Your Housing Group Limited (202233147)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202233147

Your Housing Limited

31 October 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. Reports of a blocked waste pipe, a leak under the sink, and associated repairs in the kitchen.
2. Concerns about the conduct of 2 contractors used by the landlord.
3. Request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.
4. Associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property, a flat.
In 2018 the landlord replaced the kitchen in the resident’s property. The resident has said that since that time he has had repeated issues with the plumbing in the kitchen, causing blockages in his kitchen sink. Between 2018 and February 2020 the resident raised repairs about this, as well as complaints, which exhausted the landlord’s complaint process at that time. The resident continued to suffer with blockages in his kitchen sink, which he next reported to the landlord and raised as a repair in January 2023.
On 15 January 2023 the resident raised an urgent repair to the landlord’s out of hours service. He explained that the waste pipework had blocked his kitchen sink, and that the water was draining through a leak under the sink. The resident said he was having to use a mop and towels to clean up the water from the leak. The landlord told the resident to call back the next day as it did not consider the repair to be an emergency.
Between 16 January 2023 and 18 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to repair the blocked kitchen sink, which was leaking onto the electric pump below. The landlord explained that it needed to amend the pipework in the kitchen and so made an appointment to carry out these further works on 26 January 2023. During this same period, the resident also reported that the extractor fan in his bathroom was not working. The landlord made an appointment to repair the extractor fan on 1 February 2023.
On 22 January 2023 the resident told the landlord that the blocked kitchen sink was still leaking onto the hot water pump below. He described that the electric point underneath the sink was becoming dangerous from the leak.
On 26 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to reposition the pipework in his kitchen. The contractor was unable to carry out these works during this appointment. The landlord then rescheduled the works twice into March 2023. The resident continued to chase the landlord about these repairs between January 2023 and March 2023. He told the landlord that his hot water pump was no longer working during this time.
On 21 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord. He said that its contractors had cancelled the appointment to amend the pipework in his kitchen that day. The resident described how the landlord’s contractors had previously failed to fit the pipework correctly in his kitchen. He said that during further visits to his property, it had then been unable to repair the pipework and caused damage to it in the process. The resident said it was these badly carried out repairs by the landlord’s contractors that had then caused the leak under the kitchen sink, which had then damaged the hot water pump, and the electrics in his property.
Between 24 March 2023 and 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property twice to carry out the repairs in his kitchen. It identified that it required further parts in order to complete the repair of the hot water pump under the kitchen sink. The repair to the hot water pump was completed on 17 April 2023.
On 17 April 2023 the resident asked the contractor who was repairing his hot water pump to look at the pipework in his kitchen, as it was still making a rattling noise. The contractor inspected the pipework and told the resident that the previous repair to the waste pipe had not been carried out properly. However because of the amount of work required to put the repair right, the contractor could not carry out the works that same day. The landlord raised a further repair, and it scoped out how to fix the damaged waste pipe in the resident’s kitchen on 25 April 2023.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord provided its stage one complaint response. It apologised for its delay in handling the repairs in the resident’s kitchen and awarded him £200 compensation. The landlord set out what works it had raised to complete the repairs in his kitchen. It also raised a job to repair the resident’s extractor fan in his bathroom. On 18 May 2023 the resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint. He said this was because the repairs he had reported remained outstanding and that its response was not accurate. He was also unhappy by the conduct of its contractors. He said that one contractor had used his bath to dispose of wastewater, leaving the mess in his bath. On another occasion he had witnessed a contractor behave in an aggressive manner whilst visiting his property.
On 18 May 2023, the resident raised a repair with the landlord that the blockage in the pipework in his kitchen had caused the kitchen floor to flood that day.
Between 22 May 2023 and 2 June 2023 the landlord completed the repairs to resolve the blocked waste pipe, leak under the sink, and the associated repairs in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord also repaired the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom.
On 19 June 2023 the landlord provided its final response to the resident’s complaints. It apologised for the following:
1. Delays in providing its stage one complaint response, which it accepted contained inaccurate information.
2. That its contractor had used the resident’s bathtub to dispose of dirty water and left a mess.
3. The resident had been exposed to aggressive behaviour between 2 of its contractors attending to a repair at his property.
4. Delays in resolving the repair with the hot water pump, and not keeping the resident up to date.
The landlord confirmed it had spoken with its contractors about the conduct reported by the resident and had completed the outstanding repairs to his property. It awarded the resident an additional £650 compensation.
The resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to his complaints. He brought his complaints to the Ombudsman, stating his desired outcome was for the landlord to complete his outstanding repairs.

On 15 March 2024 the resident informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had referred his details without his consent to mental health services. He said it had done this due to his level of communication about the repairs to his kitchen. The resident has reported this to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) as a data breach.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution: Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes, put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failure on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failure did lead to an adverse effect, the Ombudsman will consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and to have ‘learned from outcomes.

Scope of Investigation

Paragraph 42.c. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has said he has had a problem with the plumbing in his kitchen since his kitchen was replaced in 2018. Records seen by the Ombudsman show that the resident raised 2 complaints to the landlord about its handling of the blocked pipework in his kitchen between 2018 and February 2020. The resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on these occasions. The resident next reported this matter to the landlord in January 2023. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons for not raising these repairs between February 2020 and January 2023. However, the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise matters of repairs, and complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues when they occur, or soon after, and the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion. Therefore in line with the Scheme the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs subject of this report between 15 March 2022 to its final response to the current complaint provided on 19 June 2023.

The landlord has an obligation to protect the confidentiality of its staff’s personal details. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to tell the resident specific details regarding what, if any, disciplinary action it took relating to the members of staff following the conclusion of its investigation into their conduct. It is outside the Ombudsman’s role to investigate employment matters and therefore we would not assess or comment on any disciplinary action which the landlord may have taken regarding the staff member concerned. Rather, our investigation has focused on the actions taken by the landlord to investigate the resident’s concerns about staff conduct and put right any errors for the resident.
The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the landlord had made a referral to a third-party mental health service without his consent. The landlord did this because it deemed the resident’s communication about the repairs linked to this complaint as being excessive. It is beyond the remit of the Ombudsman to make a determination on matters involving alleged breaches of the data protection act. This is in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint handling body. Complaints about issues relating to personal data may be considered by the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). The Ombudsman is aware that the resident has already referred this part of his complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO), which has carried out its own investigation. Therefore the Ombudsman will not make any further comment in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs policy states that its repairs fall into the following categories:
1. Emergency repairs – This is a repair which presents a serious risk to residents or their property. The landlord will attend this type of repair within 24 hours, and it may carry out some works. Its main aim, however, is to make sure everyone is secure and safe.
2. Routine repairs – These are repairs which pose no immediate risk to a resident or their property and will be carried out by a mutually convenient appointment. This will be within 21 days of the repair being reported.
3. Major or planned works – These are repairs the landlord cannot complete within 21 days, or if they can be added to a similar programme of works. It will undertake an assessment of any of these works within 21 days. It will carry out any temporary repairs required within 21 days and complete the full repair within 63 days.
The landlord has an out of hours service for its emergency repairs which is available for residents 24 hours per day, 365 days per year for repairs which present a serious risk to residents or their home.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that where it has not carried out a repair within an agreed timescale that has resulted in a resident not having full use of its facilities, it will award a compensation payment of £2.50 per day for loss of hot water. The landlord will also make a general goodwill gesture, or time and trouble payment of up to £100 respectively, where it has taken more appointments to carry out a repair than should have been necessary. This also includes cases of severe inconvenience being caused to a resident.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge a resident’s stage one complaint within 5 working days. It will then provide its written response at stage one within 10 working days of its acknowledgement. The landlord will provide its stage 2 response within 20 working days. It will provide a resident with a written explanation if it requires more time to respond to a resident’s complaint, at either stage, which will not exceed a further 10 working days.

Reports of a blocked waste pipe, a leak under the sink, and associated repairs in the kitchen.

On 15 January 2023 the resident raised an emergency repair to the landlord through its out of hours service. He said that the waste pipework in his kitchen had blocked his kitchen sink. He explained that the blocked water was draining out through a leak under the sink. The landlord told the resident that his repair was not an emergency and to call back the following day. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as this type of repair would not be considered as causing a serious risk to the resident or their property, as per the landlord’s repairs policy.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property. The contractor was unable to carry out the repair of the blocked sink due to the blockage being caused by incorrectly fitted pipework in the kitchen. The landlord made an appointment to follow up and complete these works on 26 January 2023. This was reasonable as sometimes works can present as being more complex for contractors when they attend a property. It was right that the landlord communicated this to the resident and set a date within a reasonable timescale to carry out the repair.

On 23 January 2023 the resident raised an emergency repair about his kitchen sink leaking water into the electric hot water pump underneath. The landlord’s contractor failed to attend this appointment. The records reviewed also show that the landlord had incorrectly recorded that its contractor had been unable to gain access to the resident’s property, rather than it failing to attend. This was inappropriate and is evidence of poor communication by the landlord, with both its contractors and the resident.
On 26 January 2023 contractors attended the resident’s property to repair the blocked sink and amend the incorrectly fitted pipework. The contractors were unable to complete these works stating that the kitchen units needed to be moved first. This should have already been identified and taken into consideration during the landlord’s previous visit on 16 January 2023.
The landlord’s contractors failed to attend 4 appointments between 16 February 2023 and 28 March 2023. 3 of these were for it to correct the kitchen pipework that had been causing the blockages to the resident’s sink. This repair was also impacting the resident being unable to use his washing machine during this period. The contractors also missed an appointment on 28 March 2023 which was for the landlord to repair the hot water pump that had been damaged by the leak under the kitchen sink. These missed appointments are evidence of the landlord’s poor handling of its repairs processes and were not appropriate. The Ombudsman understands that this will have exacerbated the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident at that time.
On 24 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended to repair the resident’s blocked kitchen pipework. However, records and communication reviewed by the Ombudsman show that this repair was unsuccessful which will be addressed later in this report.
On 29 March 2023 the landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property to repair the damaged hot water pump, which was under the kitchen sink. The contractor was unable to carry out the repair as it needed additional parts. The landlord then ordered the wrong parts which caused a further delay in it carrying out the repair. During this delay, on 13 April 2023, the landlord responded to an emergency repair to make the resident’s water pump safe due to the continued damage caused by the leaking sink. This resulted in its contractor disconnecting the electricity under the sink until it had carried out the repair to the hot water pump. It was right the landlord attended to the emergency repair within 24 hours and made it safe. However the delays caused by ordering the wrong parts were avoidable and demonstrate poor communication by the landlord.

The landlord repaired the hot water pump on 17 April 2023. This was 84 days after the resident first reported that the leaking sink was causing damage to it. The overall delay in the landlord completing the repair to the hot water pump was unreasonable and should have been completed within 21 days, in line with its repairs policy, as set out above.
The Ombudsman understands that the landlord awarded the resident a discretionary payment of £100 compensation for being without hot water in his kitchen between 13 April 2023 and 17 April 2023. The resident declined to accept this. The Ombudsman is not commenting on the resident’s reasons for declining this payment. However it was appropriate that the landlord offered it and was in line with its compensation policy as set out above. This states that it will award residents a compensation payment of £2.50 per day for loss of hot water. This payment is the equivalent of 40 days of no hot water. The resident had said he had been without hot water since he reported the repair in January 2023. The Ombudsman understands that the resident had access to hot water in other parts of his property. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers the landlord’s award of £100 compensation to have been a reasonable offer.
On 17 April 2023 the contractor who was carrying out the repair to the hot water pump, agreed to look at the resident’s kitchen pipework when asked to do so by the resident. The contractor said that the previous repair to the kitchen waste pipe had not been carried out correctly. It was right the contractor raised this. The landlord reattended the property on 25 April 2023 to scope out the works required to correct the pipework in the resident’s kitchen. The landlord said it required 2 contractors and scaffolding in order to fix the connection of the waste pipe. On 2 June 2023 the landlord had completed these works as well as the repair of a damaged kitchen cupboard carcass. This was 138 working days after the resident raised the repair of his blocked sink to the landlord. This type of repair should have been completed within 21 days, in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
There is evidence of failings, as mentioned above in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked waste pipe, leak under the sink and associated repairs in the kitchen. This includes the delays, missed appointments and poor communication with the resident during this time, who had to chase the landlord repeatedly for it to complete the repairs to the expected standard.

The landlord apologised and awarded the resident £650 compensation within its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses for this aspect of his complaint. The Ombudsman has considered our own remedies guidance (published on our website) in respect of compensation. This amount awarded by the landlord is within the range of compensation the Ombudsman would issue if the landlord had not made this offer. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord has made errors which caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Therefore the Ombudsman makes a finding of reasonable redress for the landlord’s errors in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked waste pipe, leak under the sink and associated repairs in the kitchen.

Concerns about the conduct of 2 contractors used by the landlord.

In May 2023 the resident explained to the landlord that he had been unhappy with the conduct of its contractors, who had been carrying out the repairs at his property, which are the subject of this report.
The resident reported that one of the landlord’s contractors had used his bath to dispose of the wastewater from the leak in the kitchen. The contractor left the resident’s property leaving the bath in a messy condition left from the wastewater. The landlord does not dispute this. This was inappropriate. The landlord’s contractor would be expected to use the toilet facility to dispose of wastewater in these circumstances. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord’s contractors to clean up after themselves when carrying out works at the resident’s property.
The resident also said that on a separate occasion he witnessed a contractor acting in an aggressive manner outside of his property, whilst carrying out works. This included the contractor hitting their own vehicle. The landlord has not disputed that this happened. This type of behaviour is unacceptable. Contractors are an extension of the landlord when acting on its behalf and are expected to act in a professional and courteous manner when visiting resident’s homes on behalf of the landlord to carry out works. The Ombudsman understands that this incident will have caused the resident to feel distressed, as well as leaving them nervous when providing access to their property to the landlord’s contractors.

The landlord’s records show that in May 2023 it investigated and communicated with its contractors and staff about the resident’s concerns regarding their professionalism whilst visiting the resident’s property. This was an appropriate response which showed it was taking the matter seriously.
On 19 June 2023 in the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaints, it communicated with the resident about its investigation into the conduct of its contractors. The landlord apologised and explained that both members of staff had been spoken to and warned regarding their conduct when visiting a resident’s property. The landlord also awarded the resident £100 compensation in reflection of the poor conduct of its contractors. This was a reasonable response by the landlord. As explained above, it is outside the Ombudsman’s remit to comment on disciplinary matters and therefore we will not comment on any action the landlord may or may not have taken against the contractor or its staff members.
It is understandable that its contractor’s behaviour would have been distressing for the resident and may have caused him to lose trust in the landlord. However, the landlord’s explanation for how it investigated this issue, its explanation and apology represent reasonable redress for the resident’s concerns about the conduct of 2 contractors used by the landlord. The landlord is not required to do anything further in respect of this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

A request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.

On 16 January 2023 the landlord agreed to call the resident to raise an appointment following his report the previous day that the extractor fan in his bathroom was broken. The landlord made an appointment for 1 February 2023 for it to complete this repair. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that the landlord attended this appointment or communicated with the resident about it. This was unreasonable and is evidence of poor handling of its repairs processes.
On 9 May 2023 the landlord raised an order for it to repair the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom. Records reviewed by the Ombudsman show no evidence that an appointment was ever arranged following this order being raised. The resident chased the landlord about this on 30 May 2023 as the repair had still not been completed by this time. The landlord should have arranged an appointment with the resident at a mutually convenient time in line with its repairs policy.

The landlord’s contractor attended the resident’s property on 1 June 2023 to repair the extractor fan in his bathroom. During this visit the resident said he had asked the contractor to leave his property following a disagreement about the repair. This included that the contractor had told the landlord that the resident had threatened to take the extractor fan off the wall himself. The landlord advised the resident that should he take matters into his own hands as described, that it may lead to the landlord taking action against him. It also explained the health and safety risk that taking such action could have on himself and other residents in the building.
The Ombudsman is aware that the resident disputes the contractors account of how this incident happened. Where there are conflicting accounts of what happened during an incident and a lack of independent evidence to support either account, the Ombudsman as an impartial arbiter cannot determine what happened. The Ombudsman has, however, considered the landlord’s response and considers its actions and communication following the incident on 1 June 2023 to be reasonable in all the circumstances.
On 2 June 2023 the landlord sent a different contractor to the resident’s property, which is when it fixed the extractor fan in the resident’s bathroom. It was appropriate to send another contractor in view of the issues the resident had reported with the previous contractor. However, this was 137 days after the resident raised the repair to the landlord. This significant delay was unreasonable. This repair should have been completed within 21 days, in line with its complaints policy, as set out above.
For the reasons described above, the Ombudsman makes a finding of maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom. This includes the delays, missed appointment, and it having to raise the repair multiple times after being chased by the resident. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord’s failings adversely impacted the resident.
The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £250 in compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. This reflects that the resident suffered distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delays. Examples of this level of compensation in the guidance include where the landlord’s failures adversely affected the resident. This also includes where the landlord has failed to acknowledge its errors and the detriment caused to the resident in its complaints process, as in this case.

The associated complaint.

On 21 March 2023 the resident raised a complaint to the landlord after it had cancelled another appointment to repair the blocked waste pipe in his kitchen, and the leak under his kitchen sink. The landlord failed to initially recognise or acknowledge the resident’s request to raise a complaint at that time. The resident then continued to chase the landlord about this, until the landlord acknowledged his complaint on 21 April 2023. This was 22 working days later. This was inappropriate, and not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (which sets out our service’s expectations for landlords’ complaint handling), which expects the landlord to acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 5 working days.
The landlord provided its stage one complaint response on 9 May 2023. This was 10 working days after it acknowledged the resident’s complaint. This was appropriate because it was in line with the Code, which expects the landlord to provide its stage one complaint response within 10 working days.
The resident requested the landlord escalate his complaint on 18 May 2023, stating he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint on 19 May 2023, and provided its final response to the resident’s complaint on 19 June 2023. This was appropriate as it was in line with the Code which expects the landlord to provide its stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days.
In the landlord’s final response to the resident’s complaint, it apologised for the following:
1. Its initial delay in logging the resident’s initial complaint.
2. That its stage one complaint response recorded the wrong staff member’s details with whom he had communicated about his complaint.
3. The resident felt he had not been listened to, and that the landlord had not considered all the circumstances before providing him with its stage one complaint response.
4. The landlord’s stage one complaint response contained a number of spelling mistakes.
The landlord also awarded the resident £150 in recognition of its initial delays in its complaint handling, and for its errors accepted above in its written apology.

There were errors in the handling of the resident’s complaint. This includes the initial delay and inaccuracy in its stage one complaint response. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s final complaint response which included the apology as mentioned above and the award of £150 compensation to be a reasonable and proportionate response to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a blocked waste pipe, a leak under the sink, and associated repairs in the kitchen.
2. Concerns about the conduct of 2 contractors used by the landlord.
3. Associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to apologise to the resident in writing. The apology is to be in line with this service’s guidance that it acknowledges the maladministration and expresses a sincere regret for its handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.
The landlord is to pay the resident £250 for its handling of the resident’s request for it to repair the extractor fan in the bathroom.
The landlord is to pay the resident the £850 it awarded the resident in its stage one and stage 2 complaint responses unless this has already been paid.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman within 28 days of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should pay the resident the £100 it awarded the resident for being without hot water in April 2023, unless this has already been paid.