Your Housing Group Limited (202311044)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202311044

Your Housing Limited

16 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:
1. Repairs in the resident’s property including water leaks, damp and mould, a window repair and a crack on the wall.
2. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is the tenant of the landlord, which is a housing association. The property is a top floor flat within a row of 2-storey terraced properties.
Between 7 November 2022 and 6 January 2023, the resident reported the following repair issues to the landlord:
1. On 7 November 2022, he reported water had leaked into his bathroom extractor fan, tripping his electrics. He also reported his toilet was leaking.
2. On 17 December 2022, he reported water leaking into a bedroom light.
3. On 6 January 2023, he reported his windows were defective and there was a crack in the wall from the bathroom to the hallway.
The resident raised a stage one complaint to the landlord on 12 February 2023. He was unhappy that there had been several missed appointments, and the repairs remained outstanding. The resident was unhappy that the bathroom extractor fan and bedroom light had not yet been replaced and nothing had been done about the “huge” crack from the bathroom to the hallway. He added that the pipework in the property needed to be insulated and boxed in as they regularly developed mould. The resident was unhappy that the unresolved repairs were damaging his decorations.
On 14 February 2023 the resident reported a missed appointment by the landlord on the previous day. It responded to him the next day as part of an ‘informal complaint’ and offered him £50 compensation for the missed appointment.
The landlord’s stage one response on 7 March 2023 acknowledged that it had missed 2 appointments. It provided a timeline of the repairs, stating that it had been unable to gain access to the property on 2 occasions. It said it had inspected the property on 15 February 2023 and raised work to install an extractor fan in the kitchen to improve ventilation. The landlord offered £300 compensation, offering £100 each for inconvenience, delays, and poor communication. It said it would:
1. Complete repairs to the windows on 21 March 2023.
2. Install the bathroom extractor fan on 28 March 2023.
3. Repair the toilet on 29 March 2023.
4. Scope the plastering work for the wall crack on 13 April 2023.
5. Kitchen extractor fan and roof repairs would “take place” by 28 April 2023.
On 28 April 2023 the resident escalated his complaint. He said some repairs remained outstanding, and those that had been done were of a poor standard. He said:
1. The bedroom light replacement had left a gap around the edges of the fitting.
2. The bathroom extractor fan replacement leaked water into the property which he believed was due to the outstanding roof repair.
3. The kitchen extractor fan had not been installed.
4. No work had been done to the mouldy pipework.
5. His windows continued to develop mould.
The resident added that he been told by the landlord to collect a paint pack it had promised him since moving in. However, after spending money on transport, the paint pack was not available. He repeated that the outstanding repairs were damaging his decorations.
The landlord provided its final response to the complaint on 14 June 2023 in which it:
1. Acknowledged “numerous missed appointments for the repairs”.
2. Offered an additional £500 compensation – £200 for inconvenience, £200 for its delayed complaint response, and £100 as a gesture of goodwill.
3. Confirmed the kitchen fan and work to the pipes would be done on 3 July 2023.
4. Said roof repairs were scheduled for 26 June 2023.

Events after the complaint exhausted the landlord’s procedure

The resident brought the complaint to the Ombudsman on 11 August 2023. He wanted the landlord to complete the outstanding repairs and deal with the damp and mould. The resident said that he was unhappy that his “nice home” was “being destroyed”. He said the unresolved roof leak was preventing him from having his children to stay at the property. The resident said the situation had caused him distress and he had also been financially affected by using paid and unpaid leave to provide access to the landlord for repairs.
On 15 August 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say he remained unhappy because:
1. It had not communicated with him about the roof repair, which had resulted in scaffolders arriving unannounced at the property.
2. The bathroom extractor fan still needed a flue to be installed.
3. It boxed in the pipework without insulating the pipes, and not all pipes were boxed in.
4. He still needed to regularly clean mould from the windows.
5. It had not provided the paint pack to him.
On 23 September 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to say that:
1. Despite the completion of the roof repair, there was still a leak.
2. The bathroom extractor fan repair was still incomplete.
3. He still had not received the paint pack.
4. His pipes were still developing mould.
On 6 February 2024, the resident reported that there was a significant new crack where the wall met the ceiling in the property. The landlord inspected this on 19 February 2024 and observed that there was possible movement of the walls. It required that the interior plaster needed to be removed to enable an inspection by a structural surveyor.
The resident told the Ombudsman that the landlord cancelled appointments on 11 and 27 March 2024 to remove the plaster. The resident was required to ask a contractor attending an unrelated job to do the work. The Ombudsman has requested a copy of the structural survey report, but the landlord has not provided this to us.
In recent correspondence the resident has told the Ombudsman that the roof leak had never been resolved. He has confirmed that he has received the paint pack which the landlord offered previously. He said he remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs which had caused him significant distress and inconvenience. The resident said that his desired resolution was to move to a new property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident said in his stage one complaint that he wanted compensation for the time he and his partner took off from work to wait for the landlord to attend repairs. The Ombudsman does not generally make awards of compensation for loss of earnings from providing access for repairs. This is because the tenancy agreement obliges the resident to provide the landlord with access for repair work. However, when we consider redress, we will consider whether the landlord unreasonably inconvenienced the resident, including missed appointments.
To resolve his complaint, the resident said that he now wishes to move to another property. This is not a resolution within the Ombudsman’s power to order. This is because we do not have access to the details of the landlord’s available properties, its waiting lists, or details of applicants who may be higher priority for rehousing. However, a recommendation has been made for the landlord to provide information on his options for moving.

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property

The landlord’s tenancy agreement with the resident confirms that it will comply with its statutory duty under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to perform repairs. The act states that the landlord is required to repair and maintain the structure of the property and the installations within for providing lighting and sanitation.
The landlord’s repairs policy defines repairs which are not an immediate hazard to the resident as routine repairs. The policy states it will attend and complete routine repairs within 21 calendar days. It also states, for major works, when “Some repairs due to their nature… cannot be undertaken and completed within 21 calendar days…We will attend within 21 calendar days to undertake an assessment and carry out any temporary repairs required, with the full repair completed within 63 calendar days.”
The landlord’s damp, mould and condensation policy states that it “will identify the cause of damp occurring in its property and order remedial works where required within set repair categories, including advice and assistance to the customer where there is condensation present”. The policy acknowledges the Ombudsman’s spotlight report “Damp and mould – It’s not lifestyle” which recommends landlords take a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould. The policy also states that the landlord will provide support to its residents “including information on thermal comfort and preventing condensation”.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report recommended that landlords should use a “data driven, risk-based approach with respect to damp and mould” to “help landlords identify hidden issues”. The report highlighted that good practice involved “taking a holistic approach” to identify causes of damp and mould. The report also recommends that landlords “should identify opportunities for extending the scope of their diagnosis within buildings, for example by examining neighbouring properties, to ensure the response early on is as effective as possible”.
The landlord’s handling of the various repairs is discussed under separate headings below.

Roof leak

The landlord recognised on 21 November 2022 that it needed to inspect the roof. The landlord said, in its stage one response, that it was unable to gain access to the property on 24 November 2022 for the roof repair. However, the landlord’s repair records do not evidence this and there was no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident about this.
The landlord noted again, on 17 December 2022 that it needed to inspect the roof. However, it did not attend to inspect and design scaffolding until 26 June 2023. This was 6 months longer than the timeframe in its policy for completing an initial assessment. It then did not record the work complete until 4 September 2023, almost 10 months after first noting the roof required investigation. This was significantly longer than the 63 calendar days for major work set out in its policy. The delay would have caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident as he had to live with a leaking roof for a very long time.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response said it would do the roof repairs before 28 April 2023. It did not do so, leading to the resident escalating his complaint. It then said it would carry out the repair on 26 June 2023. There was no evidence of the landlord managing the resident’s expectations by explaining how it would approach the roof repair. It did not explain that scaffolding was required. It then caused further delay by reattending on 1 August 2023 to redesign the scaffolding.
The Ombudsman recognises that landlords may exceed their normal repair timeframes when specialist equipment, such as scaffolding, is required. When this happens, the landlord would be expected to keep the resident updated on the progress and provide a revised date for completion. There was no evidence of this, and the landlord has not provided any explanation for the significant delay, therefore the Ombudsman can only conclude it was unreasonable.
The roof repair was recorded as complete on 4 September 2023, however, the resident reported on 23 September 2023 that the leak continued. There was no evidence of the landlord responding to this. It therefore failed to fulfil its statutory repairing responsibility, and this may have allowed the leak to continue until the present.
To put things right for the resident, the landlord will be ordered to compensate him for the distress and inconvenience caused by the ongoing leak, as discussed further below in this report. It must also carry out a structural survey of the property including the roof, to identify the source of the leak. Once it has established this it should carry out repairs as necessary to stop the leak.

Bathroom extractor fan

The landlord found on 21 November 2022 that the bathroom extractor fan needed to be replaced. It replaced the fan on 17 July 2023 and the resident reported on 15 August 2023 that the fan was malfunctioning. The landlord completed the repair on 8 November 2023. The landlord exceeded its timeframe for a routine repair by 11 months, which was an unacceptable delay. The landlord unreasonably delayed in starting the work and did not adequately complete the repair first time. This led to further inconvenience for the resident in having to making further repair reports and provide access for appointments. He was also left without a fan to control the moisture levels in the property for a year which may reasonably have contributed to the damp and mould.
The landlord also failed to keep the resident up to date on the progress of this repair. The resident needed to raise a stage one complaint before it promised to complete the repair by 28 April 2023. It then failed to keep this promise, which led to further effort by the resident to chase the repair.
The excessive time taken to complete the repair led to distress and inconvenience for the resident, and the landlord should pay compensation to him to recognise this. This is discussed in further detail below in this report.

Replacement bedroom light

The resident said on 28 April 2023 that the landlord’s replacement bedroom light fitting was smaller than the one removed. This had left a gap around the fitting. A landlord is responsible for making good when it does a repair which affects the decorative finish in the property. There was no evidence that the landlord returned to ‘make good’ the damage to the ceiling. It did not respond to this issue in its final response. It was unreasonable that the landlord did not repair the damage to the ceiling. This has been considered when looking at compensation. The landlord should also repair the ceiling now to put right this aspect of the complaint.

Toilet repair

The resident reported to the landlord that his toilet was leaking on 7 November 2022. His stage one complaint described this as a slow leak accompanied by a running water sound. The landlord said it could not gain access on 30 November 2022 for the repair. Its repair log recorded that it could not gain access, but it had been unable to confirm the resident’s availability. There was no evidence of the landlord communicating with the resident to confirm the appointment in advance. Residents are expected to make themselves available for appointments where reasonably possible, but landlords are expected to provide notice of appointments, except in the case of an emergency. It is understandable that the resident may not have been able to allow access if he was not given advance notice of the appointment.
The next appointment to fix the toilet was on 29 March 2023 and the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that this repair was resolved on this date. The landlord exceeded its timeframe for a routine repair by 4 months, which was an unreasonable delay. The evidence suggests that the toilet could have been fixed much sooner if the landlord had communicated effectively with the resident to arrange the appointment. It also could have rearranged the appointment much sooner when the initial appointment did not go ahead. The landlord should compensate the resident for this delay, as explained further below in this report.

Concerns regarding a paint pack

In his complaint escalation, on 28 April 2023, the resident raised the issue of being unable to pick up a paint pack for redecorating areas damaged during repairs. He said the landlord had said the paint was ready for collection, but was he inconvenienced and incurred expenses by travelling to pick up the paint which was unavailable. The landlord did not acknowledge this dissatisfaction. The landlord should have raised this as a new complaint and issued a separate stage one response. However, there was no evidence that the landlord considered this new issue or responded through its complaints process.
Although the resident has since confirmed he has received the paint pack the lack of response to his concerns about the delay would have added to his distress and inconvenience. The landlord should pay the resident £100 compensation for the delay in providing the paint pack and the inconvenience to the resident from having to travel to pick it up only to find it was not available.

Damp and mould and associated repairs

Throughout his complaint, the resident repeated his concerns with recurrent mould and condensation on his windows and pipework. He reported the windows on 6 January 2023 and the landlord attended on 2 February 2023. This was after 28 days, 7 days in excess of the routine repair timeframe in the landlord’s policy. It was not disputed that the resident agreed for the landlord to return on 21 March 2023 to complete the repairs and mould wash. It was reasonable for the landlord to carry out a mould wash in the first instance as this can be effective in removing mould. There was an initial delay by the landlord in arranging this, but the delay was not excessive.
However, it was evident that the mould wash was insufficient to address the mould on the windows as the resident reported, on 15 August 2023, that the mould returned, and he was required to clean this on a fortnightly basis. The landlord failed to find a long-term solution to address the persistent mould around the windows. This was unreasonable and caused the resident significant inconvenience.
The resident reported mould on his pipes in his stage one complaint on 7 March 2023. The landlord did not respond by arranging any work, leading him to complain about this again in his escalation request on 28 April 2023. It then completed a mould wash of the pipes and boxed in some pipes on 3 July 2023, 4 months after the resident’s first report. The landlord exceeded its routine repair timeframe by over 3 months, and this was an unreasonable delay.
The boxing in of the pipework did not resolve the resident’s concerns. He reported on 23 September 2023 that one section of pipework continued to develop mould. The landlord should have investigated the resident’s reports that the mould was continuing around the pipework but there is no evidence that it did so. This is a failing by the landlord which caused additional distress and inconvenience for the resident. The landlord should investigate this issue now and it should compensate the resident for not resolving the issue sooner, as detailed further below in the remedies section of this assessment.

Crack in the wall

The resident reported on 6 January 2023 that there was a crack where the wall met the ceiling. He said this spanned the hallway and bathroom. The resident confirmed to the Ombudsman that this was the length of one side of the property. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that it failed to attend its appointment on 8 February 2023 for this repair. Its plasterer completed the repair on 13 April 2023, 3 months after the resident’s initial report. The landlord exceeded its routine repairs timeframe by over 2 months, and this was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that “A pre-inspection may be required before a repair appointment can be arranged which will be undertaken within 14 calendar days. This will include circumstances where the scope of the repair is either unknown or cannot be diagnosed with the information provided by the customer.” There is no evidence that the landlord satisfied itself of the scope of the repair with an inspection by an appropriately qualified surveyor.
There was no inspection of the structure of the property until 19 February 2024, when another significant crack developed. This was unreasonable, as the landlord should have inspected a year earlier to rule out any underlying structural issues. The resident told us that the plasterer suggested that the crack had developed from ‘natural movement’. The landlord was aware by this point of the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof, damp, and mould. In view of this it was inappropriate for the landlord to perform a plastering repair without first confirming the reason for any structural movement. This would have led to additional distress for the resident and affected his ability to enjoy his property as he was understandably worried that the crack may get worse or that it may be connected to wider structural problems. The landlord should compensate the resident for this distress and loss of enjoyment. It should also arrange for a surveyor to attend to investigate the cause of the crack and any structural problems which may be linked to this.
The landlord originally inspected the property on 15 February 2023 to assess the ventilation. It raised follow-up repairs, including installing a kitchen extractor fan. After the resident’s complaint exhausted the landlord’s internal procedure, on 15 August 2023, he repeated his concerns about recurrent mould forming on his windows and pipework. On 23 September 2023, he said that there was still a leak in the property which had damaged his decoration.
In keeping with its policy and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould, the landlord should have taken a proactive, holistic approach to investigate whether the damp issues were linked. There was movement of the walls identified by its plasterer, a crack that spanned 2 rooms in the property, and multiple reports of damp and mould on windows and pipework by the resident. Considering this, the landlord should have investigated if there were any underlying structural issues. It was inappropriate that it focused on doing individual repairs such as mould washes and boxing pipes without also addressing the wider cause of the damp and mould. There was also no evidence of it providing support to the resident in managing the moisture in the property. The landlord, therefore, did not follow its damp, mould and condensation policy.
The landlord will be ordered to carry out a full structural survey of the property to identify the causes of, and the solutions for, the outstanding damp, mould, and structural issues. This should include the roof, walls, and ceilings.

Remedies

The landlord accepted that it had made failings in its handling of the repairs and offered the resident £650 compensation for this. While it is positive that the landlord attempted to put things right for the resident, its offer was not sufficient in view of the significant inconvenience and distress the resident would have experienced over a long period of time. We have also taken into account that some of the repairs remain outstanding more than a year after the landlord’s final response. Further compensation is due for this period.
Overall, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs. To put things right for the resident, the landlord must pay £2,000 compensation for its failings in the handling of the repairs. This is £100 per month to recognise the resident’s distress and inconvenience while various repairs were unresolved for 20 months. The award of compensation includes the landlord’s earlier offer of £650, which can be deducted from the total if it has already been paid. This is in accordance the Ombudsman remedies guidance, available to view on our website. The remedies guidance provides for awards of compensation of over £1,000 when there has been a severe long-term impact on the resident from the landlord’s errors. This includes when a series of failings have occurred over an extended period as in this case.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The landlord’s customer feedback policy states that, when it receives a complaint, it will acknowledge this within 5 working days and provide its stage one response within 10 working days. At the second stage it should provide its final response within 20 working days. If it is unable to meet these timeframes, it should update the resident. This mirrors the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), available on our website, which all member landlords are required to comply with.
The Code also states that when additional issues arise during a complaint investigation, if the stage one response has already been issued, the landlord should raise a new complaint about these and issue a separate stage one response.
The resident raised his stage one complaint on 12 February 2023 and the landlord provided its stage one response on 7 March 2023. This was 7 working days longer than the timeframe specified in its policy. Although any delay will have caused some level of inconvenience to the resident, overall, this delay was not excessive.
On 14 February 2023 the resident made a complaint about the landlord contractor missing an appointment the previous day. The landlord’s records show it responded to this as an “informal complaint”. There is no provision for informal complaints in the landlord’s customer feedback policy. The Code that was in force at the time stated that “The Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for complaints to be handled ‘informally’, at ‘stage 0’, ‘pre-complaint stage’ or in any other way that keeps the complaint outside of the complaints process, even for a short time.” It was inappropriate for the landlord to deal with the complaint informally as this added time to the process and forced the resident to repeat the same points again in order to progress to the formal stage of the complaints process.
The resident raised the missed appointment 2 days after he made his stage one complaint. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered the issue as part of its stage one response. This would have been in accordance with the Code. This stated, “If residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated into the stage one response as long as they are relevant and the stage one response has not been issued.” The landlord’s informal complaint response also did not confirm how the resident may escalate the complaint if he remained unhappy. This was an obstacle to the resident accessing the complaints process, which was inappropriate and added to his distress and inconvenience.
The resident escalated his complaint on 28 April 2023 and the landlord issued its final response to him 31 working days later, on 14 June 2023. This was 11 working days longer than the timeframe specified in its policy. There was no evidence of the landlord telling the resident that it would be late responding. The landlord failed to follow its customer feedback policy and provided both complaints responses late. However, as with the stage one response, the overall delay was not excessive.
The landlord did not fully acknowledge its failings in the handling of the complaint and the learning it could take from these. This would have been in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles of ‘be fair’, ‘put it right’, and ‘learn from outcomes’. Nevertheless, the landlord’s offer of £200 compensation for its complaint handling failure was a reasonable offer for the failures the landlord identified through its complaints process and the additional failures we identified in our investigation. This was in accordance with our remedies guidance which provides for awards of between £100 and £600 where there has been a failing by the landlord which had an adverse effect on the resident, but which did not have a permanent effect. The landlord, therefore, made an offer of redress which satisfies the complaint about its complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs in the resident’s property including water leaks, damp and mould, a window repair and a crack on the wall.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the landlord made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide evidence to the Ombudsman that it has:
1. Written to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from a senior member of staff at director level or above. The apology must be in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for apologies, available on our website.
2. Paid £2,100 compensation to the resident. This must be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears or applied to his rent account. This is made up of:
  1. £2,000 for the failings in its handling of repairs. It may deduct the £650 it previously offered him if it can evidence it has already paid this.
  2. £100 for the inconvenience caused by its lack of response to the resident’s enquiries about the paint pack.
3. Completed a full structural survey of the resident’s home to identify the repairs needed to resolve the damp and mould, the roof leak, and any other disrepair issues which are identified in the survey. The survey must be conducted by a suitably qualified professional, such as a structural engineer or surveyor, and must include (but not be limited to) assessment of the roof, walls and ceilings, and signs of internal damp and mould. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy of the survey report which must set out the work needed to remedy all disrepair issues identified.
Within 4 weeks of the date of the survey, the landlord must produce a schedule of work to complete the repairs identified in the survey. The plan must specify the work to be done and the expected start and completion date for each repair. The landlord must send the resident and the Ombudsman a copy of its schedule of repairs.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, in accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Scheme, the landlord is ordered to review its handling of this case. The case review must be led by a senior manager and must include, but does not need to be limited to:
1. Identifying why the roof repair took so long to commence.
2. Considering why it was not proactive in investigating the damp and mould issues.
3. Considering how it can communicate effectively with residents about repairs and manage their expectations.
4. Considering how it can better coordinate and monitor its repairs so that underlying defects can be flagged and investigated appropriately.
5. Considering the complaint handling failings identified in this report. The landlord should identify any changes it needs to make in its practices to comply with the statutory Complaint Handling Code.
Within 10 weeks of the date of this report the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a report that sets out:
1. Its findings and learning from each part of the case review set out above.
2. Its plan for implementing changes to its practices in response to the findings it has identified. The plan should include the specific actions it will take and the timescales for completing them.

Recommendations

Unless it has already done so, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident the £200 compensation it offered him for complaint handling failures.
2. Provide information to the resident on his options for moving property.