Raven Housing Trust Limited (202225542)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225542

Raven Housing Trust Limited

7 November 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of cracked ceilings in her property and the associated compensation awarded.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord since 11 November 2022. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house. At the time of the complaint the resident had 3 children and was pregnant.
The resident reported cracks in her ceiling on 8 December 2022, following which the landlord arranged for a surveyor to attend and inspect the property. The surveyor attended and decided that the ceilings in question needed replacing. To ensure no further disruption to the resident in the future, the landlord arranged to replace the ceilings in the 3 bedrooms, the hall and landing.
Works began on 9 January 2023 and the landlord temporarily decanted the resident to a furnished property in the locality of her home.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 January 2023 via telephone to the landlord. The landlord has not provided a log of the telephone call, but the complaint was about the landlord’s handling of the removal of the ceilings and the asbestos.
The landlord completed the works to the property by 1 February 2023. However, the resident had a baby during the period of the decant and following contact from her support worker, the landlord extended the period of the decant until 10 February 2023 and then again until 15 February 2023.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 3 February 2023. They key points were as follows:
1. The landlord gave a brief history of the repair and confirmed it had replaced 2 further ceilings during the works than originally planned.
2. It explained that under the control of asbestos regulations, it had no duty to manage asbestos in a domestic property but confirmed that it had an asbestos management plan in place and had previously committed to carry out surveys in all its properties by April 2022.
3. It confirmed that in the survey of the resident’s property had detected asbestos in 2 bedrooms, the landing and hallway. At the time of the survey, the asbestos was recorded as low risk.
4. It confirmed it had carried out an air test at the resident’s property on 27 January 2023. The landlord provided that and the asbestos report to the resident as part of its response.
5. The landlord empathised with the resident’s situation but said it hoped it had taken steps to reassure resident that her home as safe by undertaking additional tests and by fully decorating all the rooms affected.
6. It confirmed the property was due for final sign off on 8 February 2023.
The resident responded on the same date to say she did not feel the landlord had taken her seriously. The key points of her response were as follows:
1. She said the cracks were there in November as she had the voids team out to inspect them. She said there was dust and plaster on all her belongings.
2. The resident said she was not aware the decorating was a gesture of goodwill and said she had paid £300 for someone to decorate the rooms prior to the works.
3. The resident said the landlord made her feel like the issues were her fault and that it had done her a favour by undertaking the works.
4. With regards to the asbestos, she had been told it was only in the roof and while the landlord had given her the report when she moved in, she had not though to read it.
The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 8 February 2023. The key points were as follows:
1. It said it completely understood that the situation had been difficult for the resident but considered it had let property according to its void standard.
2. It confirmed that once the cracks were found it acted quickly and carried out the works while providing alternative accommodation nearby.
3. It had recognised the disruption during the period of works and so had replaced extra ceilings and decorated the house.
4. It had also recognised the resident’s anxiety around the asbestos and commissioned an air test which had come back clear.
5. It confirmed it had spoken to its void team about the need to undertake careful inspections of cracks going forward.
6. The resident had confirmed she was happy with the standard of decorating and had further extended the decant to the 15 February to help the resident in moving back in.
7. It confirmed it had offered £500 as a disruption payment which it would offset against the resident’s rent arrears.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 February 2023 as she was unhappy with the compensation offered. She said she had lost £300 from decorating the property prior to the move. She said the whole situation had ruined her and her family.
The landlord provided a further response on 15 February 2023, in which it confirmed the £500 disruption payment. It confirmed it had redecorated the whole house for the resident which covered the amount spent and saved the resident future decorating costs going forward.
The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 1 April 2023, as she was unhappy with the service received from the landlord. She said she had been forced back to the property 2 weeks after having a baby and the property had been left in a state. She was unhappy with the £500 offered by the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s website sets out its lettable standards which says that prior to a resident moving in it will inspect the property and make arrangements for all repairs to be completed. It will ensure the home is structurally sound.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out repairs will be completed within the following timescales:
1. It will attend emergency repairs and make safe within 24 hours.
2. It will complete routine repairs within 28 days. These are repairs which are non-hazardous and not cause immediate risk.
3. It will complete planned works within 1 years. These repairs are non-urgent and are delivered as part of planned works rather than a responsive repair.
The policy sets out that where intrusive works on building structures are necessary, it will provide guidance and information to those involved to avoid anyone being exposed to the dangers of asbestos.

Repair to ceiling

The resident reported cracks in her ceiling on 8 December 2022 and the landlord arranged, in line with its repairs policy, for a surveyor to attend to assess the situation.
The surveyor found cracks in the resident’s ceiling and authorised that they be replaced. At the same time, the surveyor considered the possible future disruption and arranged to replace the ceilings in other rooms that had not shown any cracks. While the landlord did not have to replace the ceilings in the other rooms, it was appropriate that it took that decision and considered any future disruption to the resident.
Work began to replace the ceilings on 9 January 2023. This was 19 working days after the resident had reported the issue. This swift response is in line with the landlord’s repairs policy and highlighted its commitment to resolve the issue quickly for the resident, who was heavily pregnant at the time.
Furthermore, the landlord arranged for a temporary decant for the resident at a near-by, fully furnished, property. This was reasonable in the circumstances and would have helped minimise the disruption for the resident.
During the works, it was found that 2 other ceilings in the property should be replaced. While this extended the schedule of works and therefore the decant, it was understandable that the landlord undertook to complete the works at the same time to minimise any future disruption for the resident.
The information provided to this Service shows that all works were completed by 27 January 2023. This highlights that the landlord was proactive and prompt in resolving the repairs.
Following contact from the resident’s support worker to express concern about the resident being expected to move back into her property on 5 February 2023, so soon after giving birth, the landlord extended the period of the decant by a further week until 10 February 2023. Given the resident’s circumstances this was appropriate and highlighted empathy towards the resident.
Furthermore, due to the resident’s concerns about moving back into the property, the landlord extended the decant period by a further 5 days, until 15 February 2023. This extension provided the resident with more time to move back in. Although the landlord was not obligated to extend the decant, it was reasonable to do so given the resident’s concerns and her recent childbirth.
On 3 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that she had visited the property and there was dust and plaster over all her belongings. The landlord appropriately arranged for its contractor to complete a deep clean prior to the resident returning to the property. The contractor did this on 8 February 2023. While it is not an ideal situation that its contractors had not left the property in a clean state after completing the works, it was appropriate of the landlord to take action and ensure it was cleaned prior to the resident returning to the property. This is in line with the dispute resolution principles and showed the landlord was committed to resolving the situation for the resident.
In her response to the landlord’s stage 1 complaint reply, the resident mentioned that she had spent £300 on decorating the property before the landlord carried out the ceiling works and was unhappy that the landlord had not refunded this amount. In line with the tenancy agreement, the resident was responsible for internal decoration. Although it was unfortunate that the resident had decorated parts of the property before the works, the landlord acknowledged this, and the overall disruption caused. As a gesture of goodwill, the landlord decorated every room where it had completed works. This was not an obligation it had to undertake. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord not to refund the money already spent, given that it had recognised the disruption and decorated for the resident.
The resident had raised as part of her complaint that she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the asbestos in the property. The landlord confirmed that it had undertaken asbestos testing in all its properties in 2022, it confirmed the resident’s property had asbestos but was considered low risk and it had provided that information at the time the resident took up the tenancy in November 2022. While the resident had said she had not read that information at the time, the landlord had provided it, and the resident holds a responsibility to ensure she reads all the information provided.
It reiterated its findings to the resident in its formal response and confirmed that the risk to the resident from the asbestos was low and would only become a danger if disturbed. The landlord confirmed it arranged for a specialist asbestos contractor to complete the works. Given that there was asbestos in the property, it was appropriate of the landlord to arrange for a specialist to complete the repairs.
To help alleviate the resident’s concerns about the asbestos, the landlord arranged for an air test of the resident’s property which came back clear. This further testing highlighted the landlord’s commitment to ensure the home was safe for the resident and would have reassured the resident that the property was safe.
Throughout the complaint, the resident raised that the landlord should not have let the property in the standard that it was in. The evidence show that the landlord undertook a void inspection when the property was empty, and it is entitled to rely on its qualified staff when they sign off a property as meeting the lettable standard. While it is unclear if the cracks appeared before or after the resident moved in, the landlord acted quickly to rectify the issue and furthermore, spoke to its void team to remind them of the importance of carefully inspecting properties, in particular cracks, to ensure works are identified prior to a resident moving in.
To recognise the disruption caused to the resident, the landlord offered the resident £500. However, as the resident was in arrears it paid this into her rent account, which the resident was unhappy about. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that where compensation is offered, if a resident owes money to it, the monies would be paid into the rent account. Therefore, it was reasonable that the landlord followed its policy and offset the money against the arrears. Furthermore, it explained this to the resident in its complaint review.
Overall, the landlord acted swifty following the resident’s report of cracks in her ceiling. It arranged for a survey, in line with its policy and began works within its policy timescales. It appropriately arranged for a decant within the locality and extended that decant twice in recognition of the resident’s personal circumstances. It undertook further works to the property which, although extended the decant, alleviated the need for further possible disruption in the future. It undertook a deep clean of the property, decorated every room and undertook an air test to reassure the resident the property was safe. The landlords’ actions demonstrated a commitment to resolve the situation swiftly for the resident and highlighted a recognition of the disruption caused to the resident.
Therefore, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of cracks in her ceiling and the associated compensation awarded.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of cracks in her ceiling and the associated compensation awarded.