Town and Country Housing (202006640)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006640

Town and Country Housing

25 January 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:
1. Request for repairs to remedy leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom.
2. Decant while works were completed and its decision to terminate the temporary accommodation.
3. Request for additional funds.
4. Reports of gutter repairs and damp on the external wall.
5. Reports of pigeons nesting.
6. Associated formal complaint.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder of the landlord and lives in a 2-bedroom ground floor flat with her daughter. The lease commenced 21 November 2016. At the time of the purchase the landlord had no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident, but later became aware of health issues in 2019.
It was not clear from the evidence when the resident originally raised a formal complaint. This Service contacted the landlord on 5 October 2020 about the resident’s concerns of damp and mould in her home. Following this date, the resident and landlord reached an agreement to complete repairs to the bathroom. The landlord agreed to pay £12,500 for the resident to instruct her own builder to undertake the required work. It also agreed to a decant while the works were completed, and in December 2020, the resident moved into the landlord’s temporary accommodation under an assured shorthold tenancy with a fixed term of 2 months.
A stage 1 response dated 1 April 2021 detailed multiple issues including gutter repairs and pigeons nesting. While the resident requested to escalate her complaint, no response was provided at stage 2.
After further contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord requesting a response to the resident’s concerns. Due to the delay in providing a response to the previous complaint and new issues raised, the landlord responded at stage 1 of its complaints process on 1 August 2022. It said:
1. It was unable to locate a response to her email dated 28 July 2021 and could see that its service had “fallen short”. It apologised for its service failure.
2. The resident’s own home was habitable and that she had chosen not to return as early as July 2021 when she confirmed that the bathroom works were complete. She had “demanded agreement” that she would not return until something was done to restrict the pigeons on the roof. The landlord confirmed that the problem with excessive pigeons, had been positively responded to.
3. It stated that it would not provide any additional funds beyond the £12,500 it provided in January 2021 to complete the bathroom repairs. It declined a request for funds for flooring, condensation repairs and to the rear door. It also stated that it would not provide compensation from the date she moved to temporary accommodation as it had not charged any rent or utilities. It did acknowledge poor communication and apologised.
In her escalation request of 8 August 2022, the resident stated that she had been left in her situation for a long time which had caused her financial difficulties. Agreements had been made and broken and she asked for “personal” compensation. She also referred to garden works which were incomplete, leaking gutters, external walls had not been cleaned and birds were still nesting.
The landlord provided an interim stage 2 response on 21 October 2022 following contact from this Service. It acknowledged an error in allocating the stage 2 complaint and apologised for the delay. It said it was unable to provide a full response as it needed to investigate further. It said that it had logged the complaint at stage 1 following the resident’s contact about its letter of 6 July 2022, where it had notified her that it would be terminating the temporary accommodation. As the previous complaint dated back to October 2020 and the reason for contact in July 2022 was in part about the notification letter, it felt it would be more appropriate to record this as a new complaint as the issue had not been raised previously.
Following further intervention by this Service, the landlord provided its final stage 2 response on 17 February 2023. It apologised for the length of time it had taken to provide a response. It repeated its comments from its stage 1 response, apologised for poor communication and offered to credit the resident’s arrears on both the temporary accommodation and own property if she moved back to her own home.
The resident responded on 23 March 2023 stating that the agreement made in 2021 had not been kept. She did not accept the response and referred to health issues and impact on her finances. She stated that she would not return to her own home until it was safe to do so.
The resident advised this Service that she wanted the landlord to complete all remedial works it had agreed to and to a satisfactory standard. She wanted compensation for the length of time repairs had taken, for stress, inconvenience and expenses incurred.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider issues which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
The resident advised the landlord that she had aspergillosis as a result of living in her home with damp and mould. This Service can consider any inconvenience or distress caused, as a result of any service failures by the landlord. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health, nor can it calculate or award damages. Ultimately this would be a matter for the courts.

Request for repairs to remedy leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom.

The resident purchased the property in 2016 and during the defect period reported a leak in the bathroom. The developer attended and repaired the leak. The defect period ended in August 2017 and the resident continued to report leaks in her bathroom. In October 2017 the resident emailed photographs of mould under the bath, the developer confirmed that the leaks had occurred from the bath taps, replaced the taps and treated the mould. In January 2018 the resident confirmed that bathroom works had been completed.
Following further reports of leaks from the resident, the landlord arranged for its damp and mould officer to attend. In April 2019 a contractor visited to open up and investigate damp in the store cupboard where it found an extensive leak from pipes. The developer stated that the leaks had been caused by the grout between the tiles eroding from cleaning products and it was “not their fault”. The landlord attempted to get the developer to accept liability up to 2019 without success.
In an email between the landlord and developer reference was made to the landlord referring the matter to the NHBC, however no evidence was provided to demonstrate that this had been progressed or any outcome achieved. Reference was also made to the resident making a possible claim and the landlord notifying its company secretary. Records also referred to consulting its insurance company but again no further evidence was provided in relation to this.
There was evidence that the landlord undertook work to the bathroom in July 2019. The resident had moved out while the work was completed and on her return was dissatisfied with the level of decoration and work undertaken.
In an attempt to resolve the matter, the landlord offered its own contractor to complete further work to the bathroom. In February 2020 the resident met with the landlord’s contractor to discuss the proposed works but later declined the offer in March 2020. She requested in September 2020 to use her own contractor. The landlord agreed to pay the amount quoted by its original contractor of £12,500 as a “once and for all” offer. In addition, it would allow her to use its accommodation during the works and agreed a period of 2 months. In November 2020 the resident agreed to the settlement offer and moved into the temporary accommodation in December 2020.
The landlord demonstrated that it had attempted to resolve the matter by liaising with the developer and employer’s agent. As it had not been able to get the developer to accept liability it resolved to complete repairs itself in the resident’s home. It should be noted that the landlord did not have an obligation to undertake repairs in the apartment as the resident wholly owned the property. Under the terms of the lease the landlord is responsible for the main structure of the building and the resident is responsible for the interior. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks and its attempts to resolve these were reasonable.
The landlord also acknowledged the difficulties the resident had experienced and her dissatisfaction with its attempts to resolve the matter. It made an offer to pay for the resident to instruct her own builder providing £12,500. It also offered an additional £1,000 in respect of further repairs. The resident accepted the offer having declined the landlord’s own contractor. As above, the landlord had no obligation to make the offer and therefore its actions were more than reasonable.
This Service therefore considers that the landlord exceeded any expectations to assist the resident in resolving the issues with leaks, damp and mould in her bathroom.

Decant while works were completed and decision to terminate the temporary accommodation.

As part of the agreement, the landlord offered the resident temporary accommodation for a period of 2 months while the bathroom works were completed. The agreement was for her to remain responsible for the mortgage, service charge, ground rent, utilities, and council tax on her own home while the landlord would cover the costs of the temporary accommodation.
In the landlord’s stage 1 response it stated that the work was completed by June 2021, as confirmed by the resident. It would have been reasonable therefore for the landlord to expect the resident to return to her own home at this point. In the landlord’s response to this Service, it stated that she had not provided any information to show that the property was uninhabitable beyond this date.
On 6 July 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident confirming that it was terminating the temporary accommodation and that the resident needed to return to her own home by 17 September 2022. On 7 July 2022 the resident responded that she would not return until all works had been completed. This included the garden which was damaged by scaffold during the gutter repairs and pigeon proofing.
The landlord continued to urge the resident to return to her own home and it continued to pay rent and utilities on the temporary accommodation up to the 22 September 2022. The assured shorthold tenancy agreement stated that “for any period of unauthorised occupation, the tenant must pay to the landlord for that period an amount calculated at a rate equivalent to a fair market rent for the property on the basis of the terms of the agreement together with any interest at the interest rate”. The landlord stopped crediting the temporary accommodation account and arrears began to accrue from September 2022. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to advise the resident that it was terminating the temporary accommodation given that repairs to her bathroom had concluded in June 2021.
In its stage 2 response the landlord offered a “goodwill gesture” to pay all outstanding arrears if the resident returned to her own home. This was for both the temporary accommodation to cover arrears accrued since the landlord stopped paying rent, and the resident’s own home where arrears had accrued on the service and ground rent accounts. It offered to pay this up to 31 March 2023. Its offer was in recognition of its poor service in respect of its complaint handling, to ensure that the resident had no debt on return to her own home and bring the matter to a close. It concluded that it would have to commence legal proceedings should she fail to vacate the temporary accommodation.
The resident continued to decline the landlord’s offers and requests to return to her own home, resulting in the landlord taking legal action via the courts to gain possession of the temporary accommodation which was granted on 31 August 2023.
It is not known why the landlord allowed the resident to remain in its temporary accommodation for such a long period. The resident’s refusal to return to her own home, due to outstanding works to the garden, guttering and pigeon proofing was unreasonable as her bathroom repairs had been completed and this would not have prevented her from moving back into her own property. The landlord had also confirmed in its stage 2 response that the bird proofing work had been completed. The evidence demonstrated that compensation had been awarded for damages to the garden during scaffold works and gutter repairs had been undertaken.
The landlord had no obligation to offer alternative accommodation as the resident was a leaseholder. While the landlord allowed the resident to remain in the temporary accommodation for a long time, which resulted in arrears accumulating, it made a more than reasonable offer to clear the arrears for the resident if she vacated the property. As the resident failed to do so the landlord had no alternative but to take legal action. Its response and actions were therefore reasonable.

Request for additional funds.

The resident made multiple requests to the landlord, following the agreement of £12,500, for additional funds to complete flooring and other repairs.
In the landlord’s response on 23 December 2020, it said it would not be increasing the value of its offer to cover a skip for waste removal or any additional works identified by the resident’s builder. On 22 January 2021 the landlord said that it did not accept the quote for flooring as this was included in its contractor’s quote, which was declined, and which was the budget on which the resident had agreed and accepted.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord reminded the resident of its original offer and her acceptance. It stated it would not agree to additional expenses for the flooring as her builder’s quote was in excess of £4,000. As a “good will gesture” it was prepared to offer an additional £1000 for her to instruct her builder.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that the £12,500 offered was based on the quote she had provided, and it had agreed in order to give the resolution she was seeking. Her request for additional compensation to carry out further works was not considered reasonable and was declined.
The landlord maintained its position and repeatedly explained why it would not provide any additional funds for further repairs to be carried out. As it was under no obligation to fund the work its response was reasonable.

Reports of gutter repairs and damp and the external wall.

In February 2019 the landlord’s records indicated that it had visited the property to view a rear gutter leak reported by the resident. The landlord stated that scaffolding was required to reach the 4 storey gutters. In October 2019 repair works to the guttering were undertaken. Scaffold had been erected and access gained via the resident’s garden where subsequently some damage was caused to plants and the resident’s shed. The resident raised a complaint and compensation was offered of £580.
In response to the resident’s previous complaint of April 2021, where she had questioned the need for a Section 20 consultation referring to the gutters being a defect, the landlord explained that it could not recall the original contractor to complete the works as it was no longer a defect. The previous contractor had cleared the gutters and provided photographs to demonstrate it had done so. Therefore, any blockage now was new, and it could not recall the original contractor to do the work again.
In a meeting between the landlord, resident and her contractor on 28 July 2021 the landlord confirmed that it would inspect all guttering and downpipes, clean and replace, look to fit mesh covering to prevent build up of moss and clean the external walls.
In January 2022 the landlord wrote to all leaseholders in advance of its Section 20 consultation about planned works and responded to the Residents Association queries. The work detailed carrying out communal internal and external cyclical repairs, maintenance and redecoration, bird prevent works along with other matters. It confirmed that gutter issues would be investigated while the scaffold was in place. In April 2022 the landlord’s records referenced the contractor speaking with the resident about access.
The evidence demonstrates that the landlord undertook works to the gutters in 2019 and further investigations were undertaken during its planned programme in 2022. The landlord had an obligation to undertake a Section 20 consultation prior to carrying out any works as the costs affected all leaseholders of the block of flats. Its response was therefore appropriate. However, it is not clear whether the landlord cleaned the outside of the building as stated in its correspondence of 28 July 2021. A recommendation has therefore been made in relation to this.

Reports of pigeons nesting.

In May 2019 the resident complained to the landlord about pigeon droppings on her patio and birds nesting in the gutters. It had conversations with a pest control company in May 2019, obtained a quotation, and at the time decided not to consider proofing.
The resident continued to make reports through 2020 and 2021. In the landlord’s explanation to this Service, it advised that other residents had not been affected by the birds nesting however it had received feedback from other residents at a later date.
In its stage 1 response of April 2021, it said that pigeon deterrence was not a repair but classed as an improvement. It needed to follow correct procedures and under the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002, Section 151, the landlord had a legal duty to consult leaseholders before carrying out qualifying work. Any pigeon deterrence required planning as it needed to be carried out by operatives who knew how to complete the work. Some roofers did not encourage spikes as this could cause gutter blockages.
Following a meeting with the resident and her contractor on 28 July 2021 the landlord advised it had requested pest control to attend site to survey the roof area with a view to recommending prevention to reduce the ongoing problem of birds on the roof.
The landlord began its section 20 consultation process in January 2022 and a letter was sent to all leaseholders. The work detailed carrying out communal internal and external cyclical repairs and bird prevention work, along with other required works. A meeting was held with the Residents Association in February 2022 to discuss the works including bird proofing work and in March 2022 an email was sent to all leaseholders with notes and actions. In April 2022 the landlord’s records referenced the contractor speaking with the resident about access.
In a response to the Residents Association on 5 April 2022, the landlord said it had been considering the best options for bird prevention works. It is proposed to put in brushes to the gutters which would help prevent leaf build up and deter pigeons. It believed this approach gave the best solution to both the bird prevention and ongoing maintenance of the gutters.
The landlord’s stage 2 response of 17 February 2023 stated that some external work had been undertaken to deter pigeons from roosting and this appeared to have resolved the matter with no further complaints received for 12 months.
While this Service appreciates that the matter would have been frustrating for the resident, the landlord was obliged to consult under Section 20 as the matter affected all leaseholders. It was therefore not unreasonable for the landlord to undertake this prior to completing any works. This Service therefore considers that the landlord’s actions were reasonable.

Associated formal complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handling was confusing. It responded on 2 April 2021 to a complaint made by the resident relating to multiple issues. It confirmed it had escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 12 April 2021. This Service contacted the landlord and requested a stage 2 response on 28 May 2021. The landlord contacted the resident and apologised for the delay and arranged a home visit for July 2021. However, this Service saw no evidence that it responded at stage 2 of its complaints process.
Following further contact by this Service the landlord provided a stage 1 response on 1 August 2022 where it stated that it had re-raised the complaint as new matters had been raised.
Following further intervention by this Service an interim stage 2 response was provided in October 2022. It apologised and stated that the delay was due to not allocating the complaint to a complaint handler and it was therefore not progressed, concluding the complaint along with its response from 1 August 2022. It stated that it had re-allocated the complaint at stage 1 as the resident had made contact in July 2022 about the termination of her temporary accommodation and this was a new matter not raised in the previous complaint of October 2020. Due to the error and limited time to reply by this Service’s deadline, the resident should accept this as its final response in conjunction with the stage 1 response from 1 August 2022.
This Service chased again for a stage 2 response which was provided on 17 February 2023.
While the landlord acknowledged its errors and apologised for its poor communication and complaint handling, it offered no redress and did not demonstrate any learning. This Service therefore finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and has made an order for compensation in relation to this.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Request for repairs to remedy leaks, damp and mould in the bathroom.
2. Decant while works were completed and decision to terminate the temporary accommodation.
3. Request for additional funds.
4. Reports of gutter repairs and damp on the external wall.
5. Reports of pigeons nesting.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £200 for the failures identified in relation to its complaints handling.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider:
1. Its practices in relation to decants of leaseholders and learnings from this investigation.
2. Inspecting the external wall to ensure that it has been cleaned and there are no further guttering repairs required.
3. Refresher training for its complaints handling team to ensure that it complies with its complaints policy timescales.