Together Housing Association Limited (202315794)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315794

Together Housing Association Limited

15 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:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from windows.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen flooring.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from a tunnel near the bedroom.
4. Response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from an external door.
5. Knowledge and information management.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy at the property, which is a 2 bed mid-terrace house. She has lived at the property since 2001. The property was modernised in 2019 with new windows and doors, including an external door. The resident advised the landlord within her complaint correspondence that she has asthma and was prescribed antidepressant medication.
On 10 November 2022 the resident reported that the windows and external door were letting in cold draughts. She contacted the landlord again on 23 November 2022 and advised that cold air coming up from, what she described as a “archway/tunnel”, underneath her bedroom floor. She raised her concerns about the insulation of the property, which she stated had been cold since the modernisation in 2019. She advised that she was taking antidepressants as the cold was making her feel “depressed” and her asthma had got worse. She also raised her concern about the cost of keeping the property warm.
The landlord arranged appointments to assess heat loss from the property and to investigate the insulation concerns. It subsequently agreed to provide a new external door.
On 25 April 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. She was frustrated with the lack of an update on insulation of the tunnel. She asked to know if insulation would be provided.
2. There had been a lack of contact from the glazing contractor in respect of the new external door. She requested that the door be fitted as soon as possible.
The landlord responded at stage 1 on 10 May 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It had received an asbestos report back and had booked a contractor for 19 May 2023 to install insulated boards to the tunnel.
2. The glazer had advised that the new door should arrive the following week.
3. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused by the delays and its lack of communication. Feedback had been given to managers of each service area involved and learning had been taken.
4. In terms of how the repairs team coordinator had handled the matter, this had been raised with their manager and would be addressed in line with its internal policy.
On 22 May 2023 works were completed to insulate the tunnel near the bedroom.
On 1 June 2023 the resident escalated her complaint and stated that the glazer had measured the door in May 2023 but she had heard nothing since. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 28 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. It had visited the resident to discuss the complaint on 20 June 2023. During this, the resident had raised new aspects of complaint, namely draughts from the windows and a fault with the kitchen floor. It advised that it would look into these matters separately.
2. In respect of the complaint being considered, it apologised that it had failed to carry out the repairs within a reasonable timeframe. It advised that this was being addressed with the contractor’s manager.
3. It offered £270 compensation, made up as follows:
  1. £120 to acknowledge the impact of the delays.
  2. £150 for the upset and frustration caused by the delays.
The resident declined the compensation and stated that it was not reasonable for the “emotional stress” caused. She stated that there had been drafts from the windows and door since 2019 and that she sometimes slept on friend’s sofas due to this. The resident confirmed that she was seeking 50% of her rent payments since 2019 (approximately £8,500). The landlord subsequently increased its offer to £700 compensation. The resident declined this and referred her case to the Ombudsman (31 July 2023).

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The new external door was fitted on 11 August 2023.
The landlord advised this Service that it had completed other works in respect of the resident’s ongoing concern about draughts as follows:
1. It had checked the loft insulation, kitchen extractor fan and windows for draughts on 17 November 2023.
2. It had upgraded radiators and installed new internal doors on 5 April 2024.
3. It would install data monitors over the winter months to monitor room temperatures.
The resident advised this Service on 13 November 2024 that the property still felt cold and the insulation of the tunnel had not made a difference to the temperature. She stated that the new external door installed in August 2023 had to be replaced (around September 2024) due to a fault.

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaints procedure. The resident raised her concerns in respect of the windows and the kitchen floor to the landlord on 20 June 2023. The landlord confirmed to this Service that these aspects of the resident’s complaints had not completed its internal complaints procedure..
As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, these are not matters that this Service can investigate at this stage. This is because the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. As such, in accordance with Paragraph 42.a of the Scheme, the following complaints are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from windows.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen flooring.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident stated within her correspondence that there had issues with draughts in the property since 2019. The landlord advised this Service that the resident had raised a complaint in 2019 but did not pursue this via its internal complaints procedure at the time. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened, and follow the internal complaints procedure. This is because, with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation. This makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focused on the period from the resident’s report of draughts from the external door and the tunnel near the bedroom, from 10 November 2022, and her subsequent complaint. Reference to any events that occurred prior this are for context only.
The resident raised the issue of the impact of cold draughts on her physical and mental health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of the issues and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting her health, as such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from a tunnel near the bedroom

Landlords are required to assess the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Draughts are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of the HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards have been identified.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will complete routine repairs within 28 days. For works requiring bespoke materials or services, it will complete these within 63 days. It specifies that this would include works to doors, groundwork and plastering.
The resident first raised her concerns about a draught from a tunnel near her bedroom on 23 November 2022. She explained that she believed the associated cold air was impacting her physical and mental health. Despite making the landlord aware of the impact this was having on her, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had prioritised this work as a result. Instead, it took the landlord until 20 December 2022, almost a month later, to arrange for the issue to be inspected. Although the landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timeframe for inspecting issues raised, this timeframe was unreasonable in the circumstances. By delaying the inspection, any identified repair would not have been completed within the timeframe of 28 days as per its repairs policy. The landlord showed no consideration of the health impact the resident had disclosed.
The outcome of the inspection was not provided to the Ombudsman, however the resident chased an update on proposed insulation works on 19 January 2023, following an inspection. The landlord raised a job for an asbestos survey on 23 January 2023. It is not clear why the landlord did not raise this sooner, following the inspection in December 2022, and why it did not pursue this until the resident had chased an update of the works on 19 January 2023. This Service has not seen any correspondence with the resident in respect of the requirement for this. Although the requirement for such a survey was outside of the landlord’s control, there is no evidence that it sought to manage the resident’s expectation as to how long this survey would take. Given the specialist nature of an asbestos survey and the likely wait time for this to be carried out, the landlord should have been proactive at arranging this as soon as it was confirmed was as being required. Its failure to do so led to an unnecessary delay.
The asbestos survey was dated 22 March 2023. It took until 2 May 2023 for the landlord to advise the resident that it had received the results of the survey. It is not clear why the landlord delayed sharing the results for over a month. Given the previous delay by the landlord in arranging the survey, this was unreasonable. It also failed to demonstrate that it had taken the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health seriously.
The works to install insulation board to the tunnel area were completed on 22 May 2023. This was 6 months after the resident had first raised the issue. Whilst some of this delay was unavoidable, due to waiting for the specialist asbestos contractor to be available, the landlord delayed the completion of the work on a number of occasions, which was contrary to its repairs policy. It’s lack of appropriate urgency, communication and consideration of the reported impact upon the resident failed to demonstrate that it had considered its obligations under the HHSRS. This failing was aggravated as it demonstrated a lack of consideration to the disclosed vulnerabilities.
When failures are identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Within its stage 2 response (28 June 2023), the landlord further acknowledged the delays and offered a total of £270 compensation to address the impact of its handling of the works to the insulation and the external door on the resident. When the resident declined this, the landlord asked her what compensation figure she was seeking. The resident requested for a 50% rent refund since 2019 which amounted to around £8,500. This was subsequently declined by the landlord. The landlord reassessed its offer of compensation following the completion of the internal complaints procedure and increased this to a total of £700 on 28 July 2023. This figure was in respect of both the insulation and the door (considered below).
It is not clear why the landlord reassessed the compensation one month after its stage 2 response. This is against the premise of the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code, although it is noted that the resident had requested it to do so. This Service has not seen any evidence of how it reconsidered the compensation or why it decided an increased amount was appropriate. This is something the landlord should have been able to evidence. However, the total amount offered of £700 was within a range the Ombudsman would recommend where there has been a failure or failures which had a significant impact on a resident.
The Ombudsman encourages landlord’s to take resolution focussed action, irrespective of the stage at which a case is at. However, the main focus for a landlord should always be to ensure that a case in dispute progresses to a fair resolution during its internal complaints process. The decision to review the compensation in light of the resident’s request, called into question the effectiveness of the investigation which had been undertaken at stage 2. The second stage of the internal complaints procedure is designed to provide the landlord with the opportunity to review its handling of the matter up to that point and offer redress as appropriate. As such, there should not be a need to reconsider the stage 2 response and the landlord should be able to rely on the appropriateness of the outcome at stage 2.
Although the landlord’s reconsideration of the compensation in light of the resident’s representations, did indicate a willingness to put things right, in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles, there was little evidence of how it did this during the internal complaints procedure, despite being aware of the ongoing delays. Although the landlord’s original complaint investigation acknowledged that it had taken too long to address the work, it did not demonstrate that it had tried to expedite the completion of the work in light of this.
Although the landlord’s final offer of £700 compensation (for both repair issues) can be said to have put things right for the resident, this should have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. The Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance is clear that a finding of reasonable redress is less likely to be determined under such circumstances. As such the landlord failed to effectively put things right during the internal complaints procedure. The landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and maladministration has therefore been found with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from a tunnel near the bedroom.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from an external door

In respect of the external door, the resident raised her concerns about it letting in a draught on 10 November 2022. The correspondence was not provided to this Service, however, the resident advised that a contractor had attended to inspect the door on 14 December 2022. This was over a month after the resident had reported the issue. No explanation was given by the landlord for this delay.
Although the resident advised that the contractor had offered to install insulation to the door, it is not clear if this went ahead. A subsequent inspection took place on 16 January 2023. It is not clear why this second inspection was required. The landlord advised this Service that no draught from the external door had been identified. However, the contemporaneous notes from the inspection were not provided to this Service. Following an enquiry from the Ombudsman as part of this investigation, the landlord subsequently advised on 14 November 2024 that the door had been found to have been faulty beyond repair and had been bowed at the bottom.
The resident chased up the works to the door on 1 February 2023 and on 14 February 2023 the landlord advised her that it had sent a request for a new door to its repairs coordinator. Although the landlord provided contradictory information to this Service as to whether there had been faults with the door, once it agreed to replace the door, the work should have been completed in line with its repairs policy (63 days for bespoke materials).
There is no evidence that the landlord remained in contact with the resident following 14 February 2023 and as such, the resident chased the landlord about the new door on 24 March 2023. The landlord noted internally that it had not had a response from its glazing contractor. It appropriately apologised for not having kept the resident updated. Despite this acknowledged failure, there is no evidence, however, that the landlord improved its communication or subsequently kept the resident proactively updated.
A month later, (25 April 2023), the landlord noted again that it was having difficulty contacting the glazer. It had spoken to the glazer on one occasion but the glazer had ended the call. It noted further such difficulties contacting the glazer on 2 May 2023. It is not clear why the glazer had been unresponsive. This Service has not seen any evidence as to how the landlord tried to resolve this communication issue other than its unsuccessful phone calls. It is not clear if the landlord tried different communication methods, which would have been reasonable action for it to take. Given the resident was inconvenienced by the failure of the landlord to be able to communicate with its contractor, it would have been reasonable to expect the landlord to have had a contingency in place, to avoid the impact the issues were having on the resident, such as instructing an alternative contractor..
Within its stage 1 response of 10 May 2023 the landlord advised that the new door should arrive the following week and the glazer would contact the resident to book the fitting. It acknowledged that there had been delays in replacing the door and that its communication with the resident had been poor. It stated that it had learnt from the complaint and that the actions of an individual staff member would be addressed via its internal policy.
On 1 June 2023 the resident confirmed that the glazer had attended to measure the door in May 2023 (the date is unclear) but that she had not had any further updates about the door installation. This lack of proactive contact from the landlord to keep the resident informed of the progress of the work was seen a number of times in this case. In this instance, the continued delays also demonstrate a lack of accountability and ownership by the landlord to ensure its service provision standards were maintained in instances when works were delegated to contractors.
Within its stage 2 response (28 June 2023), the landlord further acknowledged the delays and offered a total of £270 compensation to address the impact of its handling of both repairs on the resident. As considered above it increased this to £700 following the completion of the internal complaints procedure.
It is noted by this Service that the new external door was not fitted until 11 August 2023. This was after the completion of the internal complaints procedure and 9 months after the resident had first reported the issue. Although the landlord acknowledge the delay it did not outline how it would act differently in the future to prevent such a reoccurrence.
Although the landlord’s final offer of £700 compensation can be said to have put things right for the resident, this should have been offered at an earlier stage and during the internal complaints procedure. As such, the landlord did not act in line with the Dispute Resolution Principles and maladministration has therefore been found with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from an external door.

Knowledge and information management

The correspondence provided to this Service by the landlord did not detail the outcome of inspections or what works had been identified. The landlord’s information to this Service in respect of the outcome of the door inspection was contradictory. Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of a landlord’s actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its management systems and information. The landlord should take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents. It would also help with the Ombudsman’s investigations, by improving our understanding of the situation at the time.
Although the landlord advised this Service that it had found no evidence of draughts in the property, it did not provide evidence of such to this Service. The landlord agreed to insulate the tunnel and this was carried out, however, this Service was not provided with the details of whether a draught had been identified as coming from the tunnel. This is something the landlord should have been able to provide.
It is noted that a contractor had offered to insulate the doors in the property, however, it is unclear if this went ahead and the reasons for whether this was completed or not completed. This lack of record keeping meant that the landlord could not evidence that it had done all it could do to resolve the reported issues.
Although the landlord advised that further works to prevent draughts had been completed after the completion of the internal complaints procedure, it did not provide evidence that it had assessed the effectiveness of the works which it had carried out to the tunnel and the external door. This is something which would have been reasonable for it to have considered.
The Housing Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management (May 2023) refers specifically to these types of incidences and the landlord is encouraged to consider the impact its knowledge management has on the quality of its housing services. By failing to share information on contemporaneous records of activity undertaken, the landlord was unable to demonstrate effective communication with the resident. The impact of its information handling practices caused detriment, in the form of time, trouble, and distress to the resident in chasing updates. Consequently this service finds maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 42.a the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from windows, is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with Paragraph 42.a the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the kitchen flooring, is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from a tunnel near the bedroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about draughts from an external door.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s knowledge and information management.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to take the following action. Evidence of compliance is to be provided to this Service:
1. Apologise in writing to the resident for the failures identified.
2. Pay the resident £700 compensation to acknowledge the impact of the failures on her. If this has already been paid, no further payment is required.
The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 8 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Carry out an independent survey of the property, focusing on the thermal comfort of the property, whether the property is sufficiently insulated and any areas allowing draughts to enter.
2. In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord is to conduct a senior management review of the issues highlighted in this report. This should be presented to its senior leadership team and shared with the Ombudsman. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. The review should consider:
  1. The reasons why the works to insulate and to the external door took 6 months and 9 months respectively, and the changes it will make to its handling of such reports in order to prevent such delays in the future.
  2. How it will manage situations where it has been unable to make effective contact with a contractor with emphasis on avoiding a resulting unnecessary delay to resident’s awaiting services.
  3. How it will improve its processes for maintaining proactive contact with residents whilst works are outstanding and detail any changes it will make.
  4. How it will improve its knowledge and information management processes to ensure that it has accurate records of inspections and works carried out.