Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202207896)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207896

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

1 March 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

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of repairs.
    2. Response to reports of damp.
    3. Level of communication with the resident.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. She has lived at her property, described a 2-bedroom house, since 2011. The landlord advised it has not recorded any vulnerabilities within the resident’s household.

Scope of investigation

  1. Within her correspondence with the landlord and the Ombudsman, the resident has stated she considers the landlord’s communication with her to have been poor since she moved into her property over 10 years ago. It can be difficult to fairly investigate historic complaints due to the passage of time and associated issues such as records being deleted and staff turnover. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the concerns the resident raises, it was reasonable that the landlord’s complaint investigation looked at how its communication in the 12-month period prior to the complaint, which is in line with Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. This states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were “not brought to the attention of (the landlord) …within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising” so it was fair for the landlord to take the same approach. 

Summary of events

  1. On or around 20 July 2022, the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord. Its records of the complaint note that following a previous complaint in April 2022 (the Ombudsman has not seen details of this), it inspected the resident’s property. During the inspection, it compiled a list of repairs to be carried out. However, the resident advised that roofers had turned up in June 2022 “without a ladder or safety equipment” and therefore unable to complete any work and again in July 2022, when they stated they were unable to carry out repairs so as there was no scaffolding in place. The resident advised she was now cancelling all outstanding repair jobs due to the time spent waiting for appointments where staff either didn’t show up or did not complete the work and she did not trust the landlord to effectively complete the repairs.
  1. On 25 July 2022, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It noted the resident had raised concerns regarding complaints not being “moved forward”, outstanding repairs and a lack of communication from the landlord, specifically since a home visit in April 2022. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. It noted it had spoken to the resident on 21 July 2022 and acknowledged she felt “let down”. It apologised for the “delays and lack of communication” and accepted there had been a poor level of service.
    2. Following the home visit in April, it advised a list of outstanding repairs had been logged. However, it acknowledged it had failed to email a copy of this list to the resident as it had promised. It apologised for this but advised that the relevant member of staff had since left the organisation it was unable to establish why this action was not completed.
    3. It was satisfied the member of staff who took over as the resident’s point of contact had forwarded all contact to the relevant team or department for action and requested the resident be provided with updates accordingly. It apologised that the resident had not received further contact regarding the repairs raised or established what was still outstanding.
    4. It outlined the repairs that had been raised following the April 2022 home visit and noted the outcome, or provided an update, for each:
      1. Roof repair – an inspection was carried out on 13 June 2022, following which works were raised to take place on 18 July 2022. However, when operatives attended, they discovered seagulls were nesting in the roof space. It advised that, under the Wildlife and Countryside Act 1981, work could not be carried out when a nest was present. It advised it would carry out a further inspection in August 2022 and book a new date for repairs if the nesting season had ended.
      2. Decorating – following previous rendering repairs, the landlord advised it had carried out an inspection on 27 May 2022 and was satisfied the rendering was in good condition. It stated the redecoration of 3 external walls would be “cosmetic” and was therefore not something it would usually carry out outside of planned investment work. However, it advised it would see if the work could still go ahead on this occasion and would email the resident when a decision had been made.
      3. Meter cupboard door – it advised a repair had been booked to install a new external meter cupboard door on 22 July 2022, but the resident had cancelled this. It advised her to contact its Touchpoint Team and arrange a new appointment.
      4. Glazing – a repair had been booked for 7 June 2022 to re-seal the underside of ground floor windows at the front and rear elevations. However, the operative could not gain access to the resident’s back garden so left a card. A new appointment had been booked for 10 August 2022, but this was also cancelled by the resident. It again suggested she arrange a new appointment via its Touchpoint Team.
      5. Gas boiler – a full inspection of the resident’s gas boiler had taken place on 31 May 2022. It advised the boiler was noted to be “working safely with no signs of water ingress”. It acknowledged there was “damp below the kitchen units” but, ruling out the boiler as a cause, stated “further investigations” would need to take place. It advised it would text the resident “to confirm dates for this”. 
    5. It stated it had spoken to staff to stress how this had “escalated (the resident’s) frustrations and upset” and provided feedback that better communication was needed to help her “understand what each appointment was for”. It clarified that, as per her request, it would only be contacting the resident in writing (via letter, email or text).
    6. Regarding its alleged failure to escalate previous complaints via its complaint procedure, the landlord advised that “stage 1 investigation(s) had taken place each time” but it had not received escalation requests within 28 days of its initial responses. 
    7. While it acknowledged there had been “some delays”, it clarified that it would not reimburse the resident for any works that she arranged or carried out herself via a third party. It also stated that she would need to obtain permission before carrying out any alterations to the property.  
  2. The resident sent the landlord a lengthy email on 18 August 2022, advising that she was unhappy with its complaint response. Concerns she raised included:
    1. While the landlord had said it would only look at events over the past year, she believed issues had been “ongoing for numerous years”. Regarding the communication, she queried why the member of staff who left had been made her point of contact and why there had apparently been no handover of the case before they left. She also queried how many times her new point of contact had provided her with updates regarding repairs and what they had done “behind the scenes” to rearrange repairs. 
    2. She denied seagulls had been present in the roof space when the landlord’s contractors attended and instead stated the operatives had turned up with “no idea what they were supposed to be doing” and without the necessary equipment to get up on to the roof, such as ladders or the appropriate safety equipment. She stated her time had been wasted and asked when in August the landlord would be inspecting the roof.
    3. She stated the landlord had already agreed to repaint the external walls following a previous complaint, but it now appeared to be “going back” on that agreement by saying in its stage 1 response that it needed to make a further decision on the matter.
    4. The appointments relating to glazing and joinery had been cancelled as the resident was “sick of the lack of communication (from the landlord)” and having her time wasted so wanted to concentrate on her complaint. She stated she was happy for the appointments to be rearranged.
    5. While water may not have been present during the boiler inspection, she stated her property records should show this had previously been an issue and related repairs had taken place. While the landlord’s complaint response had it would carry out further investigations, she had received no updates and noted that 4 months had passed since the first inspection.
  3. The landlord provided its final stage complaint response on 7 September 2022. As at stage 1, it repeated its understanding of the complaint and acknowledged the resident had asked “some additional questions”, which it would also address. Addressing each point, it made the following comments and findings: 
    1. It understood that, following the home visit in April 2022, the resident’s point of contact had not provided any updates regarding the jobs that had been raised. It noted the “works are still to be carried out” and it would re-raise orders, which its Repairs and Voids Co-Ordinator (RVC) to oversee the works to completion. Her point of contact would remain the same, but the involvement of the RVC would ensure regular progress updates.
    2. Regarding roof repairs, it acknowledged that a follow-up appointment “was not booked in”. It offered an apology for this and stated it had been “added to the list of works to be booked in”. 
    3. Regarding the external decoration, it advised the surveyor who carried out an earlier inspection had since left the organisation and therefore it had “no further information to confirm the work to be done”. As a result, it had had to refer the matter to its Investment Team. They determined the issue was cosmetic and would only be done via a scheduled programme of works, but there was no date for when such a programme would begin.
    4. Regarding glazing and joinery appointments, it reiterated that its RVC would oversee “all of the appointments that had been cancelled” and work with the resident to have the repairs completed. It would “confirm these dates/times in due course”.
    5. Regarding the further inspection of the resident’s boiler, while it reiterated that it had eliminated the boiler as the cause of damp, it acknowledged that the required follow-up appointment had not been booked in. It offered an apology for this and advised it had also been added to the list of works to be overseen by the RVC.
    6. It apologised “for the lack of communication” the resident had received but hoped that the appointment of the RVC as a point of contact would provide some reassurance that the “works will be completed…at the earliest opportunity” and to a good standard. It hoped the “actions highlighted” showed what it would be doing following the resident’s feedback.
  4. As part of its submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised that, following the conclusion of the complaint procedure, the following repairs were carried out:
    1. 3 November 2022, mould was cleaned from the bathroom ceilings.
    2. 9 November 2022, a glazier attended to fit trim to 2 windows at the rear of the property.
    3. 4 May 2023, a roofer attended to ensure insulation was “pushed into corners of (the) roof” as it explained this had been determined as the cause of damp and mould in the property. It stated a painter had also attended to treat “damp and mould…in rooms upstairs” although it did not clarify when this work took place.
    4. 8 January 2024, the whole house was painted “as part of the complaint”.
  5. The landlord also indicated that it had paid a total of £875 compensation to the resident. This consisted of £500 for poor communication (awarded on an unspecified date), £300 awarded following an internal review of the case in November 2023 “to recognise the impact the situation had had (on the resident)” and a further £75 awarded in January 2024 related to painting previously carried out by a contractor.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs

  1. From the information seen by this Service, there is evidence of delays regarding several repair concerns raised by the resident. While some of these were acknowledged by the landlord during its complaint responses, such as the repairs to the roof and inspection of damp around the boiler, others were not. While it apologised for those delays, during its complaint procedure it appeared not to consider whether compensation may be due to the resident, despite internal correspondence identifying that compensation had been paid in similar circumstances following previous complaints.
  2. Regarding repairs to the resident’s roof, landlord records show it raised a repair order on 8 April 2022 to inspect a broken ridge tile and missing roof tiles. A further order was raised on 11 May 2022 for a “full inspection” of the roof and flashing to be carried out, with any identified defects being made good. A job order was raised on 15 July 2022, with a 4-hour appointment booked in for an unspecified date, although records note this was cancelled as the resident would not be at home. However, in the landlord’s complaint responses it stated the repair was cancelled due to the presence of seagulls in the resident’s loft, an issue referred to within correspondence with the resident and some internal emails relating to the complaint investigation, but not within its repair records. 
  3. In any case, by July 2022, 3 months had passed since the landlord initially raised an inspection. While the Ombudsman appreciates repairs that require roof access and scaffolding can take longer to arrange, this was still an unreasonable length of time. As noted above, the landlord’s repair records lack detail and consistency, making it unclear what caused the delays. It therefore cannot demonstrate that it responded reasonably to the roof repair reports. 
  4. After noting that seagulls were present in the loft space in July 2022 – something the resident disputed in her complaint correspondence – the landlord advised it would return in August 2022 to re-inspect. However, it failed to do so and, in its stage 2 complaint response the following month, it apologised that this had not been progressed. Since a further 2 months had passed, although it was appropriate the landlord apologised, it should have considered further redress to better reflect the ongoing inconvenience caused. Further internal correspondence regarding the complaint investigation – again referring to information not contained within the repair records – indicates that an inspection could not be carried out until December 2022, meaning this was not completed until 8 months after it first raised an order. The landlord has advised that in May 2023, another 8 months after its final complaint response, a roofer attended to inspect and repair insulation, which it stated had been identified as a cause of damp and mould in the upstairs rooms. In total, over a year had passed since the first order was raised in April 2022. This was a failing, since there was a significant and unreasonable delay which caused the resident avoidable distress and inconvenience and damaged the landlord/tenant relationship and its earlier apology, prior to further delays occurring, does not constitute reasonable redress in the circumstances. 
  5. It is also of note that the resident herself advised the landlord in October 2022 that the ridge tile had been repaired and no longer needed to be included in the list of outstanding jobs, indicating it was not fully aware of what works had, and had not, been completed. Additionally, matters raised by the resident within her complaint – namely that operatives attended on more than one occasion and were either unable to access the roof or did not have the necessary safety equipment and querying whether seagulls were present at the time the landlord stated – were not addressed within the landlord’s complaint responses. This was unreasonable, did not treat the resident fairly and was a further failing. It is also of concern that this investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord investigated those claims, particularly regarding alleged health and safety issues, indicating it may not have taken these issues seriously enough.
  6. Regarding the external decoration of the resident’s property, landlord records show a request was raised on 24 November 2021 for the “render to be repainted on all 3 sides (of the resident’s property)”, noting that scaffolding would be required. An inspection was raised on 6 December 2021 and marked as ‘completed’ on 17 December 2021, although the works were not carried out. It is again unclear why the works were not completed.
  7. From the information available, the resident’s property was not repainted until January 2024, over 2 years later. This is an unreasonable length of time for the landlord to have taken to resolve the issue. When the resident raised the matter in her complaint, the landlord initially advised it would not normally carry out external painting outside of a planned works programme. It advised that, following a further inspection in May 2022, it deemed the work to be cosmetic and as a result it would need to ask its Investment Team whether the work could go ahead “on this occasion”. This is at odds with an internal email sent on 6 May 2022 which asked for various jobs to be raised following a home visit to the property, including a 2-day job to “decorate 3…external walls” and points to confusion within the landlord as to how to manage the repair.
  8. In its final complaint response, it advised it would not carry out the work outside of the any planned programme and noted the surveyor who had apparently agreed to the works had left its employ. As a result, it had “no further information to confirm the work to be done”. In the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s position was unreasonable and its later statement, in which it cited a lack of available information, raises concerns about its record keeping and transparency. Occasional staff turnover should be expected, and a landlord should ensure it has robust internal record keeping systems in place so that information and is not lost when individuals are either absent from work or leave the organisation. However, despite stating it lacked relevant information to confirm the works had been agreed, repair records provided to this investigation clearly outline the work suggested in late 2021. It is unclear why the landlord was unable to share this information within its complaint response.
  9. Additionally, as part of her complaint escalation request, the resident provided evidence of a text message sent on the landlord’s behalf on 17 November 2021 which clearly stated the “outside (of the resident’s property) to be repainted” and asked why the landlord was now changing its position. It was unreasonable that the landlord failed to address this question in its final complaint response and instead again advised that the decision was ultimately made by its Investment Team, despite the resident having provided evidence it had previously agreed to the works and its repair records corroborating this.
  10. Although it is welcome that the landlord did eventually repaint the exterior of the property in early 2024, it missed several opportunities to resolve matters at a much earlier stage. While the Ombudsman considers the landlord would have been entitled to change its mind regarding carrying out what appeared to be a non-essential repair, if doing so it should have advised why it altered its position. The reasons it did give for not proceeding with the work were unclear and inconsistent. Even after re-raising the order in October 2022 (it is unclear why the work was re-raised at this time), this was cancelled as the landlord believed it was “still awaiting a response” from its Investment Team, despite having advised the resident the previous month that they had declined to carry out the work at that time. Overall, the landlord did not manage the repair appropriately which caused a series of failings. These caused unnecessary and avoidable delay and would have caused the resident considerable frustration.
  11. Regarding the glazing repairs, a request to carry out repairs to the resident’s front and rear ground floor windows “as a matter of urgency” (landlord’s emphasis) was included within the email sent on 6 May 2022 referred to above. The order stated these should be re-sealed using external quality flexible sealant. Repair records indicate an appointment was booked for 7 June 2022, but the attending operative was unable to gain access to the rear garden. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord appears to have responded appropriately, raising an appointment in a reasonable time and being unable to complete the work due to a reported lack of access.
  12. Records show a new appointment was booked for 10 August 2022, although this was cancelled by the resident ahead of time as she wished to cancel all outstanding repairs while she pursued her complaint. Again, the landlord appears to have handled the repair reasonably at this stage, having re-booked an appointment which the resident then cancelled. In its stage 1 complaint response, it asked the resident to call and rebook. While the landlord could have been more proactive and offered a new appointment or sought to arrange one ahead of issuing its complaint response, this was not a failing.
  13. However, by the time of its stage 2 complaint response, the repair had not been rebooked and the landlord “advised it would confirm these dates/times in due course”. As the resident had stated in correspondence that she was now willing for the works to be re-booked, it is unclear why these had not been rearranged. This caused a further delay, and such a vague statement would likely have left the resident unsure of when the works would be carried out. Subsequently, an appointment was raised for 9 November 2022, 2 months later and outside the landlord’s stated timeframe of 28 working days for non-emergency repairs. This was unreasonable and evidence of a further avoidable delay.
  14. Overall, the landlord did not appear to handle the repairs appropriately. There were delays in completing each repair, some of which were significant and likely to have caused the resident distress and inconvenience. It only acknowledged some of these delays within its complaint responses and, even while investigating the complaint, there were instances of further delays occurring. While it offered the resident some compensation related to repairs a considerable time after the completion of the complaint process, it should have considered whether this was appropriate at the time. Taking all the identified failings into account, the Ombudsman considered there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s repair reports. 

The landlord’s response to reports of damp

  1. Records show the resident raised concerns regarding damp in her kitchen in June 2021, with the landlord carrying out an inspection on 6 July 2021. Diary notes indicate damp was identified on the ceiling, on the walls and ceiling of a built in cupboard and on a front wall near her stairs. A repair was marked as having been completed later in July 2021 to clean down the areas of mould and apply stain block. No further reports appear to have been logged so from the evidence available, although it would have been preferable for the landlord to have evidenced that it carried out a full damp and mould survey, it seemed to respond appropriately at this time.
  2. Following this however, the landlord carried out a home visit in April 2022 and noted concerns regarding damp in several areas. It raised orders for repairs to the roof – referred to above – and around the resident’s boiler and stated “any remaining damp can be looked at again” once these were completed.
  3. However, in addition to delays with completing roof repairs, there were delays regarding its assessment of damp around the boiler. Records show an inspection was carried out in May 2022 and, after the boiler was ruled out as being the cause of the damp, “further investigation” was noted as being necessary. In its stage 1 complaint response the landlord acknowledged this had not been done and apologised. While the apology was appropriate, the 2 month delay in failing to arrange a further inspection was unreasonable and again indicated the landlord did not manage the repair process well.
  4. Records show that by October 2022, a further inspection had still not taken place and a further request was made for a re-inspection in November 2022. This was not appropriate and meant 6 months had passed since the landlord was aware it needed to further investigate the cause of identified damp. This was an unreasonable and unexplained delay which would have caused the resident inconvenience and distress, as well as missing the opportunity to resolve the issue and instead potentially allowing the situation to worsen.
  5. When providing evidence to this investigation, the landlord advised it carried out mould treatment to the upstairs bathroom in November 2022 and works to the roof insulation in May 2023, intended to resolve damp in the upstairs rooms. However, this investigation has not seen records regarding reported mould in the bathroom, nor has it seen evidence of any further inspection or work being carried out in relation to the reported damp around the boiler. This is not appropriate and again raises concerns regarding the landlord’s record keeping. It is unable to properly evidence the steps it took to resolve the reported damp issues and its records do not give a coherent picture of how it investigated and dealt with each affected area. There is no evidence it carried out or sought to commission a full damp and mould survey which, given the number of reports it had received, the Ombudsman would have expected to see.
  6. Overall, the landlord failed to appropriately address damp reports in the resident’s property. It delayed when carrying out further investigation of the reported damp around her boiler and it remains unclear what actions it took regarding this. While it appears to have addressed other areas in the upstairs of the property, this is not properly reflected within its repair records meaning it is again unable to properly evidence all the steps it took or whether these were completed in a reasonable timeframe. Due to the failures identified and lack of information available, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its response to the resident’s reports of damp.

The landlord’s communication with the resident

  1. In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged the resident had experienced poor communication regarding her repairs. As it has accepted the standard of its communication were unsatisfactory, this investigation will assess whether the landlord offered appropriate redress in the circumstances.
  2. Records show the landlord initially took the positive step of acknowledging the resident had not received regular updates regarding repairs and providing her with a single point of contact, which it had assured her would mean she received more regular updates. The fact these updates did not materialise would have caused the resident further frustration. It was also positive that, during its complaint responses, the landlord then advised that a further member of staff would oversee the repairs to their completion and keep the resident informed on progress. However, again the resident expressed that not much had changed and, from the evidence seen by this investigation, this appears to be a valid concern. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord offered an apology within both its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
  3. However, it could have considered whether further redress was appropriate, especially given the fact its communication did not appear to improve to any great extent because of the resident’s complaint. That it did not do so was a failing and meant it missed an opportunity to “put things right” for the resident, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
  4. The landlord has advised that, since the conclusion of the complaint procedure, it reviewed the case and offered the resident £500 compensation to reflect its poor communication regarding the repairs, although the Ombudsman has not seen confirmation regarding exactly when this was made. While it is welcome that the landlord chose to review the case and came up with a level of compensation that was on the upper end of what the Ombudsman would expect to see in such circumstances, this should have been considered during the complaint procedure. Awards of compensation made after the conclusion of a complaint process, and after cases have been referred to the Ombudsman, should be avoided where possible as this runs the risk of effectively creating a 2-tier complaints process whereby residents who do not escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman may not receive the same redress.
  5. As the offer was made some time after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, the Ombudsman cannot consider it to be reasonable redress. Based on the failings acknowledged by the landlord, the Ombudsman will therefore make a finding of service failure but will not make an order regarding further compensation, on the condition the landlord can evidence the £500 compensation it offered has been paid.  

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s handling of repairs.
    2. Maladministration regarding the landlord’s response to reports of damp.
    3. Service failure regarding the level of communication with the resident.

Reasons

  1. The landlord did not demonstrate it had managed the resident’s repair reports effectively. Its repair records lack detail and there is a lack of clarity regarding when works had been completed and when they were outstanding. There was evidence of delays with each repair, some significant, and although it apologised for some of the delays in its complaint responses, it did not acknowledge all of these, nor did it offer compensation during the complaint procedure. Delays continued following the resident’s complaint and it remains unclear when actions were taken to resolve some of the reported issues.
  2. There is no evidence the landlord carried out a full damp and mould assessment of the property and its records are unclear regarding how and when it assessed reported damp in the upstairs rooms. There was also an unreasonable and avoidable delay in carrying out further investigation of identified damp areas around the resident’s boiler.
  3. The landlord’s communication with the resident regarding the outstanding repairs was poor. Although it acted reasonably by acknowledging this within its complaint responses and apologised, the steps it put in place to improve did not improve matters. While it made a reasonable offer of compensation, this was not forthcoming until a significant length of time after the complaint procedure had concluded.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, pay the resident £925 compensation, consisting of:
    1. £575 for its poor repair handling (£350 regarding the roof repairs and an additional £225 regarding the external decorating).
    2. £350 to reflect its poor response to the resident’s damp reports.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord should review its record keeping processes, paying particular regard to the recommendations made within the Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) published in May 2023 (available here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-knowledge-and-information-management/), to ensure it has robust systems in place to record the results of inspections and track repairs once raised.