Plymouth Community Homes Limited (202400872)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202400872

Plymouth Community Homes Limited

26 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 the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
This Service has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in 2006. The property is a 2-bed maisonette within a block. The landlord was made aware that the resident and her household had vulnerabilities during the complaint process.
On 30 June 2023, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. In summary she said she had been waiting since November 2022 for a hole in the wall to be repaired. A plumber had made the hole while fixing a leak. She was told on 26 June 2023 that a repairs supervisor would contact her within 48 hours, but no one had. She said that environmental health were now involved because of the damp and mould.
On 3 July 2023, the records show that the landlord visited the resident. There are no records however to show what was discussed during the visit. On 10 July, the landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response. In summary it said:
1. Its contractor would attend on 17 July 2023 to complete the repairs to the kitchen following the leak from the flat above. This would include replacing defective units and re-plastering the affected walls.
2. The roof had been renewed 4 years ago. It was in good condition and did not require works.
3. It apologised for the initial delay from its plumber attending in November 2022 when he was unable to locate the leak. It had raised work for the flat above but had issues gaining access which delayed matters.
4. It apologised that it had not followed up on its inspection completed on 15 February 2023. When it realised this it sent out its contractor who confirmed that the leak was continuing. It again accessed the flat above and the leak had now been resolved. When it visited on 3 July it noted that the walls and ceiling were dry.
On 24 July 2023, the resident requested a stage 2 complaint. In summary she said:
1. The leak was not coming from the flat above. It had recently been discovered that the leak was coming from the roof. She disagreed that the roof was in good condition despite it being renewed 4 years ago.
2. After the landlord attended on 3 July 2023 and concluded the walls were dry it rained causing further leaks.
3. The landlord attended on 17 July to begin repairs but this did not happen as there was still water dripping.
4. She was classed as autoimmune suppressed and had health issues. Her husband had PTSD. The whole situation had caused severe emotional and mental distress.
5. She wanted her kitchen returned to a decent standard. She wanted compensating for the distress and inconvenience caused. She had to replace her freezer due to water getting into the back grill. She had also had to replace several kitchen utensils as they were covered in damp and mould. She provided a list of repairs that she said still needed to be done.
On 17 August 2023, the landlord sent its stage 2 response. In summary it said:
1. Its roof contractor had not installed the roof correctly which had caused the leak. It offered £150 compensation for the inconvenience caused.
2. The external repairs had now been completed but it wanted to hold off completing the internal works while it completed the external check so that it could ensure it was resolved. It would attend within the next 2 weeks to complete the outstanding repairs. It also confirmed its point of contact moving forwards.
On 30 August 2023, the resident requested a stage 3 complaint. In summary she said:
1. No repairs had been done at her property.

In respect of the compensation offer this was not enough. It did not cover the cost of the freezer or the kitchen utensils. It had not considered the distress and inconvenience caused over the past 7 months.

Post complaint.

The landlord provided this Service a chronology of events which showed that it had been in regular contact with the resident from September 2023. The leak was fixed at points then re-occurred. The leak was finally resolved in January 2024. All of the works were completed on 25 March 2024.
On 8 April 2024, the resident contacted this Service she said that she had not had a functioning kitchen for 16 months. She considered that the landlord should provide compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 8 July 2024, the landlord replaced the resident’s kitchen. Once all of the works had been completed it wrote to the resident and offered compensation of £1250. £1000 for the distress and upset caused over the past 16 months. £250 for the cost to the resident for the freezer.

Assessment and findings

Policies, legislation and procedures.

The landlord has a responsibility under Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The repair policy that applied at the time of this complaint does not show timescales for responses. Its policy has since been updated and provides that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days and routine repairs within 20 working days. It states it is responsible for defective roofs which could be categorised as routine or programmed work. It would however respond to roof repairs as an emergency if dangerous.
The landlord’s website provides guidance on how it responds to reports of damp and mould following completion of a damp and mould inspection. It categorises the severity of damp and mould into category 1 and 2 hazards. It also provides timescales that it will respond by alongside picture examples of the category hazards. It is unknown whether this information applied at the time of the resident’s complaint, and it is also unclear how the landlord will respond to reports of damp and mould prior to an inspection being completed.

Scope of the investigation.

It is recognised the situation was distressing and inconvenient for the resident and her family. Its adverse impact on the family’s welfare is also acknowledged. It may help to explain that, unlike a court, the Ombudsman is unable to establish liability, so we cannot calculate or award damages. Nor can we evaluate medical evidence. On that basis, the resident’s concerns around out-of-pocket expenses and any damage to her family’s health are beyond the scope of this assessment. The Ombudsman can assess whether a landlord offered sufficient redress for the distress and inconvenience it caused.
This Service acknowledges that the issue continued after the stage 2 complaint response. This Service cannot consider the landlord’s handling of the matter after the stage 2 complaint response. This is because paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the Ombudsman may not consider matters which have not yet exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. However, this Service can consider the length of time it took to resolve the issue when considering distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.

The evidence shows that the landlord was first put on notice by the resident that there was a leak on 23 November 2022. The landlord responded within 24 hours which was in accordance with its current timescales. The records do not show its findings.
The landlord’s stage 1 response states that no leak was detected when it visited. It said works were raised to investigate the flat above. The records do not evidence the landlord’s version of events. They do show that the resident reported a leak again on 16 December 2022. The landlord attended on 19 December 2022 which was outside of its own recorded target response of 24 hours. The records state no leak was found but they fail to provide any details of any follow up action.
On 11 January 2023, an inspection was raised to assess the damage to the property caused by a leak. The landlord attended on 7 and 8 February 2023 to make safe the electrics and inspect the damage.
On 24 February 2023, a severe leak was reported. The records show that the landlord attended on 27 February which again was outside of its own timescale of 24 hours. The notes state that the leak was coming from the flat above, but it had been unable to access.
The landlord visited the resident in May 2023 on 2 occasions. It said it was attending to make good in the resident’s property. The landlord also said it had inspected the roof during this period but found no issues. The landlord’s notes also state that its leaseholder team had been trying to contact the leaseholder in the flat above.
Overall, the records provided are confusing and do not show a clear audit trail of what happened. The records fail to show that matters were followed up. Furthermore, there is no evidence to show that it had kept the resident informed during this period.
When the landlord received the resident’s stage 1 complaint it visited the resident to satisfy itself that the leak had been resolved. This was appropriate. The landlord did acknowledge its failure to follow up on matters in its stage 1 response.
It did not however offer any real explanation as to what had gone wrong. This may have been because it was unable to determine from its own records. By failing to identify what had gone wrong it failed to put matters right. At this point, the resident had been waiting 7 months for the issues to be resolved. This was a failing in its handling of the matter. The resident had spent considerable time and effort having to chase the landlord to try to get the issue resolved.
The leak continued when it rained again shortly after the stage 1 response had been issued. The landlord said within its chronology that it was aware of this when it attended on 17 July 2023 to try to complete remedial works. The records show that the landlord inspected the roof in August 2023.
The landlord then explained that the roof was the cause of the leak within its stage 2 response. It failed however to explain what had gone wrong. It also failed to show that it had communicated with the resident during this period. It offered £150 compensation for the distress and inconvenience. It failed however to explain how it had calculated that amount.
In summary the landlord’s failings in this investigation amount to maladministration. Its record keeping fell short as it lacked sufficient detail as to what happened. The records also failed to show how it had communicated with the resident. It failed to show that it had followed up on its repair duties. The landlord appropriately acknowledged its failings within its response. It missed an opportunity however to explain what went wrong. By failing to consider what went wrong it failed to put matters right.
It did offer £150 compensation, but this amount did not reflect the detriment caused. The resident had to live with the issue for 7 months at this point. The landlord was aware that there were damp and mould issues because of the leak. The resident had to spend time and effort continuing to chase the landlord. She had to live with the uncertainty of when the issue would be resolved. She made the landlord aware during the complaint process that she was vulnerable. She also explained the impact the leak was having on her and her household.
The evidence shows that after the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was issued the leak started again. The landlord’s records show that it remained in contact with the resident after the complaint as it said it would. The landlord said that it had discussed an increase in compensation with the resident but said it would re-visit this after all the issues were resolved. Its records do not support this.
This Service acknowledges that the leak was resolved 5 months after its stage 2 response in January 2024. The landlord agreed to renew the resident’s kitchen in full as part of the remedial works. It signed off the works as completed in July 2024. The landlord then offered £1000 for the distress and inconvenience caused for the 16-month period. It also offered £250 for the cost of the fridge freezer.
While the landlord did this, these actions cannot be considered reasonable redress. This is because they took place after the resident had exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure and only after the involvement of this Service. The revised financial offer was, however, reasonable and this Service will not be making a further order of compensation on that basis.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

At the point the complaint was raised the landlord had a 3-stage complaint procedure in place. Its policy at the time said it will respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 within 20 working days. If the matter is escalated to stage 3 then the landlord will enable the resident to raise her complaint to a panel. The chair of the panel will then write to the resident with the outcome 10 working days after the meeting.
The policy at the time was not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). The Code states that a process with more than 2 stages is not acceptable under any circumstances as this will make the complaint process unduly long. The landlord has now updated its procedure and removed the stage 3 from its policy. However, the protracted complaint procedure in this case caused the resident further time and trouble in pursuing her complaint.
The landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses were issued in accordance with its own timescales. Both responses failed to show a meaningful assessment of how the failings had occurred. The landlord was also silent on what it had learned and what it would do to prevent similar happening again. The resident experienced an inconvenience of raising concerns about the landlord’s response to her reports, without receiving a detailed response.
The resident requested the matter be escalated to stage 3. The evidence provided to this Service does not show that the landlord responded. The landlord wrote to the resident in November 2024 and advised the resident that in accordance with its complaints and comments policy it had been unable to escalate the complaint for the purpose of an increase in compensation. The evidence however does not show that the landlord communicated this to the resident at the time she raised her complaint. That it did not was a further failing in its handling of the matter.
This Service considers the above complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The responses demonstrated a lack of investigation which meant the landlord failed to put things right. The landlord failed to show how it could learn from its mistakes. The landlord then departed from its complaint procedure but failed to explain this to the resident at the time. In determining an appropriate order for compensation, consideration has been given to the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay directly to the resident a total of £1450. The compensation is broken down as follows:
  1. £1250 compensation as offered by the landlord in July 2024 if it has not done so already.
  2. £200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of this case to identify how it can prevent similar failings happening again, with a particular focus on:
1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this Service also within 8 weeks.