Walsall Housing Group Limited (202004709)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004709

Walsall Housing Group Limited

30 April 2021

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:

a)     The landlord’s handling of reactive repairs and major works to the resident’s home, including to the structure and drainage.

b)     The resident’s belongings going missing while the landlord’s contractors were carrying out repairs.

c)     The level of rent and service charges.

d)     The resident’s concern that she was mis-sold the mortgage rescue scheme in 2011, and that the landlord did not complete repairs which were a part of the sales contract.

Jurisdiction

2. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

Level of rent and service charges

3. The resident has complained about the landlord increasing the level of rent or service charges. Under Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not consider complaints that concern the level of service charge or rent or the increase of service charge or rent. Complaints that relate to the level, reasonableness, or liability to pay rent or service charges are within the jurisdiction of the First-Tier Tribunal (Property Chamber) and the resident would be advised to seek advice from the Leasehold Advisory Service (LEASE) (https://www.lease-advice.org/) in relation to how to proceed with such a complaint.

The resident’s concern that she was mis-sold the mortgage rescue scheme in 2011, and the completion of repairs as part of the sales contract

4. Paragraph 39 (i) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters where he considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.
5. The resident has complained that she believes the landlord’s failure to complete repairs, such as to the windows and chimney, within a certain period of time after the landlord bought the house in 2011 from her (as part of a mortgage rescue scheme), are a breach of the sales contract. The resident also complained that she was mis-sold the mortgage rescue scheme.
6. These aspects of the resident’s complaint were responded to by the landlord’s legal team, and concern elements of the original sales process in 2011. While the age of the issues may inhibit any specific consideration of these matters now, they are, essentially, legal ones. They are better suited for the courts, who can call on relevant expert witnesses and evidence, and make legally binding judgements. In line with paragraph 39(i), they will not be considered in this investigation.

Background and summary of events

7. The resident became the landlord’s tenant at the start of February 2011 through a mortgage rescue scheme. This involved the landlord buying the property from the resident, and the resident signing a tenancy agreement with the landlord for the property. The property was adapted for the resident’s medical needs to have a ground–floor bedroom and bathroom.
8. In February 2019, the resident removed belongings from her ground–floor bedroom and bathroom to her living room, to allow the landlord to complete repairs. On 13 March 2019, the landlord raised a repair for structural works (underpinning) to the ground-floor bedroom and bathroom to treat subsidence.
9. In an internal email, dated 5 April 2019, the landlord advised that it received a call from the resident, who said that she was awaiting a start date for the underpinning, and that she had been told the work could take up to three weeks to complete. She asked if a window replacement could be delayed until after this.
10. On 1 May 2019 the resident asked how much longer she would be without her disabled facilities. She said she could no longer live upstairs as her daughter was staying at home (causing crowding in the reduced space). She complained that nobody had attended to complete repairs for several weeks, and asked the landlord to compensate her for the loss of use of space. The landlord replied on 2 May 2019 that piling work would start on 8 May 2019, and further works would follow on immediately. It apologised for the delay.
11. The resident complained on 9 May 2019 that the contractor did not arrive. The landlord replied that it would forward the resident’s complaint to its complaints team and apologised for the delay in the work.
12. In the landlord’s complaint response, dated 24 May 2019, it advised that, due to the specialist nature of the works it had been difficult to find an appropriate contractor. However, it confirmed that it had now done so. It confirmed that, once the final specifications and timelines were agreed, works would commence. It added that the two contractors needed to liaise to agree the best approach to the works and, once this was done, it would agree a convenient start date with the resident and explain each stage of the work. The landlord confirmed that once the works were completed it would “revisit the compensatory elements of your complaint to achieve a satisfactory resolution”.
13. The landlord’s contractors began site preparation and remedial works on 18 June 2019, which was halted on 1 July 2019 due to the neighbour requesting a party wall notice (a notice to a resident that works are planned which will affect boundaries between properties). A reinspection by a structural engineer was booked for 3 July 2020.
14. The resident called the landlord on 2 and 5 July 2019. The landlord noted that she wished to discuss ongoing issues with the under–pinning work, and with her neighbour. She said that the neighbour had said they had stopped the work, and that the landlord could not continue until they approved the works, which they were not going to do.
15. The landlord informed the resident, on 11 July 2019, that it was in the process of issuing a party wall notice to her adjacent neighbours.
16. Upon receipt of the notice, the neighbour rejected the works set out in the notice, requesting that an independent surveyor be appointed to review the work specified. The landlord appointed an independent surveyor to carry out the necessary inspections and consultations before creating a binding agreement to resolve the dispute. This was eventually resolved with the confirmation of a party wall award (a legal document, which sets out the rights and responsibilities of the owner instigating the building works, and legal owners of the adjacent, or nearby property) on 16 October 2019.
17. On 14 October 2019, the resident called the landlord for an update on the underpinning works to her property. The landlord re-commenced works on 22 October 2019, with piling works completed on 28 November 2019. After allowing the concrete piles to cure, its contractors commenced further works on 10 December 2019.
18. The resident complained, on 12 December 2019, about the delays in completing the works to the structure of her property.
19. According to the landlord’s repair records, the main ‘schedule of works’ were marked as complete on 13 December 2019.
20. In the landlord’s complaint response, dated 23 December 2019, it said it would start plastering and finishing works on 6 January 2020, and estimated to complete these by 27 January 2020. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays which it recognised had caused significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. It offered her £500 compensation, to be offset against the balance on her rent account.
21. On 7 January 2020 the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint response and compensation offer. She highlighted that she could not access her disabled facilities for a year, and her living room was used as a storage room for her bedroom furniture.
22. On 9 January 2020 the landlord notified the resident that its contractor was running late to attend the property that day, due to vehicle problems.  It said it would keep her updated on this. The resident complained about the delay on the same day, and also that a second contractor arrived late and did no work. The landlord apologised to the resident and confirmed it was striving to ensure the work was completed as soon as possible. It agreed to contact the resident on 17 January 2020 to discuss her complaint.
23. The landlord visited the property on 15 January 2020 to establish the remaining works. The resident expressed her dissatisfaction the following day that the landlord needed to re-do flooring works. She also confirmed that the bathroom was nearly finished and her toilet had been fitted.
24. On 22 January 2020 the landlord raised a repair for a camera survey of the resident’s new downstairs toilet, which was reported to be blocked. According to the landlord’s repair records, this was completed on the same day.
25. Between 23 and 24 January 2020:

a)     The resident confirmed that she had moved her ground–floor bedroom furniture out of her living room and discovered that a crack in the ceiling, caused by the subsidence, had caused a leak. She also raised a new issue, that the seal in the middle panel of the double–glazed window, in her new ground–floor bedroom, failed and was slowly filling with water.

b)     The landlord visited to establish the cause of the leak.

c)     The landlord left the resident a message to confirm that the living room windows would be replaced, and it would contact her to arrange this. In the message, the landlord also asked the resident to make contact to discuss any outstanding repairs and confirmed that a camera survey was arranged for the drains on 24 January 2020.

26. On 27 January 2020 the landlord raised repairs to the resident’s roof, to fix the leak. The landlord completed these repairs to the roof on 4 February 2020.
27. Between 5 and 9 February 2020 the resident sent correspondence to the landlord. She said that her toilet still needed repairing, her windows were old and needed replacing, and more radiators needed installing. The resident also reported that, during roof repairs, the landlord’s contractor damaged the drainpipe.
28. The resident asked the landlord to make a more ‘realistic’ offer of compensation, once repairs were complete, including: 25% rent reimbursement for the loss of the bedroom, due to works; 10% for the loss of the living room, which was used to store bedroom furniture; payment for electricity used by the landlord to carry out repairs; compensation for the distress caused by the delays; and a refund for additional flights purchased by the resident, to return from holiday, when it was discovered that the landlord needed to serve the neighbour a party wall notice.
29. Following the resident further reporting that her toilet was blocked, the landlord attended on 7 February 2020. The resident wrote to the landlord and said that its contractor was going to report back that there were additional issues with the waste pipe inside the property. A follow-on repair was raised on 7 February 2020 for the reoccurring issue with the resident’s ground–floor toilet.
30. On 12 February 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident to advise that it would call her that day to discuss the next steps in relation to her downstairs toilet. It also advised that it had been unable to find a suitable resolution for the resident’s complaint, so it escalated this to the ‘review’ stage of its complaints procedure. The landlord said that it aimed to respond within 15 working days.
31. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 February 2020 and asked to attend to complete a full property inspection on 24 February 2020.
32. On 13 February 2020 the resident confirmed that the landlord rectified the internal issues with the toilet that day. She also said that the landlord attempted to correct the bathroom door, but it “bodged” the job. The resident said that she was also waiting to hear what happened to a mirror that was on her wall and removed by the contractors, and that the lock to her bedroom needed repair. She confirmed that her windows were going to be measured on 3 March 2020 for replacement. 
33. On 19 February 2020 the landlord asked to visit the resident on 21 February 2020 to discuss her complaint. She replied that she wanted the landlord to “put the house right first” and raised new repairs. The landlord confirmed that it would discuss the repairs with the resident during its visit the following week.
34. The landlord noted, on 24 February 2020, that the resident refused a property inspection and asked for it to be done with her partner present.
35. On 25 February 2020 the landlord raised repairs to clear the resident’s guttering, fix the downpipe to the rear of the property, inspect and fill any holes present to the rear extension, inspect the chimney pointing and flashing, and inspect to fix the resident’s downstairs sliding bathroom door.  
36. On 27 February 2020 the resident complained about the delay in repairs to her bathroom door, drainpipe and guttering, and that her windows and radiators still needed replacing. The resident also said that she believed her mirror was stolen by a contractor.
37. The landlord visited the resident on 3 March 2020. It noted that it would assign her a single point of contact and complete various repairs as raised by the resident. These included: to repair the bedroom and bathroom doors, complete an electric condition report and fit smoke alarms, fit a radiator in the front room, repair the chimney flashing, clear out the gutters, replace broken downpipe clips to the rear elevation,               inspect and fill any holes to the single storey rear extension, point lead flashing above front entrance canopy and clean out guttering, and fit a downpipe to the side of front porch to connect onto existing guttering.
38. The landlord also logged on its system that it agreed to pause the complaint process until the works were carried out.
39. The landlord logged the repairs for the bedroom and bathroom doors as complete on 7 March 2020.
40. The resident confirmed, on 16 March 2020, that the smoke alarms and a new radiator had been installed, and her electric fittings were changed on 14 March 2020.
41. The landlord’s notes say that, on 21 March 2020, it completed works to the resident’s chimney, gutters, and downpipe; however, the resident reported that the job was not completed satisfactorily, and roof tiles had been broken. She also reported that a drain was blocked again. On 23 March 2020, the landlord agreed to complete remedial work on the same day, but had to cancel this, following the government’s Covid pandemic social distancing advice. The landlord advised the resident it would try to make good the work to the roofing, when it was able to do so.
42. On 26 March 2020 the landlord noted that it sent a ‘complaint suspension letter’ to the resident. It also contacted the resident to explain the circumstances around this and it agreed to remove the scaffolding. The scaffolding was removed on 28 March 2020.
43. The landlord raised repairs to the broken roof tiles and chimney on 14 and 20 May 2020. These were marked as completed on 23 May 2020 and 6 June 2020.
44. Between 26 and 27 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord to take her complaint “off pause”, and the landlord replied that the resident’s complaint handler would respond following their return from annual leave on 1 June 2020.
45. In the landlord’s complaint response of 15 June 2020, it said it had kept the resident updated on the repairs and “the ongoing challenges from a COVID-19 perspective”. It acknowledged that, while some of the delay to works to remedy the ground–floor extension was caused by the time taken to resolve the party wall notice with the neighbours, the timeframes from the initial survey in March 2019 to the completion of the works had been unacceptable. Going forward, it would assign a dedicated contracts manager to engage with specialist contractors during such complex cases, much earlier in the process. The landlord apologised for the poor level of service the resident received.
46. The landlord confirmed that, on 3 March 2020, it agreed to complete several works and, while they had taken longer than expected due to the coronavirus reduction of services, they had now been completed. The landlord confirmed that it agreed with the resident that the window replacement would be undertaken as part of a major works programme, which was on hold due to the coronavirus restrictions. Additionally, the landlord confirmed that it visited the property on 13 June 2020 to investigate the recurring problem the resident encountered with blockages to the external waste pipe to the downstairs. Following this visit, it agreed to instruct an independent company to complete a survey of the drains on 15 June 2020.
47. With regard to the resident stating items went missing during the under-pinning and redecoration works, the landlord advised that it was not possible to identify what happened to these items. This was due to the length of time since the works were completed. The landlord confirmed it investigated the matter and it was made clear to colleagues to care and respect the resident’s items. It also directed the resident to its risk and insurance team.
48. Finally, the landlord increased its offer of compensation to £2,653.
49. Between 16 and 20 June 2020, the resident expressed that she remained unhappy with the landlord’s complaint response. She said that works for filling in holes at the back extension and to repair the damage to the roof tiles, caused by a contractor, was not done. Additionally, the resident said that the landlord had before and after photos of her room, showing the items stolen by the contractor. The resident also expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord had not compensated her for the contractors using her power and for the ongoing toilet issues. The landlord noted that the resident said that, due to isolating from the coronavirus, the resident did not want anybody in her property at the time.
50. On 9 July 2020 the landlord sent the resident a copy of a survey completed by a drain specialist. It confirmed that this highlighted additional works required to the outside of the property, and it would appoint a contractor to complete this. The landlord acknowledged and apologised that it should have identified this, and said that, moving forward: contractor management meetings would now include homes where they had been out more than once; a surveyor would be present at all future CCTV inspections to understand what had been done; and a recommendation would be made to its complaints review panel that the drainage issues were reviewed further, with consideration being given to additional financial compensation. As requested by the resident, the landlord advised her of the qualifications its surveying team held.
51. On 7 August 2020 the landlord sent the resident its final response to her complaint. The landlord acknowledged that, once works commenced to the extension, the management of this and contractor performance was poor. It confirmed that the time taken for repairs and communication with resident was inadequate, and that it had not sufficiently addressed the impact of not having the use of the downstairs facilities for nearly 12 months. To learn from the service failure, it confirmed that it would appoint a dedicated surveyor from initial inspection through to completion of the works. They would manage the remedial works and ensure customers are kept updated throughout. They would also manage any issues with contractor behaviour and performance. Finally, where there was an additional element of resident having additional/specific needs, such as health conditions or a disability, the landlord would ensure a housing advisor was involved throughout to offer additional support.
52. Furthermore, the landlord acknowledged that it treated each job (for the drains) as a separate incident for a long period of time, without using historical information to see that this was a pattern of recurring issues. While CCTV surveys had been completed, recommendations were not acted upon. This caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience over a significant period of time, especially as the downstairs facilities were there to support her health and mobility needs. The landlord confirmed that it recommended changes to its drainage contractor processes to ensure repeat incidents were identified more quickly.
53. Based on the information available, the landlord offered the resident £5,056, broken down as:

a)     £3,806 adjustment to rent for the disruption and lack of use of the room between February 2019 and January 2020. This was 50% of overall rent, due the additional impact on the resident given her specific personal circumstances.

b)     £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused during the works to the ground–floor extension.

c)     £500 for the recurring issues with the drains and the distress and inconvenience this caused the resident.

d)     £250 as a gesture of goodwill towards loss of the missing items the resident listed.

54. The landlord confirmed that this was its final response to the resident’s complaint, and explained how she may refer her complaint to the Housing Ombudsman, if she remained dissatisfied.
55. In terms of the outstanding work on the drains, the landlord confirmed that it would arrange and manage this work in line with its normal service provision. The landlord also confirmed that the window replacement was on hold, at the resident’s request, because she was shielding from the coronavirus.
56. On 3 November 2020 this Service received confirmation that the drainage works, recommended by the independent surveyor, were completed.
57. Immediately before this complaint was accepted for investigation by the Ombudsman, the landlord offered an increased level of compensation to the resident. The resident declined the offer. It appears that the increased compensation was based on a wider range of issues and time period than are considered in this investigation.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of reactive repairs and major works to the resident’s home, including to the structure and drainage

58. The landlord’s repairs policy explains how it will respond to reactive repairs. It will attend to emergencies within three hours to make safe and will try to complete the full repair within 24 hours. It will make an appointment for urgent repairs, which cause serious inconvenience, and complete the repair within three working days. For routine repairs (day to day repairs which do not cause immediate inconvenience), the landlord will make an appointment and complete the repair within a maximum of one month. Finally, programmed repairs can be scheduled for a later date and carried out with other similar repairs in the area. The landlord will make an appointment and complete the repair within three months. 
59. However, a lot of the works, such as the underpinning, were major works and not reactive repairs. On occasions there will be circumstances where a repair may not be able to be completed within the designated timeframe. This is usually where the repairs are complex, and further investigation is required, or are of a large scale. In such cases, it would be reasonable to expect the landlord to contact the resident, explain the reasons for the delay, provide new timeframes for the repair, and keep them updated.
60. The landlord took almost a year to complete underpinning works, which meant the resident could not use her ground–floor bathroom and bedroom and her living room was storing furniture during this time. This was specifically inconvenient and distressing for the resident, who said that she was initially told that the works would take three weeks, as these rooms were tailored to her specific needs. The landlord experienced problems in finding a suitable contractor, and the issues with the party wall added time to the overall process. However, as acknowledged by the landlord, it should have accounted for these issues prior to the resident removing her belongings and work starting. The landlord not doing this resulted in lengthy delays to the underpinning works, which was unreasonable. There is also little evidence of the resident being kept updated, without her pursuing these updates, which was, again, unreasonable.
61. The resident reported problems with the toilet’s drainage on 22 January 2020 and the landlord completed a repair to this on 13 February 2020. As the problem had been recurring for a number of years, the landlord instructed an independent survey in July 2020. The works identified as a result of this were completed in November 2020. The landlord acknowledged that it should have rectified the recurring problem sooner. This is especially true, given that the ground–floor toilet was adapted to the resident’s disability and not having use of this predictably caused inconvenience to the resident.
62. The landlord also raised several other routine or programmed repairs, which were carried out within a reasonable timeframe. These included:

a)     The resident reported a leak on 24 January 2020; this was fixed on 4 February 2020. However, the contractor broke the downpipe, which was fixed on 21 March 2020.

b)     The resident reported that her bedroom and bathroom doors needed fixing on 13 February 2020. The repairs were carried out on 7 March 2020.

c)     On 3 March 2020 the landlord agreed to fit a new radiator and smoke alarms, and carry out an electric condition report. This was completed on 14 March 2020.

d)     The landlord also agreed on 3 March 2020 to complete repairs to the chimney, to holes in the rear extension, to clear the gutters and carry out roof repairs. This was marked as completed on 21 March 2020, but further repairs were required and completed on 23 May and 6 June 2020.

e)     Finally, the landlord agreed to repair the resident’s window through its planned works scheme. However, due to the coronavirus, the resident was shielding and therefore this was put on hold.

63. Many of these repairs were attended to or completed within reasonable timeframes and in line with the landlord’s policy for reactive repairs. Not all were, however, and some resulted in the need for further work.
64. Overall, with all the above taken together, it is clear that there were significant failings in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the property.
65. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, which are also found in our investigation, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. In considering this, we take into account whether the landlord’s redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
66. The landlord acknowledged where things went wrong in its handling of the repairs, and apologised to the resident. It put things right by changing its policies for contract and repairs management, changing how it communicated and supported vulnerable residents during repairs, and by offering £4806 compensation.
67. The compensation offered was in line with the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance, and also the landlord’s complaints procedure, which allows for compensation above £1,000 in exceptional circumstances, such as long-term loss of the use of rooms, or lengthy and ongoing inconvenience. The landlord’s service failures were significant, and the resident clearly suffered a lengthy period of disruption, inconvenience, and frustration. The landlord identified and acknowledged that impact. It apologised, learnt from its mistakes, made changes to its processes, and offered compensation which recognised the scale and nature of the impact on the resident. These were proportionate and reasonable steps to take in these circumstances.

The resident’s missing belongings

68. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence from the time of the complaint to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In the absence of any specific dates or times of when the resident’s items went missing, there are limited steps it could take to investigate the reports or implement practical measures to address the issues.
69. While the Ombudsman is not able to reach a conclusion on what happened to the resident’s belongings, the landlord has demonstrated that it took reasonable steps to investigate the complainant’s concerns and explain its position to her. The landlord discussed the matter with its staff, and reminded them that resident’s belongings should be treated with respect, but ultimately there is no evidence that the belongings went missing as a result of the landlord or contractor’s actions. The landlord referred the resident to its insurer, should she wish to pursue the matter further, which was reasonable given the circumstances of lost or stolen items. It offered the resident a £250 gesture of goodwill towards the missing items, which was beyond its obligations because no service failure had been identified.

Determination (decision)

70. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress prior to this investigation, in relation to its handling of reactive repairs and major works to the resident’s home.
71. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint that the resident’s belongings went missing while its contractors carried out repairs.

Reasons

72. The landlord has provided compensation proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its delays in completing works to the structure and drainage of the property.
73. This Service is unable to conclude what happened to the resident’s items, due to a lack of evidence. However, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint.

Recommendations

74. The compensation offered by the landlord during its complaints process was reasonable for the issues examined in this investigation. The increased compensation offered to the resident by the landlord prior to this investigation appears to be for both issues in this investigation, plus some which were concluded to be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Because of that, the landlord may wish to consider whether to make the same offer again. However, such a decision would be wholly at the landlord’s discretion, and would have no bearing on this investigation’s determinations.