Platform Housing Group Limited (202221740)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202221740

Platform Housing Group Limited

27 February 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and repair issues raised at the beginning of the tenancy.
2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 25 April 2022 and the property is a house. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident; however, the resident has advised the Ombudsman that they have anxiety.
The complaint and other communications were raised on behalf of the resident by her representative. For clarity, this report will refer to both the resident and their representative as “the resident”.

Scope of investigation

Health and wellbeing

In their communication with the Ombudsman, the resident has raised concern about the impact the issues had on their health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. If the resident wishes to pursue this further, they may wish to make a personal injury claim against the landlord. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if they want to pursue this option.

Request for rent reimbursement

The resident has advised that they are seeking for the rent paid to be refunded for the period they felt they were unable to live in the property and have maintained that the property was uninhabitable. They have also requested compensation for the financial costs they incurred by living elsewhere during the period.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a determination on whether a property is uninhabitable as this Service cannot provide a technical assessment on the condition of the property. In addition, it is beyond the remit of this Service to consider complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent. While this Service can consider any distress and inconvenience caused, and may order a landlord to pay compensation for loss of room or amenity where applicable, it is beyond the remit of this Service to decide on whether the property was uninhabitable, whether the resident is liable for the rent due during this period, or whether financial costs were reasonably incurred. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on pursuing this matter further should they wish to.

Separate issues to those raised in the complaint

In accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman is only able to investigate issues that have exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process. While the landlord commented that it had rebooked an appointment for the external door in its stage 1 complaint response, there is no evidence that the door issue was escalated through the landlord’s complaints process. As such, it will not be investigated as part of this report. Following the landlord’s final complaint response in December 2022, the resident continued to raise additional concerns in relation to ongoing window issues, radiators, the kitchen floor, kitchen and bathroom fans, doors, draughts, and sewage, as well as more recent issues involving damp and mould.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord issued a further stage 1 complaint response on 18 October 2023. On 7 November 2023, it issued a review of the resident’s experience since the tenancy began when it offered £850 for the time and trouble, inconvenience caused and the cumulative impact this had. The landlord then increased its offer to £1,000 in December 2023 due to delays in completing outstanding repairs. The landlord specified that it was unable to comment on the Ombudsman’s investigation and that this offer of compensation was separate to any other offers of compensation made.
As these are separate matters to the issues that were raised through the landlord’s complaints process and exhausted that process in December 2022, the Ombudsman is unable to consider these matters further. Should the resident remain dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of these matters and the compensation offered, they may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord or seek independent advice on pursuing these matters further. The investigation is limited to the issues responded to within the landlord’s complaints process. Any compensation ordered within this report is made separately to the landlord’s more recent offers to the resident.

The resident’s legal claim

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident pursued an online money claim with the landlord on 8 January 2023. This included the issues that were raised in the formal complaint, including the removal of slabs from the garden and various repair issues. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that a hearing was adjourned on 17 March 2023 to allow for the resident to seek independent legal advice and no further application was submitted. The resident has not disputed this record of events.
In line with paragraph 42(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has, or had, the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings. The resident has provided their reasoning for not pursuing the claim further at the time and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the resident did not have the opportunity to pursue the claim further at that point. As such, the complaint falls within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.

Summary of events

The landlord completed a void inspection on 23 February 2022. It identified that works were required to remove non-standard slabs in the garden. The landlord has provided a gas safety certificate completed on 1 March 2022 which noted that the gas supply was capped.
The resident’s tenancy began on 25 April 2022. The landlord’s records show that a turn on and test appointment for the gas was completed on 3 May 2022 with a gas safety certificate completed on the same day. The boiler passed the inspection with no additional notes.
Between 10 May 2022 and 23 August 2022, the resident raised a number of concerns and works were carried out. These are summarised by issue below:

Windows

A repair order was raised on 10 May 2022 following reports that the window in the resident’s lounge was not secure and the lock was broken. The landlord’s records show that this was attended on the same day, but the appointment was missed by the resident and the operative was unable to access the property.
A work order for the resident’s child’s bedroom window was raised on 31 May 2022 as there was a report that it would not lock due to the catch. This work was reported as completed on 4 July 2022. The photo provided by the landlord of the job shows that the window could close.
A further work order was raised on 5 July 2022 which noted that the resident was unable to lock any of the windows in the property. This was reported as completed on 8 July 2022. The evidence provided shows that the living room windows were attended to on this date.
On 21 July 2022, the resident contacted the landlord, unhappy with the standard of work, and reported that the window in the child’s bedroom was cracked when attended to previously. An emergency job was raised on the same day and a safety film was placed over the glass as a temporary measure while materials were ordered. A further work order was raised on 22 July 2022 to reglaze the panel and touch up the paintwork to match.

Garden slabs

The resident reported that 18-20 garden slabs had been taken from the garden on 13 May 2022 and continued to request that these were re-laid, or they were reimbursed. Between 23 and 27 May 2022, the landlord said that it would not usually help with garden maintenance and that the garden would be the resident’s responsibility. On 7 June 2022, the landlord said it had discussed the slabs internally and that there were no records that it had taken the slabs from the property. It suggested the resident reported this as theft as it did not believe it had taken the slabs. On 17 June 2022, it confirmed that it was responsible for the paths to the front and back doors which were in place but would not be responsible for garden slabs.

External door

A work order was logged on 30 May 2022 following the resident’s reports that the external kitchen door did not sit flush, was draughty, did not lock, and needed to be addressed urgently. The landlord’s records show that the back door was attended to on 6 July 2022 and reported as completed.

A further work order was raised in relation to the external kitchen door on 4 August 2022 as the resident had reported being dissatisfied with the quality of the workmanship and that the door needed adjusting. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was attempted on 8 August 2022 but that there was no access.

Garden gate

A work order was logged on 17 May 2022 as the resident had reported that the garden gate was damaged. This was attended to on 9 June 2022 and materials were ordered. Work to fix a new latch was reported as completed on 24 June 2022.

There was a follow-on inspection on 20 August 2022 which established that a new gate and a small area of fencing was needed. Materials were ordered. An appointment was arranged for 10 September 2022.

An informal complaint was raised on 23 August 2022 as the resident was dissatisfied that several garden slabs had been removed from the garden after the tenancy had been accepted and believed that the landlord had stolen these. This was acknowledged by the landlord the following day.
The landlord’s records show that it discussed the complaint further with the resident following this. They confirmed that 18-20 slabs were removed from the back and side of the house. They were then informed by the landlord that the garden was their responsibility to maintain. They had contacted the police to report a theft, but the matter had not progressed despite contact from the landlord. They added that there were blood strips and needles in the garden. The landlord confirmed it would investigate these concerns.
The landlord’s quick resolution call notes from 31 August 2022 show that it apologised that the garden was not cleared of sharp objects when the property was void. It said it would ask the contractor to reattend and remove these as soon as possible. It explained that its voids team removed any uneven or broken slabs from the garden as part of the void process but that it was required to leave a walkway down the side and back of the house to allow access. It would arrange for an operative to attend and check the current garden situation. The resident asked for the complaint to be escalated as the issues had not been resolved, and there were various other issues which were preventing them from moving in. The landlord confirmed that it would send the request to escalate across that day.
The landlord’s records on 31 August 2022 show that it had asked for a full sweep of the garden to be completed due to the resident’s reports of needles and blood test strips. On the same day, it asked for the resident’s complaint to be escalated to be considered under its formal complaints process.
The landlord’s records show that a sweep of the garden was completed on 5 September 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s formal complaint on 5 September 2022 and said it aimed to respond by 19 September 2022.
The landlord’s records from 6 September 2022 noted that the resident had left a staff member a voicemail the previous week and said that despite a previous sweep of the garden, sharps had been missed and the operative had only been instructed to remove one sharp object. It noted that it would discuss this with the operatives that attended. It noted that the resident had also reported that the side gate was not working, raised concern about an earth wire in the living room and said that a bedroom window which was cracked.
The landlord’s records show that on 6 September 2022, it had queried the sharps in the garden with the contractors that attended. They advised that they had asked the resident where the blood strips were so they could be removed, and the resident had not given these to the operative. The operative had also asked if there were any further sharp objects found since moving in and the resident had said no. The operative had also completed a full sweep of the garden at the time.
The landlord’s records show that an operative attended on 12 September 2022 and completed work to replace a double-glazed unit in the resident’s child’s bedroom.
The landlord contacted the resident on 13 September 2022. It asked the resident to confirm what items still needed removing from the garden. It also noted that there were repairs needed to the gate, a bedroom window and an earthing wire in the living room. It said that these were due to be completed on 10 and 13 September 2022 and asked if the resident was happy with the works completed. The resident responded on the same day and said that the works had not been completed and asked for a callback.
Following a call on 16 September 2022, where the resident advised that the work to the gate and window had not been completed, the landlord emailed the resident. It noted that the resident had agreed to allow a few more days for it to complete its stage 1 complaint investigation. It said it had now raised a repair for the earthing wire and requested that a job for the kitchen door be attended to on 21 September 2022. It had discussed the window internally and the operative had advised that the work had been completed. It asked the resident to confirm whether the works related to the bedroom window or another window. It found that the operative due to attend the fence repair on 10 September 2022 was on annual leave and due to a technical error, this was not showing in its calendar. It apologised and confirmed that the work was being rebooked. The resident confirmed that the bedroom window had been fixed and the landlord confirmed that the fence was booked for 27 September 2022.
The landlord asked for a repair to be raised for the earth wire on 16 September 2022. This was raised on 20 September 2022.
On 21 September 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as there had been a “missed” appointment for the external door that day despite being present in the property. A card was left but they had not received a call or text. They confirmed that only the door, side gate, gravel and landscaping, and electrical cables in the lounge were left to complete and they could then arrange for floor covering to be laid and move in.
The landlord issued a complaint response to the resident on 21 September 2022 and explained the following:
1. It understood the complaint to be related to a number of slabs being removed from the garden, hazardous objects being left in the garden, and outstanding repairs. It noted that to resolve the complaint, the resident was seeking for the slabs to be reinstated, the gravel to be replaced and the repairs to be completed.
2. It noted that the resident had reported a number of outstanding repairs which included an earth wire in the living room, issues related to the external kitchen door, the garden gate and a cracked window.
3. It confirmed that the window had now been repaired and the repair to the earth wire had been scheduled for 5 October 2022. It understood that the resident had missed the appointment for the kitchen door on 21 September 2022 and it had asked for this to be rescheduled.
4. It said that the gate was due to be attended on 10 September 2022, however, the operative assigned was on leave and due to a technical error, this did not show on its systems. It apologised and confirmed this work was rescheduled for 27 September 2022.
5. In relation to the garden slabs, it noted that the resident had said that on viewing the property, there were a number of slabs in the garden, which were subsequently removed by its voids team. It said that the slabs were removed in line with its Lettable Standards as they were uneven and posed a potential hazard. It said it would not replace the slabs as it had not initially laid them and were not required in line with its policy. It had agreed to visit to inspect the gaps that had been left and organise any necessary remedial works to fill in and reseed the gaps.
6. Following the sign-up, the resident had said they had found a number of hypodermic needles and blood test strips in the garden. It apologised that these had not been removed prior to the resident taking on the property. A job was raised with its contractor to remove these, however, they seemed to only be aware of one item and the resident felt the whole garden needed to be cleared.
7. It had raised this further and was advised that a full sweep of the garden was completed, and no further sharps or hazardous objects were found. In light of the resident’s concern, it had agreed to remove and replace the area of gravel in question which would be arranged during the visit.
8. It apologised for the failures it had identified and partially upheld the complaint. While it would not replace the slabs as these had been removed in line with policy, it had failed to remove other hazardous objects from the garden and there had been a delay in completing repairs. It offered £100 compensation to be credited to the resident’s rent account as its staff had failed to take reasonable care. It confirmed that the resident could escalate the complaint should the issues remain unresolved.
The resident responded on the same day and explained that they had been informed multiple times that the garden slabs were never removed by the landlord and there was no job on the system. A member of staff also said records had been reviewed and suggested they went to the police. They maintained that the slabs were fine before they were removed and there were now holes which were more uneven than the slabs initially were. They said their complaint remained until the work was completed and were dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered given the 5-month delay.
The landlord’s records indicate that an inspection of the property took place on 27 September 2022. The landlord asked that the gravel area in the garden was removed and replaced and that the remaining slabs on the side of the garden were removed as these did not form part of the letting standard. It asked that grass seed was scattered if the area needed back-filling.
The landlord’s records show that there was no access to the property on 5 October 2022 for an appointment to assess the earth wire in the living room. This job was re-raised on 10 October 2022.
The landlord’s internal records from 10 October 2022 show that it had received several emails from the resident. It had phoned the resident who confirmed that they wanted the complaint to be escalated as nothing had been done. They wanted someone to meet them at the property to go through the issues. It had confirmed that the external door had been booked for 24 October 2022 and noted that it had rebooked the appointment for the earth wire to 28 October 2022 as this had previously been missed.
The landlord’s records from 23 October 2022 note that it asked for the complaint to be escalated on the basis that the resident was not happy that it would not reinstate the slabs that had been removed and would not reimburse him.
On 24 October 2022, the landlord emailed the resident in relation to the email of 21 September 2022. It apologised for the delayed response. It also apologised if the resident had been given incorrect information about the garden slabs. It explained that there had been jobs related to the slabs logged under the void works for the property and these may not have been obviously visible to the member of staff as they were part of a larger works ticket. It confirmed that the slabs to the side of the garden were seen to be uneven and cracked at the time of the void inspection. It added that it had asked for the resident’s complaint to be escalated.
Between 24 and 28 October 2022, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that the slabs were re-laid and level when the tenancy agreement was signed and were taken following this. They maintained that the slabs were not the landlord’s to take and were not uprooted when the property was void. They asked the landlord to replace them or provide compensation. They said that they had been staying elsewhere and had been unable to stay in the property safely for over 6 months. They asked that the compensation was reviewed as they did not believe the landlord had given the matter the time or urgency it deserved. They confirmed that they would be raising a claim with the small claims court.
The landlord’s records show that the earth wire was attended to on 28 October 2022. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 28 October 2022 and confirmed that it aimed to respond within 20 working days.
A work order was raised on 7 November 2022 in relation to a bedroom window which would not close. This was reportedly on the ground floor. This was attended to on 8 November 2022.
The resident continued to communicate with the landlord between 16 and 25 November 2022 regarding a number of repair issues. During this period:
1. The resident maintained that they were dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the garden slabs and asked that the remaining slabs were not taken up. They also maintained that there were hazardous objects in the gravel in the garden. The landlord advised that the gravel had previously been swept and no further works were required. It confirmed that it would not remove the existing slabs as the resident had requested.
2. The resident asked for an update as they maintained that the windows were unlockable. The landlord acknowledged that they had found that a window needed replacement and it agreed to measure this for replacement. It noted that there had been a no access appointment for the same window in May 2022 and the resident disputed that this appointment was to replace the window.
3. The resident also added that the boiler had been condemned at the start of the tenancy and maintained that the property had not been habitable. The landlord advised that a turn on and test appointment was completed on 3 May 2022 and no issues were found.
The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 25 November 2022 and said it aimed to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord issued its final review response to the resident on 2 December 2022 and explained the following:
1. It had spoken to the resident on 11 November 2022 to discuss the complaint in more detail. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to make contact.
2. It understood that the resident’s escalation request was regarding its decision not to replace or reimburse them for the slabs that were removed from the garden when the property was empty, and that the resident wanted the slabs to be reinstated or to be reimbursed. The resident had added that the property was not fit to live in, the boiler was condemned, there was a gas leak, the kitchen and front room windows did not close and were not secure, and that the gravel area contained needles, glass and blood test strips.
3. The resident advised that as a resolution, they wanted the gravel removing and replacing, windows replacing or repairing, a repair to the porch, new slabs in the rear garden and half of the rent for the property refunded.
4. It confirmed that it had discussed the resident’s concerns with its voids team who completed the post inspection of the property before the resident moved in and asked that a supervisor visited to give their opinion on outstanding works required.
5. In relation to the gravel, it confirmed that a full needle sweep and clearance of the gravel had been completed and that no further works would be carried out to the gravel area.
6. The windows had been checked and one window was beyond repair. The voids team were aware of this and would arrange for its replacement.
7. The porch to the front of the property was currently on its Roofing Replacement programme with the aim to complete works before the end of March 2023.
8. It confirmed that the slabs were removed as they were deemed unsafe. The original instruction was to remove all slabs that were not standard, and it should then have applied topsoil and seed to those areas. Its standard was to supply a paved area to the front and rear door. It confirmed that it had offered to return to complete the work and remove all non-standard paving, but the resident had refused this. It confirmed that it would be willing to complete the work and asked the resident to make contact.
9. In relation to the resident’s request for a half rent refund, it acknowledged that the resident had requested this as no one had lived in the property since the keys were received as the resident deemed the property uninhabitable. It had discussed this and reviewed the jobs completed at the property since the start of the tenancy. A gas turn on and test was completed on 3 May 2022 and the boiler would have been left working with a satisfactory gas safety certificate provided. The boiler had previously been capped so there would have been no gas leak and no gas would have been live until the turn on and test. The sticker/warning notice was to advise that there was no gas on at the property and not to use the boiler.
10. It had received no further repair requests until 1 August 2022. The job description noted that there was no heating and hot water and indicated that there were children under the age of 6. It acknowledged that the resident was living at the address so raised the job as an emergency. Work was then completed on 3 August 2022. It had received no further repairs related to the boiler. On this basis, it deemed the property suitable and was unable to authorise a rent refund.
11. It partially upheld the complaint due to the window repairs and garden slab work not being completed satisfactorily prior to the resident moving in. It offered the resident £150 for each of these aspects, bringing the total to £300. It confirmed that the resident could approach the Ombudsman if they felt the complaint remained unresolved.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 to advise that they rejected its final complaint response. They were dissatisfied that the landlord had suggested that a bedroom and ground floor window that could not be shut or locked was ok. The needles and test strips were still, in part, present in the garden. They expressed concern that the landlord had suggested that they had appeared since the clean up. They did not feel anyone had listened to their concerns nor that the landlord had taken ownership. They said that they intended to take legal action and asked the landlord to reimburse 7 months rent in full.
The resident initially referred their complaint to the Ombudsman in December 2022. They were dissatisfied about the landlord ignoring evidence, windows would not lock or close in the property, needles and test strips in the garden, the boiler being tested after the tenancy start date, and a lack of communication. They wanted their rent reimbursed in full, the outstanding issues resolved, to be compensated for the slabs, and additional compensation for the distress caused and the financial impact of needing to stay elsewhere.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure of the property, including to windows, doors and frames. It is also responsible for pathways and installations provided for heating, sanitation and the supply of water. The resident is responsible for paying rent for the property, minor internal repairs, and the upkeep of the garden.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs, including those where there is an immediate or serious risk to people or property, within 24 hours. The priority would be to make safe or secure and may result in follow-on works. Appointed repairs should be completed within 28 days. These would not include works that could reasonably wait for a cyclical or planned programme of work.
The repairs guidance further states that the landlord would be responsible for making safe any health and safety related hazards to paving and tarmac but that it would only be responsible for the path leading to the front entrance door and around the property to a side or rear entrance door.
The landlord’s lettable standard document sets out the minimum standard which the landlord expects before the re-let of a property. It states that all void properties are to have the gas capped off unless requested otherwise. The landlord would be responsible for carrying out gas tests on installations and equipment. Gas and electric meters should be debt free and ready for the next customer to take over. The garden should be left in a condition whereby a reasonably fit person could maintain it. Windows and doors are to be checked and repaired/replaced as necessary.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that if an issue can be resolved quickly, it would complete an Early Resolution and attempt to resolve the issues within 4 working days. If the issue cannot be resolved, then the complaint will be acknowledged formally within 5 days of receipt.
The landlord’s formal complaints procedure is formed of 2 stages. At stage 1, the landlord should acknowledge the complaint within 5 working days of receipt and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, the landlord should respond in within 20 working days. It specifies that where other matters are introduced, these would be dealt with separately and the current complaint would be deemed as resolved. If there is likely to be a delay in the landlord responding at any stage, it would be expected to keep the resident informed, explain the reason for the delay and provide a new response timeframe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and repair issues raised at the beginning of the tenancy.

The complaint raised by the resident primarily related to missing garden slabs and hazardous objects being found in the garden. It is noted that the resident raised various further repair issues over the course of the complaint which the landlord addressed within its complaint responses, including an earth wire in the living room, the garden gate and concerns about a “condemned” boiler and a cracked window. The Ombudsman has addressed each of these concerns individually below.

Garden Slabs

The resident initially raised concerns about 18-20 garden slabs that had gone missing from the garden on 13 May 2022. They maintained that they had witnessed the landlord’s staff removing the slabs and said that they had previously re-laid the existing slabs themselves on accepting the tenancy.
It is evident that the landlord was due to remove several slabs following a void inspection on 23 February 2022. The record shows that the slabs were found to have been installed by a previous tenant and were non-standard, not level, and a trip hazard. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinion of its qualified contractors when determining what work was due to be completed during the void period. However, it should have either completed the work before the property was let, or informed the resident of its intention to remove the slabs after the property was let if this work had not yet been completed.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident was informed that the slabs were due to be removed once the tenancy commenced. The failure to do so was likely to have caused confusion to the resident as to why the slabs were then removed around 13 May 2022. In addition, the landlord initially informed the resident that it had not taken the slabs, the garden would be their responsibility, and to report the slabs as stolen prior to the complaint.
The landlord did subsequently apologise to the resident in relation to the mis-information provided, explaining that the work was logged under the void works for the property and may not have been visible to the staff members previously involved. However, this was not until 24 October 2022, a significant period of time after the event in question and this was not addressed within its complaint response.
It was reasonable for the landlord to admit that it had removed the slabs, explain the reasons why, acknowledge that it should have completed the work before the tenancy began and offer to put the area right. It acted fairly by apologising to the resident and offering £150 compensation for its failure to complete the work before the tenancy began. However, the landlord did not acknowledge its failure to communicate with the resident before removing the slabs, or the time and trouble spent by the resident in pursuing the concern in view of the incorrect information it had provided.
The landlord would not be responsible for replacing the slabs or compensating the resident for the slabs that had been taken as there is no evidence that these had been purchased by the resident. However, the landlord’s offer of compensation for this element of the complaint is not considered proportionate given the additional failings. An order has been made below for the landlord to offer additional compensation in recognition of the resident’s time and trouble pursuing his concerns due to the landlord’s poor communication.

Hazardous waste in the garden

Following the resident’s reports of hazardous waste in the garden on 24 August 2022, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for the garden to be swept and cleared. This was reported as completed on 5 September 2022 within a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s records show that the resident had raised concern that only 1 sharp item was removed on this visit and the operative had only been informed of 1 sharp object. The landlord acted appropriately by investigating these concerns with the operatives who attended, who advised that they had completed a full sweep of the garden with no further sharps found. They had also asked the resident if they had found any further sharp objects and they had sad no. In addition, they had asked the resident to point out or provide any further items for disposal and the resident said they would not hand over blood test strips that had been found.
The landlord was ultimately entitled to rely on its staff’s narrative of events in the absence of evidence to show this was not the case. It acted reasonably by apologising that the hazardous items had not been removed prior to the tenancy starting and offering to replace an area of gravel in view of the resident’s ongoing concerns.
It is noted that despite the landlord agreeing to remove and replace the gravel in its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2022, it has not provided evidence to the Ombudsman that this took place. Within its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2022, the landlord advised that the gravel area around the flags had been removed and needle swept previously and that no further works would be carried out to the gravel area. Ultimately, the landlord had not provided any further evidence to show that the area was addressed following the initial appointment on 5 September 2022 and it would have been appropriate for it to have followed through on actions it had agreed to as part of its stage 1 complaint resolution. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord initially apologised that the hazardous objects were not removed before the resident accepted the tenancy and offered £100 compensation in view of this, along with delays in completing repairs at stage 1. However, it failed to demonstrate that it had followed through with actions it said it would complete, and its offer of compensation at stage 1 was not included as part of its stage 2 resolution, meaning that the resident was not ultimately offered redress for this failing. It remains unclear as to whether there remains an issue of hazardous objects in the garden as the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that this continues to be an issue. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to address this should this continue to be an issue for the resident.

Earth wire

The landlord’s records show that it was made aware of concerns about an earth wire in the living room following a voicemail received from the resident on 6 September 2022. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident had raised this issue at an earlier date. Following a failed appointment on 5 October 2022, where the operative was unable to gain access, this was rebooked on 10 October 2022 and completed on 28 October 2022.
The landlord acted reasonably by initially attending to the repair within a reasonable timeframe The delay in the work being carried out was ultimately outside of the landlord’s control due to the lack of access to the property and it acted reasonably by rebooking the work and completing it within its timescales. The Ombudsman has not found a failure in the landlord’s handling of the repair.

Garden gate and fence

The landlord’s records show that the resident had reported that his garden gate was damaged and a repair was raised on 17 May 2022. This was attended to on 9 June 2022 and parts were ordered to replace a bolt. This was initially reported as completed on 24 June 2022. The landlord’s records show that a follow-on inspection was completed on 20 August 2022 where it established that a new gate was needed as well as a small section of fencing so materials were ordered.
The landlord acted appropriately by apologising that an appointment, scheduled for 10 September 2022, was not attended due to a technical error as the operative was on leave which had not shown on its system. The work was then reported as completed on 27 September 2022.
It is noted that the landlord apologised for the delay in completing works, including the fence and gate repair, within its stage 1 complaint response and offered a total of £100 compensation for this along with its failure to remove sharp objects from the garden before the tenancy began. This was reasonable in the circumstances. However, this offer of compensation was not carried forward to its stage 2 complaint response which was likely to have caused confusion and meant that the landlord failed to offer suitable redress for this failing and delay.

Boiler

The Ombudsman has not seen evidence that the resident raised any concerns in relation to the boiler until the time of the stage 2 complaint and during a phone call with the landlord on 11 November 2022. The resident maintained that the boiler had been condemned at the start of the tenancy. The resident has provided a photo of the sticker attached to the boiler at the start of the tenancy. The photo shows a safety warning noting that the boiler was not to be used. The document states that the boiler was “immediately dangerous” because the gas was capped, there was no gas supply and the boiler had not been serviced. The document is dated 1 March 2022 and aligns with the gas safety certificate at the time which noted that the gas had been capped.
It is usual practice for landlords to “cap” the gas supply at a property while it is “void” or empty for health and safety reasons. When a resident begins a tenancy, a turn on and test appointment is arranged so that they are able to use the gas supply. Following the turn on and test appointment on 3 May 2022, the landlord’s records show that the boiler was tested with no additional notes suggesting that work was required at the time.
Overall, the landlord’s explanation to the resident within its complaint response on 2 December 2022 was reasonable as there is no evidence that the boiler had been condemned or left in a dangerous state. There is no evidence to suggest that the resident was left without use of the boiler for an unreasonable length of time due to its condition and no further evidence to suggest that the landlord should have considered refunding the resident’s rent on this basis.

Windows

The resident’s concerns at stage 1 of the complaint specifically related to the condition of their child’s bedroom window. The resident had reported that this would not lock on 31 May 2022 due to the catch. This work was initially reported as completed on 4 July 2022 and the landlord provided photos and job notes showing that the window was left secure. This was attended to outside of the landlord’s repair timescales of 28 days and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have acknowledged the delay in its responses.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 July 2022 and reported that the operative who had previously attended had cracked the window. It remains unclear as to whether this was the case, however, the landlord acted appropriately by attending on the same day to “make safe” the window with a safety film. A further work order was raised on 22 July 2022 to replace the glass, and this was attended to on 12 September 2022 – this was not an unreasonable timescale given the need to manufacture the replacement glass. It would, however, have been appropriate for the landlord to have communicated with the resident more effectively to manage their expectations on how long the repair was likely to take, investigate the resident’s concerns that the operative had cracked the glass and apologised if it found that this was the case.
Alongside the formal complaint, the resident raised concern that a number of windows were unsecured. it is noted that they reported this on 5 July 2022 and the landlord attended on 8 July 2022 with the work reported as completed. This was within a reasonable timeframe, however, there is a lack of record confirming the actions taken on the visit or whether any follow-on works were required, and it is noted that the resident continued to raise concerns. Given the resident’s concerns that the windows could not be secured, the Ombudsman would have expected to see clear evidence that demonstrated the landlord had checked each window, carried out repairs, or confirmed that repairs were not needed. It remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether this was completed in full which amounts to a failing.
The landlord acted reasonably by acknowledging in its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2022 that the windows had been checked, and that 1 window was found to be beyond repair. It apologised that this was not identified and resolved before the tenancy began. While this, alongside its offer of £150 compensation, was considered proportionate in the circumstances, the landlord could have done more to explain which window it was referring to and confirming the actions it had previously taken in response to the resident’s reports of unsecured windows in order to respond more fully to the complaint.
It is noted that the resident continued to report draughts from the windows to the landlord following the complaint and these issues formed part of a separate complaint in October 2023. These do not form part of this investigation.

Summary

It is not disputed that the resident experienced several repair issues at the beginning of the tenancy. The Ombudsman has found service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns and repair issues raised at the beginning of the tenancy. This is specifically in relation to its response to the concerns about garden slabs, hazardous waste in the garden, the garden gate and fencing, and the windows.
The landlord’s offer of compensation was unclear. It offered total compensation of £300 at stage 2 for failings associated with the garden slabs and window repairs. However, that response failed to mention or include the £100 compensation offered at stage 1 for its failing to remove waste from the garden and delays in repairs. While it was appropriate for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation, it should have included its stage 1 offer in the total amount. Therefore, this Service has made an order of compensation below, which reflects this error. The Ombudsman has also ordered the landlord to offer increased compensation in recognition of the failures identified.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the Code set out that landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the complaints procedure within 5 days of receipt.
In this case, despite the resident initially raising a complaint on 23 August 2022, this was not handled under the landlord’s formal complaints process straight away and it was approximately 9 working days before the complaint was acknowledged formally at stage 1 on 5 September 2022. The landlord should ensure that its processes are in line with the Ombudsman’s Code. In this case, its practice of considering the complaint informally led to a delay in the complaint being formally investigated. Following the acknowledgement of the complaint on 5 September 2022, it issued its stage 1 complaint response on 21 September 2022, which was within a reasonable timescale.
The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s response on 21 September 2022, the day it was received. The landlord would have been expected to escalate the complaint at this stage given the resident’s ongoing dissatisfaction. The evidence shows that the resident continued to pursue his concerns and the complaint was not formally escalated until 28 October 2022, over a month later. This was likely to have caused inconvenience to the resident who evidently remained dissatisfied.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 2 December 2022 – this was outside of its policy timescales and approximately 52 working days from when the resident initially expressed dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint response. While the landlord acted appropriately by issuing a holding response to the resident, explaining that it needed to extend the timeframe of its response, it failed to fully acknowledge the delay in issuing its final complaint response or the inconvenience this may have caused the resident.
As detailed above, the landlord’s failure to provide clear information about the compensation offered and the lack of clear explanation regarding the “removal” of the £100 offered at stage 1 was likely to have caused confusion to the resident around the true offer of compensation. It is the Ombudsman’s view that compensation offered at stage 1 should stand unless there is a reasonable explanation provided as to why this had been altered or changed. It can be reasonable for the landlord to offer additional compensation at stage 2; however, it should be clear that this is inclusive of, or in addition to, the offer it made at stage 1.
The Ombudsman has made an order below for the landlord to pay additional compensation to the resident in view of its complaint handling delays and the inconvenience caused. A recommendation has also been made for the landlord to consider carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that where new issues are raised over the course of the complaint, these are raised as a new complaint at stage 1 rather than being added to the existing complaint. This is to allow a resident to have the opportunity to respond to the landlord’s position as part of its complaints process and avoid confusion about what has, and has not, exhausted the process.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s concerns and repair issues raised at the beginning of the tenancy.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord’s offer of compensation went some way to address its failings, however, there was a lack of clear communication regarding the garden slabs, delays in completing repairs and poor records in relation to the window repairs.
There were delays in addressing the resident’s complaint through the landlord’s complaints process. In addition, compensation offered at stage 1 of the process was not carried forward to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response which meant that the resident was not provided with redress for issues the landlord had previously acknowledged as a failing.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified within this report.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £650, comprised of:
1. £400 as previously offered at stage 1 and stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process. This includes the £300 offered in its stage 2 complaint response which has already been paid.
2. £150 in addition to the above in view of the service failures identified in relation to the communication regarding the slabs and handling of the window repairs.
3. £100 in recognition of the complaint handling delays and confusion caused by its differing compensation offers.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord contacts the resident to discuss any ongoing repair issues and sets out a clear plan of action and schedule for any outstanding repairs. It should consider providing the resident with a list of repairs, and expected completion dates to ensure that all outstanding repair issues are addressed.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews the updated Complaint Handling Code (effective from 1 April 2024) alongside its current complaints policy and procedure to ensure that it complies with the recommendations made. A copy of its self-assessment with the Code is due by 30 June 2024.
It is recommended that the landlord considers carrying out staff training for complaint handlers to ensure that the complaint issues under investigation are clearly listed at each stage to avoid confusion about what has, and has not, exhausted the complaints process. Where residents raise additional complaint issues during the investigation, these must be incorporated into the stage 1 response if they are related and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, the new issues are unrelated to the issues already being investigated or it would unreasonably delay the response, the new issues must be logged as a new complaint.
It is recommended that the landlord arranges for a further full sweep of the garden to be carried out if hazardous objects remain an issue and the resident is able to evidence the hazardous objects to be removed.