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

Yorkshire Housing Limited (202230441)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202230441

Yorkshire Housing Limited

13 June 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 about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A leak from the roof which resulted in damp and mould at the resident’s property.
    2. The resident’s request for replacement internal doors and a replacement kitchen and bathroom.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. On 25 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that she had submitted an official complaint through the website but had not received a response.
  3. On 17 March 2023, the resident submitted a further complaint to the landlord via telephone call. She stated that the roofing repairs had been occurring for 7 years and explained that the landlord’s contractors had attended her property but did not resolve the repair issue. The resident also stated that she had been trying to log a complaint for a year but hadn’t been able to do so.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 31 March 2023. It explained that its surveyor was looking into all the historic jobs which had been raised at her property and stated once the surveyor had completed his full investigation, he would be in contact with the resident to discuss and arrange for the relevant work to be completed. In addition, the landlord apologised for the lack of communication and delays in resolving the repairs issues and offered the resident £150 compensation.
  5. On 12 April 2023, the resident requested for her complaint to be escalated to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process. Shortly after, on 19 April 2023, the resident emailed the landlord with reasons for her escalation request. She explained that the repair issues were still outstanding, and that the landlord’s contractor had attended her property on 2 occasions without giving her prior notice. She also stated that she was still awaiting to receive a schedule of works from the landlord. The resident also stated that the £150 compensation offer was inadequate for the 7 years of distress and inconvenience she experienced. In an additional follow-up email, she also stated that she would like the list of repairs to include a replacement kitchen and bathroom and also replacement internal doors. She stated that most of the internal doors were broken, the kitchen was falling apart, and the bathroom was outdated.
  6. The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 19 May 2023. It stated that its surveyor would visit the resident’s property on 23 May 2023 and review the work completed and outstanding, and also look at her kitchen, bathroom and internal doors and where required, either arrange for repairs or a replacement where possible. It also increased the resident’s compensation offer to £500 due to the length of time the repair issues had been ongoing.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response and submitted her complaint to the Ombudsman. She stated that her desired outcome was to receive additional compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused due to the landlord’s delay in completing the repairs.
  8. The landlord and resident have confirmed that all the agreed repairs have been completed apart from the installation of the kitchen extractor fan.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation.

  1. The resident raised concerns that the leak had been an issue at the property for over 7 years. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about the length of time the issue has been ongoing for. However, there is no evidence of her raising a formal complaint until March 2022. In view of the time periods involved in this case and considering the availability and reliability of evidence, this report will not consider any specific events approximately more than 12 months prior to when the resident submitted her complaint to the landlord in March 2022 even though this was not acknowledged by the landlord. This is because paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (available on our website), explains that this service may not investigate complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, normally within 12 months of the matters arising.
  2. This report will consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the delayed repairs to the roof leak and damp and mould at her property. It will also consider the landlord’s communication in relation to repairs. The resident mentioned to the Ombudsman that she would like us to also consider the landlord’s staff conduct. As there is no evidence that this element of the complaint was escalated via the landlord’s complaint procedure, it has not been considered in this assessment. This is because the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a landlord’s complaint procedure. This is so that landlords have the opportunity to respond to complaints and resolve issues before the Ombudsman becomes formally involved. If the resident remains unhappy with the conduct of the landlord’s staff she can raise this matter as a new complaint to the landlord. If she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to the complaint, she may be able to refer the new complaint to the Ombudsman at that stage.
  3. The resident has mentioned as part of her complaint to the Ombudsman that the damp and mould at the property impacted her children’s physical and mental health. The service does not doubt the resident’s comments about her children’s health. However, it is outside the Ombudsman’s role to determine whether there is a direct link between the landlord’s actions or inaction and any specific impact on her children’s health. It would be more appropriately suited for a court or liability insurer to investigate it as a personal injury claim. Courts can award damages in a different way to the Ombudsman and review medical evidence. However, it is generally accepted that damp and mould can pose a significant health risk. This service can consider the general risk and any distress and inconvenience caused by any errors by the landlord and the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her health.
  4. The resident has also stated as part of her complaint to the Ombudsman that the damp and mould at the property damaged clothes, furniture, and toys. Normally, damage to a resident’s belongings would be considered as part of a claim under the resident’s own contents insurance policy (if they have one). When there is alleged negligence by the landlord or its contractors, residents may be able to raise a claim under the landlord’s liability insurance. Landlords are entitled to use liability insurance to manage such claims. A landlord’s insurer is usually a separate organisation, and the Ombudsman cannot look at the actions of insurers, only at the actions of the landlord. Therefore, we cannot comment on the outcome of any claim made to a liability insurer.
  5. The resident did not raise the issue about her damaged belongings as part of her initial complaint to the landlord. Therefore, the landlord was not required to consider this issue through its complaints process. The Ombudsman will not consider it either because we can only investigate matters which have been through the landlord’s complaints process. However, it is recommended that the landlord provide the resident with its liability insurer’s details, so she can progress this aspect of her complaint.

A leak from the roof which resulted in damp and mould at the resident’s property.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the building including roofs, walls, floors, ceiling, window frames, glazing, external doors, drains, gutters and outside pipes. The policy also includes information on the landlord’s repair timescales. It states that the landlord will respond to an emergency repair within 24 hours. An urgent repair within 7 calendar days and a routine repair within 28 calendar days.
  2. The resident submitted her complaint about a leak in her property to the landlord in March 2022. However, the Ombudsman has noted from the landlord’s records for contextual reasons that the leak had been an issue at the property for several years. In response to the previous reported leak issue, the landlord completed works to repoint the chimney in November 2020. Although the landlord previously carried out the repairs, the issue with the leak remained ongoing and the resident contacted the landlord at the end of January 2021 to inform the landlord of a leak in her bedroom.
  3. In April 2021, to resolve the leak, the landlord carried out repairs to the roof, which included stripping the roof ridges and applying felt. The landlord responded appropriately by carrying out repairs to the roof to resolve the leak, but the delay in carrying out the roof repair was unreasonable and not compliant with the timescales referenced in the landlord’s repairs policy. Several months later, in November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord and explained that the leak was still ongoing and stated that there were new watermarks on the chimney breast. Following the resident’s report, the landlord’s contractor visited the property on 8 December 2021, to inspect the leak. Although the landlord acted reasonably by inspecting the leak, it failed to carry out any repairs following the inspection, which was unreasonable.
  4. Due to the landlord failing to carry out any repair works after the inspection. The resident contacted the landlord for an update on the roof repair in February 2022 and then shortly after submitted a complaint to the landlord in March 2022. There were further delays by the landlord, as it did not take any action in relation to the leak until May 2022, which is when it carried out an additional inspection. Shortly after the inspection, the landlord’s contractor renewed roof tiles in June 2022. Overall, the delay was unreasonable, and the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to carry out the roof repairs sooner than it did.
  5. Although the landlord’s contractor eventually completed repairs to the roof in June 2022. The repairs did not permanently resolve the leak and as a result, the resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 and explained that there was an ongoing issue with water leaking into her child’s bedroom. In addition, she also reported that there was damp and mould all over the walls. The landlord responded promptly to the resident’s report and tried to contact the resident shortly afterwards to arrange an inspection. There was initially a slight delay because the landlord could not get in contact with the resident.
  6. The landlord’s contractor carried out an inspection of the resident’s property on 22 December 2022. Damp and mould were identified throughout the property, and it was identified that the potential cause was lack of insulation and high levels of condensation. Following the inspection, the landlord raised a job for a damp survey to be completed, the resident’s front door to be overhauled, the chimney to be repaired, and insulation to be checked. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s report about the damp and mould by arranging an inspection promptly and raising the necessary jobs following the inspection.
  7. The landlord’s contractor carried the jobs out shortly after they were raised. On 13 January 2023, the landlord’s contractor completed works to overhaul the resident’s front door. Also on 23 January 2023, the landlord raised a job for its contractor to carry out mould clean throughout the resident’s property. In addition, on 30 January 2023, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the resident’s property and on 16 February 2023, the landlord’s contractor carried out repairs to the chimney and checked insulation. Although the landlord completed most of the jobs raised in a reasonable timeframe, there was a delay in the landlord’s contractor visiting the resident’s property to carry out the mould wash. This was unreasonable and resulted in the resident chasing the landlord on several occasions for an update on when the mould wash would be completed. The resident also submitted an additional complaint on 17 March 2023 due to the leak and damp and mould issue still being outstanding. The landlord’s contractor eventually completed the mould wash in March 2023.
  8. In addition to the delay with the mould wash being completed, there was a delay by the landlord in raising and completing other repair jobs which had been identified from the surveyor’s inspection and other inspections. The additional repairs included installation of loft insulation, repairs to the bathroom fan, repairs to the chimney and installation of thermal boards on the chimney, replacement of trickle vents and installation of slate vents. It is acknowledged that the landlord identified in March 2023 that it needed scaffolding to complete some of the repairs to the chimney. The Ombudsman recognises that it can take a while for scaffolding to be erected, therefore this delay would have been outside the landlord’s control. However, from the landlord’s records it is evident that scaffolding was erected in May 2023 and repairs to the chimney were completed during the same month. Therefore, the Ombudsman would have expected the remaining repairs to be booked in and completed shortly after, particularly as the issue had been ongoing for a considerable amount of time.
  9. In May 2023, the landlord also issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. However, in the response, the landlord did not explain which repairs remained outstanding and there was no clear timeframe mentioned for when the works would be completed. The Ombudsman recognises it must have been difficult for the resident not receiving clear communication about the required works to the property and timescales. It is evident that the landlord’s communication about the repairs could have been much better in this instance.
  10. The resident also raised that the landlord’s contractor visited her property to carry out repairs without any prior notice. The normal procedure would be for a landlord to book an appointment with the resident for an inspection or repair to take place. It is evident that the landlord failed to give notice of attendance on several occasions, which was unreasonable. However, it did acknowledge in its stage 2 complaint response that the resident should have received a text message or phone call prior to a contractor visiting her home and confirmed that it would carry out some quality checks to ensure the system was working correctly. The landlord’s response was appropriate in this instance as it acknowledged the concern and confirmed it would look into the issue. 
  11. The landlord eventually booked the remaining repair works for the end of September 2023 and the start of October 2023 and communicated this to the resident. The landlord’s repairs log shows that all the booked repairs were completed apart from the installation of the kitchen extractor fan which is still outstanding. The resident also informed the Ombudsman in June 2024 that the kitchen extractor fan installation was still outstanding. She also explained that the mould was starting to reappear in some areas due to the extractor fan not being installed. Overall, there was a considerable delay in the landlord completing the required repairs and the installation of the fan still remains outstanding, which is unacceptable. 
  12. It is acknowledged that the landlord offered the resident £500 compensation in its stage 2 complaint response sent in May 2023 to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays. The landlord also offered the resident £100 worth of decoration vouchers in May 2023. However, considering the length of time it took the landlord to permanently resolve the leak and complete all the repairs, the amount of compensation offered is not sufficient to recognise the delay and distress and inconvenience the resident would have experienced. Therefore, there has been maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a leak from the roof, which resulted in damp and mould at the resident’s property. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident an additional £300 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused by the considerable delays. 
  13. The additional amount of compensation ordered by the Ombudsman is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance (published on our website), which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests awards of £600 to £1000 where there has been a serious failure by the landlord, which had a significant impact on the resident. In addition, as the leak was ongoing for such a long period of time and there were considerable delays in permanently resolving the issue, it would be appropriate for the landlord to carry out a case review to identify any areas for improvement. The landlord should also install the kitchen extractor fan at the resident’s property and check whether any areas of the property will require further mould treatment or repainting due to its delay in installing the extractor fan.

The resident’s request for replacement internal doors and a replacement kitchen and bathroom.

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it will complete planned replacements of doors, windows, roofs, kitchens, and bathrooms when they’re beyond their economic life. The resident’s tenancy agreement also states that the landlord is responsible for doors, door frames and door hinges.
  2. The resident raised as part of her escalation request sent to the landlord in April 2023 that she would like the list of repairs to include a replacement kitchen and bathroom and also replacement internal doors. She stated that most of the internal doors were broken, and the kitchen was falling apart, and the bathroom was outdated.
  3. In response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen, bathroom and internal doors, the landlord explained in its stage 2 complaint response that its surveyor would inspect her kitchen, bathroom, and internal doors and, where required, either arrange for repairs or a replacement. The landlord’s response was reasonable in this instance, and it was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the bathroom, kitchen, and internal doors to establish the works which were required.
  4. The landlord’s records show that its surveyor visited the resident’s property on 18 July 2023 and carried out a stock condition survey to inspect the resident’s kitchen and bathroom and establish whether they required a replacement. The survey identified both the kitchen and bathroom did not require renewal. It was confirmed that the kitchen was due for renewal in year 2031 and the bathroom was due for renewal in year 2044. The Ombudsman believes the landlord acted appropriately in this instance, as the landlord would only be expected to replace a kitchen or bathroom if it required replacement and an inspection indicated this.
  5. Although it was established that the kitchen and bathroom did not require renewal. The landlord did agree to replace 2 internal doors at the resident’s property, which included the kitchen door. The internal doors were replaced in September and October 2023. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s request for replacement internal doors by replacing the necessary doors.
  6. Overall, the landlord acted fairly in response to the resident’s request for a replacement kitchen, bathroom, and internal doors. Therefore, there has been no maladministration by the landlord in relation to this aspect of the complaint.

The associated complaint.

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling practices. The Code states that a stage 1 response should be provided within 10 working days of the complaint. It also explains that a stage 2 response should be provided within 20 working days from the request to escalate the complaint. The landlord’s complaints policy includes the same timescales as referenced in the Code.
  2. The Code also states that a landlord must accept a complaint unless there is a valid reason not to do so. In addition, it explains when a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage 1 of the landlord’s complaint procedure within 5 days of receipt. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 2 working days of receiving it.
  3. The Code defines a complaint as an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions, or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or actions on its behalf affecting a resident or group of residents. The landlord’s complaints policy references the same complaint definition as the Code.
  4. There was a delay in the landlord logging the resident’s initial complaint. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 March 2022 and explained that she had submitted a complaint on the landlord’s website. The landlord has failed to provide a copy of the complaint, but it is evident from the landlord’s contact notes that the resident informed it she had logged a complaint. The landlord failed to acknowledge or respond to the complaint in line with the timescales referenced in its own complaints policy and the Code. In addition, in a call note from January 2023, the resident also explained that she had tried to submit complaints, but no one had ever responded. The landlord eventually logged a complaint approximately 1 year later for the resident on 17 March 2023 after the resident submitted and provided a stage 1 complaint response on 31 March 2023. 
  5. The landlord’s failure to log the resident’s initial complaint submission as a complaint was unreasonable and its delay in logging the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident from bringing her complaint to the Ombudsman, causing her inconvenience.
  6. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the complaint error in its stage 1 and 2 complaint response even though the resident had raised the issue as part of her complaint, which was accepted by the landlord in March 2023. The resident raised as part of her complaint sent in March 2023 that she had been trying to log a complaint for 1 year but could not do so.
  7. Given the landlord’s complaint handling errors, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation is appropriate to recognise the delay the resident experienced. It is also compliant with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance referenced above.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak from the roof which resulted in damp and mould at the resident’s property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement internal doors and a replacement kitchen and bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Orders

  1. The landlord to install the kitchen extractor fan at the resident’s property. In addition, the landlord should also inspect whether any areas of the property will require further mould treatment or repainting due to its delay in installing the extractor fan and carry out any necessary remedial works.
  2. The landlord to pay the resident £300 compensation for its handling of a leak from the roof which resulted in damp and mould at the resident’s property. This amount is in addition to the £500 the landlord offered in its stage 2 complaint response and the £100 decoration voucher.
  3. The landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation for its complaint handling errors.
  4. The landlord must comply with the above orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
  5. The landlord must review the resident’s case and identify any areas for improvement. The review should be completed by a senior member of staff at director level. The landlord should draft a report on its findings and provide a copy of the report to this service and the resident.
  6. The landlord must provide evidence of compliance with the above order within 8 weeks of the date of this report.