Platform Housing Group Limited (202315194)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315194

Platform Housing Group Limited

24 February 2025

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 handling of the repairs to the resident’s front door and the replacement of the door.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the rent and energy bills for the period he was not occupying the property.
3. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy at the property which was the subject of his complaint and the tenancy started on 5 January 2022. However, the resident transferred to an alternative property owned by the same landlord on 30 April 2023.
The landlord advised this Service that it has no vulnerabilities listed for the resident.
The property that was the subject of the complaint is a 2-bedroom, first floor, flat and from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023, the resident’s monthly rent at the property was £415.56.
The landlord’s emergency out of hours team attended the property on 19 December 2022 following a report of an arson attack. The team boarded up the front door, which had been damaged. The landlord’s contractor attended the next day and fitted a new lock to the front door. The landlord also ordered a new front door on 20 December 2022.
As the resident had not been at the property at the time of the arson attack, he was unaware of the incident. The landlord therefore visited him on 20 December 2022 at his partner’s property where he had been staying and advised him of the incident. Following contact with the police, the landlord approved the resident for a ‘managed move’ on 10 January 2023.
The resident continued to stay at his partner’s property while he was waiting for the new front door to be fitted to his property. The new front door was fitted on 7 February 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 2 May 2023 to advise that he was unhappy he had been charged the full rent for the property while he had not been in occupation. He said he had also had to pay energy costs. He said he had been “forced out of [his] home due to a lack of security”. The resident also wrote to the landlord on 11 May 2023 and said he had also had to leave his home prior to the arson attack because his gas had been capped.
The landlord partially upheld the resident’s complaint in its stage one reply dated 26 May 2023 because of a delay in fitting the new front door. The landlord offered compensation of £100 in addition to £100 it had previously offered. Therefore, the landlord offered a total of £200 compensation. The landlord clarified that it had capped the gas supply as it had not been able to carry out the annual gas check because the resident did not have any credit on the gas meter (the landlord’s record show the gas was capped from 24 November to 15 December 2023).
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 May 2023 to say he was unhappy with the landlord’s offer as he believed the landlord’s action had resulted in a large part of the arrears on his rent account. The landlord therefore logged a stage 2 complaint and sent its stage 2 reply on 12 July 2023 in which it stated:
1. Although the resident had stated he felt he was penalised and mistreated for raising his complaint, the landlord said it had found no evidence of this.
2. Following the work carried out to the front door on 20 December 2023, the door was left in an operational and secure condition. However, the landlord accepted that the door was not well-fitting and therefore it was not thermally efficient.
3. The landlord stated that the resident had chosen to remain at his partner’s property while the new front door was being manufactured. The landlord said that the property was secure and habitable and therefore it had not required the resident to move out.
4. The landlord confirmed that the new door had been ordered on 20 December 2022 and was fitted 7 weeks later on 7 February 2023.
5. The landlord had discussed concerns regarding the resident’s welfare following the arson attack and had agreed a managed move for the resident.
6. The landlord accepted that the property would have experienced increased draughts through the door during December 2022 and January 2023 and therefore agreed to additional compensation of £140 for the additional energy costs. The sum was based on £20 per week for 7 weeks.
7. The landlord said it did not agree with the resident’s view that he should not have been liable for the rent during the 7-week period. However, it agreed to a reduction in the rent of £10 per week for the 7-week period due to the reduced operation of the front door, which came to £70.
8. The total compensation offered by the landlord was £410, which was made up of:
  1. The £200 offered at stage one of the complaints process for the delay in fitting the new door.
  2. £140 to recognise the higher energy costs incurred by the resident.
  3. £70 for the reduced operation of the front door.
9. The landlord confirmed that £270 out of the £410 offered would be paid into the resident’s rent account to offset rent arrears.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 July 2023 and stated that he should not have to pay rent for the period the landlord was waiting to fit the new door to the property. He stated that the property had not been safe or secure during this period. He also said that he felt the landlord had treated him unfairly since making his complaint. Finally, the resident said the landlord had caused his rent account to go into arrears because it had paid some of his Universal Credit housing element towards rent arrears on the rent account for his previous property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 26 July 2023 and advised that the landlord had created arrears on his current rent account by using his Universal Credit housing element payments to pay off rent arrears for his previous property. However, this was not part of the complaint considered by the landlord during the complaint process.
A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. It is therefore considered fair and reasonable not to investigate this element of the resident’s complaint. The resident has the option of submitting a separate complaint to the landlord if he is concerned about the way the landlord has managed his former or current rent accounts.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the resident’s front door and the replacement of the door

The landlord’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible “to keep in repair the structure and exterior of your home including…outside doors…”.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it offers 2 levels of responsive repairs:
1. Emergency repairs – these will be attended to within 24 hours and relate to situations where there is “an immediate and serious risk to people or property”.
2. Appointed repairs – these relate to all non-emergency and non-specialist repairs that cannot reasonably wait for cyclical or planned works. Residents are offered a mutually convenient appointment at the first point of contact where possible.
After being notified of a suspected arson attack at the property on 19 December 2022, the landlord’s emergency contractor attended on the same day and boarded up the front door. It was appropriate for the contractor to attend on the same day to secure the property by boarding up the front door.
The landlord’s records show that its contractor attended on the following day (20 December 2022) and fitted a ‘Euro’ cylinder lock to the door. The contractor’s notes stated that the lock change was required to ensure the resident could access the property. It was reasonable that the contractor had fitted a new lock so that the resident could access the property.
The landlord also ordered a new front door on 20 December 2022, which was reasonable as the landlord and contractor had assessed that the current door was beyond repair. The landlord had placed the order with a specialist subcontractor the day after the reported arson attack and had therefore acted quickly to order the replacement door.
Part of the resident’s complaint is that the property was unsafe and not secure following the landlord’s repairs on 20 December 2022. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply dated 12 July 2023 that its housing officer visited the property on 20 December 2022 and found that the door was secure. The housing officer’s notes, which were made shortly after the visit, stated that she had spoken to the resident at his partner’s property nearby and advised him about the incident. She had also asked the resident to check the property.
It was reasonable that the landlord’s housing officer had visited the resident and asked him to check his property on 20 December 2022. This provided the resident with the opportunity to check whether he had any concerns about the security of the property and to advise the landlord of these concerns.
The landlord has advised this Service that the resident did not report any concerns about the security of the front door (during the 7-week period when the new door was on order). This is supported by the evidence seen by the Ombudsman, which shows that the resident did not contact the landlord during December 2022 or January 2023 to report that the front door was not secure.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 3 February 2023 about the need for him to maintain rent payments. The landlord’s notes show that during this conversation, which took place 4 days before the front door was replaced, the resident stated that he was unhappy because the landlord had not kept to its commitments. It is unclear from the notes whether the resident was specifically referring to the security of the property.
The Ombudsman has therefore not seen any clear evidence to show that the resident had checked the front door and raised concerns about the security of the door with the landlord prior to the replacement of the door on 7 February 2023.
The resident stated in his stage 2 complaint on 26 May 2023 that the landlord had accepted it had left the property unsafe and not secured for 7 weeks. However, the landlord’s stage one reply said that the door had been boarded up and, although it could be locked, it was ill-fitting. The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply on 12 July 2023 that the door had been ill-fitting. However, it stated that the door could be operated effectively while the new door was on order and could be locked to secure the property. The landlord added that the door was unsightly after it had been boarded, but it was secure during the 7-week period.
In the absence of any evidence that the resident checked the front door and raised concerns about its security during the 7–week period between 20 December 2022 and 7 February 2023, the Ombudsman has concluded that the landlord took reasonable steps to secure the property following the reported arson attack on 19 December 2022. Had the resident raised concerns during this period, the landlord would have had the opportunity to inspect the door and carry out further work to secure the door while the new door was on order.
The new door was fitted on 7 February 2023, which was 7 weeks after the door was ordered on 20 December 2022. The target date on the works order was 25 January 2023 and therefore the door was fitted 2 weeks after the target date. Given that the subcontractor had to measure for the new door, manufacture it and then arrange for the door to be fitted, the Ombudsman’s view is that the new front door was installed within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman has taken into account that the landlord chased the contractor regarding the replacement door on 9 January 2023 and that the manufacturing time for the door was largely outside of the landlord’s control.
Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the repairs to the front door and replacing the door because:
1. It carried out emergency boarding up of the property on 19 December 2022 to ensure the property was secure.
2. It fitted a new lock to the door on 20 December 2022 to allow the resident to use the door.
3. The landlord ordered a new front door without delay on 20 December 2022.
4. It advised the resident on 20 December 2022 that he should check the property.
5. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident raised concerns about the security of the existing door with the landlord during the period when the new door was on order.
6. The landlord fitted the new door within a reasonable timescale on 7 February 2023.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the rent and energy bills for the period he was not occupying the property

The landlord’s compensation policy states:
1. “Compensation will not be paid if the circumstances are outside the [landlord’s] control, e.g. specialised spare parts that need to be ordered…”.
2. “Where there is an outstanding debt owed to the [landlord] any discretionary payments made will be used to clear the outstanding debt in full or in part, unless the compensation is for actual loss”.
The landlord’s rent arrears policy states:
1. “If, for whatever reason, we need to make a compensation payment, any outstanding debts will be deducted before the payment is made. The exception is out of pocket expenses incurred by the customer such as extra cost for temporary heating”.
The resident stated in his complaints dated 2 and 26 May 2023 that he should not have been charged full rent during the 7 weeks it took to replace the front door. However, the evidence seen does not show that the landlord requested the resident to live elsewhere during the 7-week period or that it agreed he would not be liable for the rent. Therefore, as the resident retained the tenancy during this period, he was still responsible under the tenancy agreement for paying the rent and any energy costs. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to advise the resident in its stage 2 reply on 12 July 2023 that it would not waive the rent for the 7-week period.
The landlord accepted in its stage 2 reply that the property would have experienced increased draughts in December 2022 and January 2023 and offered the resident the sum of £140 to compensate for any increase in the resident’s energy bills. This was calculated at the rate of £20 per week for 7 weeks.
The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that would help to quantify the level of increase in the resident’s energy bills during this period and therefore cannot assess whether the amount offered for increased energy costs was reasonable. However, as the landlord had stated in its stage 2 letter that the door was not well–fitting, it was reasonable for the landlord to recognise that the resident may have incurred increased energy costs due to draughts. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord had offered financial assistance to help with the energy costs.
Similarly, as the landlord had stated in its stage 2 letter that the door had to be pulled shut because it was rubbing against the outer frame, it was reasonable that the landlord had offered an additional sum to recognise the difficulties in operating the door.
The Ombudsman has concluded that it was reasonable for the landlord to expect the resident to pay rent during the 7-week period as it had not agreed that he could live elsewhere during this period or that he would not have to pay rent. The landlord had also acted reasonably, in the Ombudsman’s view, by offering the resident sums to recognise the draughty nature of the door and the additional effort needed to pull it shut following repairs on 20 December 2022. Finally, it was commendable that the landlord offered the resident £200 ‘compensation’, even though it concluded in its stage 2 reply that it had not identified any failings in its handling of the repairs to the front door or the replacement of the door.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

The landlord’s customer feedback complaints procedure explains that it operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge stage one complaints within 5 working days and will send its reply within 10 working days. The procedure says that if more time is needed to investigate the complaint, this will be agreed with the resident and the landlord will keep in regular contact with them.
Stage 2 of the process is called the final review and the procedure says that a request for a final review will be acknowledged within 5 working days and a response provided within 20 working days. The procedure states that if additional time is needed, this will be discussed with the resident and the landlord will keep in regular contact.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 2 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 9 May 2023, which was 4 working days after receiving the complaint. The landlord therefore acknowledged the complaint within an appropriate timescale.
The landlord sent its response on 26 May 2023, which was 13 working days after it had acknowledged the complaint and 3 days longer than the deadline it had notified the resident of. It was a shortcoming that the landlord had not met its timescale for responding to stage one complaints. However, the delay was not excessive and the landlord apologised for its failure to meet the deadline in its stage 2 reply. Given that the delay was short, the Ombudsman’s view is that it was sufficient for the landlord to have acknowledged the delay and apologised for this in its stage 2 reply.
The resident advised the landlord on 26 May 2025 that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one reply. The landlord acknowledged the stage 2 complaint on 6 June 2023, which was 6 working days after the resident sent his stage 2 complaint. Therefore, it was a shortcoming that the landlord took slightly longer than its 5-working day target to acknowledge the complaint.
The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 12 July 2023, which was 26 working days after sending its acknowledgement on 6 June 2023. The landlord therefore did not meet its 20-working day timescale for replying to stage 2 complaints. However, the landlord had written to the resident on 16 June 2023 and advised him that it had been experiencing difficulties contacting him by phone to discuss the complaint. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 4 July 2023 and advised him that it needed more time to respond. The landlord also apologised for the extended time taken to complete the stage 2 review. Therefore, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord responded to the stage 2 complaint within a reasonable time as it had experienced difficulties contacting the resident to discuss the complaint, it had advised the resident that it would need an extension of time and it had apologised for the delay.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2023 and stated that he felt he was being penalised and unfairly treated since raising his complaint. He gave an example of experiencing a 3-week delay in receiving a response to his application for assistance from the landlord’s wellbeing fund to help with his energy bills. The landlord stated in its stage 2 reply that it had investigated this element of the resident’s complaint by reviewing as much of the correspondence as possible to identify any barriers or delays that would support the resident’s complaint. It confirmed that it had not identified any evidence of mistreatment.
It was reasonable that the landlord had investigated the resident’s complaint by reviewing relevant correspondence to see if there was any evidence of mistreatment.
In summary, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaints within reasonable timescales and investigated the resident’s report that he had been mistreated since submitting his complaint. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the resident’s front door and the replacement of the door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request for reimbursement of the rent and energy bills for the period he was not occupying the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Recommendation

The landlord should reoffer the resident the £410 offered in its stage 2 reply if this has not already been paid.