitor a case as it progresses so it can identify proportionate actions that consider factors such as household vulnerability. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family at the property. It must then take any further appropriate action, as necessary. Had the landlord appropriately acted on the reported vulnerabilities of the family it may have been able to prioritise much of the repairs which were delayed for a significant period. Its failure to do this prolonged the issue for the resident and her family, causing much detriment to them.
Furthermore, the landlord confirmed its awareness that one of the resident’s children has a disability. The resident has confirmed to the Ombudsman that two of her children have disabilities. This suggests the landlord’s record of vulnerabilities is inaccurate. The landlord will be ordered to complete a risk assessment and take any further action as appropriate. It must ensure its records regarding any vulnerabilities in the household are up to date.
It is noted that the landlord did appropriately provide the resident with details to make an insurance claim. This was in relation to the resident’s concerns about personal injury. This was appropriate in order for the insurer to make a liability decision on any claim the resident may have made. It is unclear if the resident raised such a claim with the insurer.
The landlord awarded compensation of £225 related to the issue at stage 1. This was for its “poor communication” and distress and inconvenience. It awarded £350 compensation at stage 2. This was £100 for the delay in commencing the repairs and £100 for the delay in conducting the damp survey. It awarded £150 for the “quality of its communications” and for “distress and inconvenience.” In total, the compensation awarded for this substantive issue was £575. The amounts awarded by the landlord were in line with its Compensation Policy. However, the Ombudsman finds the amount offered not to be proportionate. This is due to the total detriment caused to the resident and for the following reasons:
1. The landlord was aware of the damp and mould issues at the property from 6 January 2023. It failed to act as a result of this and did not assess its approach to the matter. It left the resident to manage damp and mould at the property until she raised the issue again in November 2023.
2. There was an inefficient working relationship between the landlord and its subcontractor. This caused several issues for the resident, including the subcontractor missing an appointment, the resident receiving the quote for repairs and scaffolding being installed incorrectly. Of most concern was the landlord’s decision to prevent the subcontractor from completing repairs when they were already at the property in order to do these works.
3. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident over an extended period causing her to chase the outstanding repairs. She chased it on 5 separate occasions in January 2024 before it took action to address this.
4. In total the landlord took 128 days to complete the required repairs at the property. This far exceeded the timescale in its policy. Through this period, it failed to manage the damp and mould at the property. This was not in accordance with HHSRS. It left the resident to manage the damp and mould herself through this period.
5. The landlord failed to fully address the resident’s concerns about her family’s health. It should have completed a risk assessment and should have expedited repairs based on the vulnerabilities of the family.
6. The ineffective management of any defects the period during which the defects remained in place. This includes its ineffective communication with the developer.
In summary the landlord failed to act on reports of damp and mould for over 11 months when the resident first reported it in January 2023. Following this it handled the 2 leaks and damp and mould issues appropriately and in accordance with its policy. The repairs it raised to resolve the root cause of the issues at the property were not completed in accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy. It took an additional 100 days to complete this causing much distress and inconvenience to the resident and her family. Its failure to expedite the repairs meant it also missed the opportunity to support the resident with damp and mould over 4 months. The failings above were exacerbated by the landlord’s insufficient communication. The resident was required on many occasions to chase the outcome herself whilst managing the leak at the same time. Moreover, the landlord’s ineffective working relationship with its subcontractor caused inconvenience to the resident and further delay.
The landlord in accordance with the occupancy agreement is required to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property. It failed to do so over a prolonged period which caused distress, inconvenience, and deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. In all circumstances the extent of the service failures identified in this case amount to maladministration. Compensation of £800 has been awarded as the landlord failed to “promptly and effectively” complete repairs. This is £225 more than the £575 awarded by the landlord. The compensation awarded is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance relating to cases where service failure has occurred over a protracted period with a moderate impact on the resident. Further orders will be made for the landlord to consider the failings identified in this report.

The resident’s reports of her property being underheated.

It is unclear if the landlord has a specific defects policy. If it does, it has not made this available to the Ombudsman. The developer informed the landlord on 3 April 2024 that the property was in the “defect period” until September 2024.
The resident told the landlord about her concerns with the developer’s approach on 6 January 2023. She said she was uncertain that the damp and mould was due to her living conditions. She said she was doing everything advised by the developer already, to manage condensation in the property. She raised about the size of the radiators at this point. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to this email. This left the resident uncertain if the landlord was willing to assist her on the matter.
Furthermore, there is no evidence of the landlord pursuing the matter with the developer or conducting its own investigation at the property. It would later complete both of these things over 12 months later to address the issue. Had the landlord taken this stance at the beginning of 2023, it would have had the opportunity to resolve the issue much sooner. Its failure to do so over a prolonged period caused detriment to the resident and her children. She would later tell the landlord she had “endured two cold winters.”
The resident raised the issue with the radiators in her property in her stage 1 complaint of 1 February 2024. The landlord acted appropriately in providing her with electric heaters for the property the following day. It also acted reasonably in offering £100 compensation in its stage 1 response for the extra energy used by the heaters. The landlord also confirmed in its stage 1 response it was arranging an appointment to investigate the radiators at the property. This was an appropriate course of action, as the landlord was able to later use the findings to challenge the developer on the defect repairs.
In her complaint escalation of 25 March 2024, the resident said she was worried about the upcoming autumn and winter period. The landlord completed an investigation of the radiators by 3 April, as it agreed it would. It completed a further inspection on 22 April. The outcome of the investigations was that the radiators in the property were “undersized.” It said this affected the ability of the property to reach the temperature set by the thermostat, particularly downstairs. The landlord appropriately acknowledged in its stage 2 response that due to a dispute with the developer “no one took ownership” of the radiator issue. It appropriately confirmed it would review this and provide “weekly updates until completion.”
The Ombudsman has seen evidence the landlord acted robustly in raising this with the developer up to 5 June 2024. This was the appropriate action to take to ensure the developer remedied the issue within the “defect period.” On 5 June 2024, the developer told the landlord it “stood by its design team calculations.” It agreed as a gesture of goodwill to replace radiators in the property with larger units. This was for the bedrooms, living room and bathroom. It did not agree the kitchen radiator needed to be replaced but agreed to fit a larger unit if the landlord provided the radiator for it.
The landlord was delayed in responding to the developer’s proposal. Internally it raised concerns about not having to “shoulder the cost burden.” It believed this would “likely spread” to other residents on the housing development and the cost to the landlord would be “higher.” The developer asked the landlord for an update on 28 June 2024. There is no evidence of the landlord responding to the developer. As such the issue remained unresolved and the temperature issue persisted.
On 21 August 2024, the resident asked the landlord for an update on the radiators. There is no evidence of it updating the resident on its communication with the developer up to this point as it had agreed to do. This caused much uncertainty and distress to the resident. It broke the trust the resident had in the landlord who was not complying with the resolution it had previously agreed with her. The landlord started to take further action on 14 October. It asked the developer to commence with the work on the radiators as agreed on 5 June. The landlord had some legitimate concerns about funding the kitchen radiator. However, it should not have allowed this to delay any action on the repair for 131 calendar days. This caused much distress and uncertainty to the resident, throughout the period. She was left with inadequate heating through this period, particularly as she had feared, into autumn.
It is unclear if the radiators have now been replaced in the property as agreed. An order will be made for the landlord to update the Ombudsman and resident with a specific timeframe for completion, if not completed already.
In summary, the landlord was not proactive in raising the resident’s concerns about her property being underheated when she raised the issue with it in 2023. Had it investigated the issue and spoken with the developer in 2023 as it did in 2024, it had the opportunity to resolve the issue much sooner. As a result, the resident “endured” a cold winter at either end of 2023. In 2024 when the resident raised a complaint, the landlord did take positive steps to address the issue. It provided electric heaters and compensated the resident for their use. It also took effective steps to investigate the radiators on two separate occasions. The results of the investigation were then used by the landlord to challenge the developer in line with them resolving the issue.
The developer provided a solution to the issue of underheating at the property. However, the landlord was delayed in responding to this for over 4 months. Furthermore, it failed to communicate “weekly” with the resident as it had promised to in its final complaint response. The resident was left uncertain of the landlord’s approach and worried about the coming colder months of the year. This also caused a deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. There were difficulties in the landlord resolving the issues promptly due to the obligations of the developer. However, this did not change the landlord’s overall obligations to resolving the issues in a reasonable timeframe. It is essential landlords have a clear and effective means of managing defect periods and relationships with developers. In all the circumstances of the case, a determination of maladministration has been identified.
Compensation of £500 has been awarded as the landlord failed to pursue options to resolve the issue for the resident. Its failure to communicate was inappropriate. Furthermore, its management of the developer relationship in the defects period was poor. The compensation awarded is £250 more than the £250 already awarded by the landlord. This was £150 for its communication and distress and inconvenience and £100 for the additional energy costs. Given the circumstances of the case, the landlord will be ordered to provide an update to the resident and the Ombudsman on when the radiators will be replaced.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s Complaint Handling Procedure confirms it is “committed to providing high-quality customer services.” It says it “values complaint and uses this information to help (it) to improve services.” It states a complaint is “an expression of dissatisfaction about (its) actions or lack of action, about the standard of service provided.” Once a resident complains it will tell them who is dealing with the complaint. Its complaints process then has 3 stages:
1. ‘Put it right,’ where it aims to “put it right” within 24 hours and if it can do so will consider the complaint resolved. Where it cannot resolve the complaint in 24 hours it will escalate to the next stage.
2. Stage 1: frontline response. It will acknowledge the complaint in 5 working days and provide its response in 10 working days or less. It can extend this in “exceptional circumstances.”
3. Stage 2: investigation. It will acknowledge the escalation in 3 working days where it will confirm its understanding of the complaint and outcome sought. It will provide its full response in 20 working days. If it needs to extend this it will explain its revised time limit to the resident, updating them on the progress.
The resident stated in her complaint of 1 February 2024 that she had previously raised several complaints with the landlord. She said it told her on 30 January she had not raised formal complaints. She was confused by this as she believed she had made complaints, and the landlord had accepted them. It investigated this on 2 February 2024 stating all previous complaints were raised under “put it right.” It would fail to respond to the resident’s concerns in either its later stage 1 or stage 2 complaint responses.
The landlord failed to provide the Ombudsman with any details of the resident’s complaints it dealt with under “put it right.” The landlord has therefore used the information provided by the resident on the matter. She states she made the following complaints to the landlord:
1. On 12 December 2023 she raised concerns she had received the quote for the roof repair. She was also concerned about damp and mould at the property. The landlord did appropriately arrange a damp and mould inspection and mould wash. However, it did not formally respond to the quote issue until its stage 1 response of 13 March 2024. This prolonged resolution of the issue caused uncertainty to the resident.
2. On 26 January 2024, the resident raised concerns about delays in completing repairs and lack of communication from the subcontractor. She raised her concerns about the impact on her children’s health. This was an ongoing issue and was not resolved under “put it right.” The landlord should have raised the issues raised to a formal complaint in accordance with its policy. It was unreasonable to state this had been dealt with. This caused confusion and uncertainty to the resident.
The landlord attended the property on 30 January 2024 and took details of the resident’s complaint. It appropriately raised this as a formal complaint on 2 February. It acknowledged the complaint on 7 February, taking 6 working days. It told the resident it would reply by 21 February. It failed to do so and apologised on 21 February that it had not replied in the timeframe. It is unclear what “exceptional circumstance” meant it was unable to respond. The landlord said it would reply to the resident on 1 March.
The landlord failed to provide its stage 1 response as agreed on 1 March 2024. It also failed to manage the resident’s expectations on when it was likely to respond. This caused further uncertainty to the resident and prolonged any resolution. This was evident when the resident chased the response on 4 March. It provided its stage 1 complaint response on 13 March. This took 31 working days from the resident’s initial complaint. It took 15 working days from 21 February when it said it would be delayed in responding. Both timescales exceeded the 10 working days in the landlord’s policy.
In the stage 1 response of 13 March 2024 the landlord advised it would complete all outstanding issues by 25 March. As the repairs were due to be completed on 25 March the landlord cancelled the work order with the subcontractor. It arranged for the work to be completed by its in-house team. This caused delays to the repair the landlord agreed would be completed on 25 March. In this regard, the landlord failed to appropriately manage the resolution of the complaint. Had it done so, it could have managed the resident’s expectations on the matter more appropriately.
The resident escalated her complaint on 25 March 2024. The landlord did not formally respond at this time. Instead, it said once it had received a response from “relevant teams” it would get back to the resident. The landlord failed to communicate about the complaint for some time following this. In frustration, the resident contacted the Ombudsman for support. On 10 May, the Ombudsman formally asked the landlord to provide its complaint response in 5 working days.
The landlord sent its formal complaint acknowledgement to the resident on 13 May. It told her it would reply by 11 June. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 29 May 2024. In total, it took 44 working days to provide this. This exceeded the timescale in its policy by 24 working days. This prolonged resolution for the resident and left her uncertain of its approach throughout.
In her complaint escalation the resident raised concerns that her boiler had not been serviced for some time. She said a service had been arrange for June 2023 but not completed. She said she was “worried” the gas boiler was “not safe.” The landlord failed to respond on this point in its stage 2 reply. This left the concern unresolved for the resident, leaving her continuously worried.
In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord agreed to keep the resident updated on its communication with the developer. In correspondence with the Ombudsman, the resident said this never happened. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of the landlord updating the resident on the matter at any point. As such the landlord broke its agreement and left the resident uncertain if it was taking appropriate steps to resolve the matter.
In both the stage 1 and 2 complaint response the landlord failed to acknowledge any failings with its complaint handling. As such it failed to offer any compensation on the matter. The landlord should have acknowledged, apologised for, and considered compensation for the following:
1. The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s concerns raised on 12 December 2023 and 26 January 2024 to formal complaints. It failed to respond to the resident’s concerns on the matter in its stage 1 and 2 complaint responses.
2. It failed to acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint and escalated the complaint in an appropriate timescale. As such it failed to manage the resident’s expectations on when it would reply.
3. The landlord failed to provide its stage 1 or 2 complaint responses in accordance with the timescale in its policy. Its stage 1 response exceeded its timescale by 21 working days and its stage 2 response by 24 working days.
4. It failed to appropriately manage the resolutions it agreed in its complaint responses. At stage 1 it failed to complete repairs as agreed on 25 March 2024 In its stage 2 response it failed to update the resident on its communication with the developer. It also failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns about the safety of her gas boiler.
It is of concern that there are repeated instances of the landlord failing to pay the compensation to the resident. On 29 May 2024, it confirmed in its stage 2 response it had not paid the compensation offered at stage 1, on 13 March. This was a delay of over 2 months. Then on 6 September, the resident was forced to chase the compensation awarded to her on 29 May. This was a delay of over 4 months. The landlord took effective steps to remedy this on 6 September. It awarded her a further £175 compensation for the delay, taking the total compensation offered to £1000. It paid this total amount to her on 6 September.
A landlord’s complaint process enables them to identify issues and trends so it can take preventative action and learn from this. The landlord failed to adhere to its own Complaints Policy in its stage 1 and 2 acknowledgements and responses. Its inefficient communication and divergence from its policy at stage 1 and 2 caused uncertainty and inconvenience to the resident. Moreover, it failed to respond to all issues and acknowledge any failures in its complaints process causing further frustration and distress to the resident. A determination of maladministration has therefore been made. To reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience due to the landlord’s failures, £475 compensation has been ordered. This is £300 more than the £175 awarded by the landlord on 6 September 2024. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance in relation to cases where service failure has occurred over a period with moderate impact on the resident throughout that period.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould and associated repairs at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of her property being underheated.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord shall carry out the following orders and must provide evidence of compliance within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. A senior member of staff from the landlord is to provide a written apology to the resident for the impact of the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a total of £1775 compensation. Any additional compensation is to be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises of:
  1. £800 for the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould and the associated remedial repairs.
  2. £500 for the landlord’s inappropriate handling of the resident’s reports that her property was underheated.
  3. £475 for the landlord’s inefficient complaint handling.
  4. The Ombudsman’s award of compensation as detailed above includes the total compensation of £1000 already offered by the landlord.
3. The landlord must update the resident and Ombudsman with the timescale in which it will complete the replacement of the radiators at the property. If it has not already done so.
4. In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord is to carry out a review of why the failings identified by this investigation occurred and provide a report back to the Ombudsman and the resident on this. This should include:
  1. Its lack of consideration of the impact the situation had on the resident.
  2. Its lack of transparency with the resident in communicating the results of action it was taking and management of her expectations.
  3. Any lessons learnt in relation to how it will manage its service level agreement with developers during defects periods.
5. The landlord must complete a risk assessment for the resident and her family, taking any further action as appropriate. This must include updating its records regarding any vulnerabilities if it has not already done so.

Recommendations

The landlord should provide the resident with the damp and mould survey it completed at the property if it has not already done so.