Sheffield City Council (201903587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201903587

Sheffield City Council

29 October 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 the landlord’s response to multiple repair issues reported by the resident.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling has also been investigated.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord at the property, with a tenancy start date of 17 March 2014.
4. The landlord has an implied responsibility, under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, to repair/maintain the structure and exterior of the property. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), the landlord also has a responsibility to ensure the property is free of specific hazards, this includes a responsibility to effectively manage any asbestos containing materials (ACMs) within the property and preventing damp and mould growth.
5. The landlord’s complaints procedure, at the time of the complaint involved a three stage process. Stage one (‘problem solving’ stage) involves cases that can be resolved quickly, with a resolution timescale of three working days. Stage two (‘investigation stage’) resolutions have a response timescale of 28 days and stage three (‘review stage’) require further investigation and sign off from senior members of staff. There is no listed timescale for the review stage of the process, which is detailed as an ‘opportunity to review the investigation process, the investigation conclusions, and the steps taken to achieve resolution of the customer’s complaint’.
6. The landlord has provided records detailing three separate occasions (May 2016, March 2017 and April 2018) where the resident reported multiple repair issues dating back to the beginning of the tenancy. In May 2016 and March 2017, the resident reported in excess of 40 separate repair issues, with inspections having taken place and works agreed but then not taking place. She also said that she had complained about these same repairs on multiple occasions previously. The landlord’s records show that it attempted to contact the resident on multiple occasions in May 2016 to arrange an inspection and when it was unable to make contact, it left a message asking that she contact it to schedule said inspection. In March 2017, a pre-inspection was arranged, though it is not known what took place thereafter.
7. The landlord completed an annual visit on 18 April 2018, during which the resident again reported multiple repair issues. On 25 April, an inspection took place and repair issues were logged. The resident also logged a complaint, stating that she had been let down by the landlord’s ‘false promises’, that she had been left without essential facilities (kitchen and bathroom) for periods, that she struggled as a single parent in full time employment with a vulnerable child and that she was considering legal action. She provided a lengthy list of repairs that she considered outstanding throughout the property (including to the bathroom, kitchen, garden, front door and two bedrooms). It is not known whether this complaint progressed through the landlord’s complaints process.

Summary of events

8. The resident submitted a list of outstanding issues to the Ombudsman, on 20 June 2019, this included, mould in the bathroom, damp and mould throughout the property, leaks from the toilet, requirement for a new bath, external drains needing work, new flooring in the bathroom and kitchen, new cupboards required, compensation for a new fridge, a replacement plug socket, replacing asbestos in the ceiling and compensation for having to replace new carpets.
9. The Ombudsman attempted to facilitate the resident’s concerns through the landlord’s complaints procedure, however, these initial attempts were unsuccessful. The resident continued to report issues to this Service and, on 6 August 2019, the landlord called the Ombudsman and explained that it had identified repairs which they were dealing with but that it was unable to progress the complaint until these had completed. The Ombudsman explained that the outstanding repairs did not prevent the landlord from progressing the complaint as it would be able to detail outstanding works and its plans for resolving them as part of its response.
10. The Ombudsman continued to provide assistance to the resident in her attempts to obtain a formal complaint response. Following further contact, including confirmation, on 11 September 2019, that the Ombudsman would consider escalating the case to the landlord’s senior management team if no response was provided.
11. The landlord sent its investigation stage response to the resident on 20 September 2019. This followed a home visit on 18 September and acknowledged that its service had ‘fallen short of the standard you’re entitled to expect’ for which it apologised. The landlord responded to each of the issues that had been raised by the resident:

a)     Mould on bathroom walls – no mould had been evident during the inspection. As a goodwill gesture, the landlord agreed to replace the architrave, paint the walls, attach the mixer shower and renew tiling and the toilet seat.

b)     Replastering – No plastering was required in the kitchen, living room and bathroom, though it agreed to re-plaster a bedroom cupboard and ‘make good’ the pantry and downstairs cupboard.

c)     Leaking toilet – it had fitted a new toilet but agreed to also replace the seat.

d)     Leaking bath – a new bath had been fitted.

e)     Drains – a blockage had been identified during bathroom works and this had been cleared.

f)       Flooring – bathroom flooring had been replaced and matching kitchen flooring would soon also be laid.

g)     Kitchen cupboards would be replaced.

h)     £200 compensation was offered for the damaged fridge.

i)        A 2013 asbestos report for the property had identified no asbestos and it was satisfied on this basis that the ceilings at the property did not need replacement.

j)        Plug socket had been replaced.

k)     £280 compensation was offered for the living room carpet.

12. In addition, the landlord said that it would replace two internal doors, collect ‘debris’ that had been left by works, that it would level off the bathroom radiator, renew heating pipes and replace front door seals. It said that all outstanding works had been ordered and these would be completed ‘as soon as possible’. The landlord offered an overall amount of compensation of £750 (including the £480 listed above) to reflect the delay and inconvenience the resident had experienced.
13. There is no record of an immediate response from the resident to the landlord’s complaint response. On 10 November 2019, she emailed the Ombudsman stating that a senior landlord staff member had attended the property to review the situation. She said that it had commenced bathroom works but not completed them, with no flooring and mould still present. She said that asbestos remained within the property, there was an issue with the gas meter and mould remained in cupboards. The resident said that the landlord had offered her money back for the carpet and fridge, which she found acceptable, but that the landlord’s additional offer of ‘less than £200 compensation for six years of neglect’ was unacceptable. She said that she had contacted three times in the previous month to say that she did not agree with the offer of compensation.
14. The Ombudsman requested the resident to provide the final response she had received from the landlord. She provided the investigation stage response from September with her annotations on 14 November, which said that mould persisted on the bathroom walls, that bathroom works had not been completed as stated, drains had not been cleared and that during the September inspection it had been agreed to re-plaster the kitchen, remove the artex containing ACMs and to replace four internal doors (not two as stated). She disagreed that the plug socket had been replaced and the additional works identified during the inspection had also not taken place. It is not known if these specific concerns were raised with the landlord by the resident.
15. During January 2020, the Ombudsman discussed the progress of the case with the resident. She said that she had attempted to escalate her complaint and received no response; she also said that the property remained affected by ‘mould and rising damp’ and that the issues were having a significant impact on her and her son’s health. Again, it is not known if the resident’s specific concerns were raised with the landlord at this time.
16. There then followed a gap of nearly six months during which there is no evidence of progression on the case. On 22 July 2020, the resident made further contact with this Service and the Ombudsman again attempted to encourage the landlord to progress the case through its complaints process, including a requirement that it respond by 12 August 2020. It responded on 29 July to say that it had received no response from the resident to its September 2019 investigation stage response, but that it would carry out a review of the case and send a response by 21 August.
17. On 12 August 2020, the resident contacted this Service to say that she had not received a review stage response from the landlord; she also said that she had never received the investigation stage response back in September 2019. The Ombudsman sent her a copy of this previous response, though it is noted that she had provided her annotated copy of this letter to the Ombudsman back in November (see above). The Ombudsman asked that she make further contact if she did not hear from the landlord by 21 August.
18. The resident’s mother contacted the landlord’s Chief Executive Officer on her behalf on 25 September 2020, referring to the lack of maintenance on the property over a seven year period, the impact on her daughter and grandson’s health and wellbeing and that her attempts to find out what was going on led her to believe that the landlord was unaware of the extent of the repair issues at the property. The landlord’s internal email correspondence, dated 28 September, identified that it was aware that the resident’s ceiling had ‘come down’ and that she ‘might need a decant’, though it is unclear when this might have happened, or how it was reported. The landlord’s internal correspondence also said:

a)     The resident had made several complaints over the years and had been offered compensation.

b)     Its last successful visit was back in April 2018.

c)     There had been further contact between it and this Service during July 2020, but no response was provided.

d)     A further visit was required, though repairs would need to take place first.

e)     It acknowledged that it had been in contact with the resident ‘many times’ and that she kept her house in an ‘immaculate’ condition, but had clearly ‘lost all faith in us as a service so this needs to be prioritised’.

19. On 15 October 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident listing the works it had completed at the property (drains, new bathroom floor, kitchen pipework, sink plugs, replacement front door, windows, air vents, side gate, kitchen cupboard), those works that remained outstanding (roof leak, bathroom wall, porch skimmed, porch radiator, kitchen plinths, staircase walls skimmed, handrail to be renewed, decoration of ceiling following roof leak resolution) and those works that it did not consider needed doing (kitchen floor, kitchen cupboard not to be removed, kitchen plastering, floorboards and extra sockets not required in bedroom, carpet cleaning). The landlord asked the resident to contact and confirm that the above was her understanding of the situation and said that her claim for compensation was being dealt with separately and it would write to her once all repairs were completed.

20. The Ombudsman issued the landlord with an unofficial Complaint Handling Failure Order (CHFO) on 15 December 2020. This was not classified as an official CHFO as the Ombudsman did not formally introduce this new measure until 1 January 2021. The CHFO detailed the difficulties this Service had experienced in its attempts to progress the case through the landlord’s complaints process and required the landlord to provide a detailed final response within five days. On 15 December 2020, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it had sent the 15 October 2020 response following the resident’s further contact and, though this response had ‘omitted to signpost the resident to the Ombudsman’ this should be considered its review response.

21. During a detailed telephone discussion with the Ombudsman on 23 March 2021, the resident provided an in depth account of the issues she had faced in the property. This included the poor condition of the property at the start of the tenancy (no boiler or electrics, leaks), windows in need of replacement throughout, flooding incidents, issues with unsafe bannisters, a constant leak in the bathroom, no replacement kitchen, ceiling re-plastered following a cave in but did a poor job – the landlord had agreed to replace this but there had been no action. There was also no radiator in her son’s bedroom.

22. The Ombudsman accepted the case for formal investigation and requested evidence from the landlord. The landlord responded to this evidence request on 17 September 2021, including the following comments as part of this process:

a)     The landlord confirmed that it was made aware, in September 2020, that the resident had suffered a stroke.

b)     It had not received a response to the compensation offer it made in September 2019 and standard practice was to close a case in such circumstances.

c)     Its records show that it had contacted the resident on 6 December 2019 to explain that the complaint had been addressed internally and the resident had ‘complimented the workers who had been into the property’.

d)     It had paused ongoing work in September 2020 so that a decant could be arranged; she had not accepted any properties offered and remained in the property whilst works completed.

e)     The bathroom was completely renewed in October/November 2019, except for the basin. No further renewal works would take place unless repair issues were identified that required this.

f)       No agreement to replace the kitchen had been made, though it would now arrange for a surveyor to complete a ‘full stock condition’ of the property, including consideration of whether a new kitchen or any repairs were required.

g)     There was no leak to the living room identified during an October 2020 inspection.

h)     It had no record of a request for new windows and it would only carry out such works if they were identified as requiring replacement due to disrepair.

i)        It had no record of completing the bannister works as had been requested in October 2020, for which it apologised. Its stock survey would identify this as a repair issue for resolution.

j)        It would need to complete a survey to establish if there was water in the foundations.

k)     A drain survey would be conducted to identify any drainage issues.

l)        It had offered to clean damaged carpet, but the resident had declined this offer.

m)   It had closed the works order to add a radiator to the bedroom as it was unable to contact the resident.

n)     There were no outstanding works orders at the property.

23. The landlord has also provided its repairs log, which includes the following:

a)     March 2017 – minor leak repaired.

b)     May 2017 – blocked/leaking soil stack remedied.

c)     November 2017 – Repairs to WC.

d)     February 2018 – internal doors, tiling and sealing works within bathroom.

e)     March 2018 – leaking water pipe remedied. Repairs to pitched roof. Repairs to internal and external doors. Repairs to water supply and waste system.

f)       April 2018 – renewal works to bathroom.

g)     May 2018 – further works to bathroom. Leaking water pipe remedied.

h)     August 2019 – radiator removed and refixed, socket refixed, plastering works.

i)        June 2019 – Extractor fans works, bathroom works,

j)        September 2019 – plastering, bathroom and door works.

k)     January 2020 – remedy leaking roof.

l)        February 2020 – repairs to pitched roof.

m)   May 2020 – renew radiator.

n)     September 2020 – repairs to pitched roof. Remedy blocked/leaking drain.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

24. The historical repair issues noted in the background section above, as well as the repairs log information dating from before the complaint under investigation, have been referenced for contextual purposes only. This investigation does not have the scope to make findings on these historic issues as the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (paragraph 39 a) requires an issue to progress through a member landlord’s complaints procedure in a timely manner before the Ombudsman can consider that issue formally.

25. The brief overview of these historical issues provides relevant context however. It is evident that the landlord was aware of both significant concerns with the property condition dating back to the beginning of the tenancy and that there were communication issues with the resident, including a difficulty arranging site visits. It is also reasonable to conclude from the evidence that the landlord was aware of the household vulnerability. The Ombudsman’s investigatory powers are wide ranging, with an overall requirement to look at all the circumstances of a case. As such, the landlord’s response has been considered on the basis that it was fully aware that this was a property that required close monitoring due to its history and one that was occupied by a resident who needed support to ensure she benefitted from access to a reasonable standard of service delivery.

26. It is not in dispute that the landlord has a repair/maintenance responsibility at the property. Caselaw determines that landlord responsibility commences from the point that a repair issue is reported to it, with a requirement that it then resolve said issues within a ‘reasonable’ timeframe. In this case however, it is not clear when the issues under investigation were reported to the landlord. It is apparent that the historic issues faced by the resident had contributed to a breakdown in the landlord/tenant relationship. When she brought her case to the Ombudsman, her communication highlighted the issues that she believed remained outstanding and the Ombudsman then listed these same issues to the landlord when attempting to work with it to facilitate the case through its complaints process. This approach was in accordance with the local resolution process in place at the Ombudsman at the time, though it is important to note here that the overriding principle of the dispute resolution process here is to encourage communication between the landlord and the tenant, rather than acting on behalf of either party.

27. It is not clear whether the resident was reluctant to engage with the landlord, or whether she had lost faith in its management of her tenancy. She referred at points to repeated telephone contact with members of staff; whilst these have not been evidenced, this does not establish one way of the other whether she was contacting the landlord regularly to get herself heard. In any case, given the historical context described above, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to welcome the opportunity to establish a better relationship with its tenant, by working with her and seeking to put right issues for which it was responsible.

27. At the investigation stage, the landlord belatedly offered its position on the issues raised by the resident (nearly three months after the Ombudsman’s first request). This acknowledged that its overall service delivery had ‘fallen short’ of expected service standards and responded to each of the issues raised. This said that it had seen no evidence of mould growth during its visit on 18 September 2019. It also identified those areas where it agreed works were required (including some re-plastering, new kitchen flooring, replacement cupboards, new doors, pipework, front door seals), which would be completed as soon as possible. It also confirmed works that had already been completed (including bathroom works, plug socket replaced, drain unblocked) and those that it did not believe were required, including re-plastering works and replacing the ceiling (as no ACMs were contained within it – a reasonable response given the 2013 inspection information it referred to). This followed an inspection shortly before the formal response. However, no records were available of this inspection. It was not known, therefore, whether the landlord had investigated the resident’s reports of damp within the property, by appointing a survey from a qualified surveyor for example.

27. Whilst the landlord’s response was delayed and the supporting evidence for its findings are not available to this investigation, the overall response here did offer the landlord’s position on each of the issues raised. It also apologised and offered compensation for acknowledged service failures. It is of concern however that there is no evidence of any progression on the complaint from that point. The resident made further contact with the Ombudsman, in both November 2019 and January 2020 to say she remained dissatisfied. She also said that she had contacted the landlord on multiple occasions.

28. It has not been possible to obtain a clear picture, from the evidence provided of what actions the landlord took following its investigation stage response. Its repairs log does not provide enough detail to ascertain exactly what each respective job relates to (for example, it is not possible to tell which room each item of work related to) and, other than that there is only the October 2020 list of works that was provided and the clarification provided by a senior officer to the Ombudsman in September 2021. The October 2020 correspondence was confirmed as the landlord’s review response retrospectively, though it did not present as such given its wording. In the circumstances, given the extent of the service failure that the landlord had acknowledged previously, the resident would have had a reasonable expectation that the issues she had initially raised with it would have been addressed specifically through the complaints process. Cross referencing between the resident’s initial reports and the landlord’s investigation/review stage responses shows that, in the main the landlord did this, with the important exception of the water ingress issues reported by the resident.

29. The resident’s initial reports to the Ombudsman, from June 2019 clearly identified her concerns that both damp and mould were present in the property. Whilst the landlord addressed the mould growth in its investigation stage response, it did not refer to possible damp within the property. There was also no mention of damp in the review stage response and it was not until September 2021, when the landlord’s senior officer confirmed the need to complete a full stock survey, including investigation of possible water ingress in the foundations and consideration of any drainage issues, that any evidence of a full and considered view on this important issue is seen.

30. The Ombudsman notes, from the landlord’s repairs log, as well as the resident’s reports, that this is a property that has been affected by multiple water ingress issues over the years. This has included leaks from the WC unit and roof leaks. In the circumstances, it is considered that the landlord has not been sufficiently proactive in looking at the water ingress issues at this property in a holistic manner. The landlord’s position, as outlined in its senior review of the case in September 2021 is welcomed, as the steps detailed will identify any outstanding issues. However, this position was provided more than two years after the resident’s initial reports to the Ombudsman. These actions will also identify and address any additional issues raised by the resident following the commencement of the complaints process.

31.On this basis, the Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall response to this case to amount to a significant service failure, with a vulnerable household left experiencing a significant detriment over a protracted period. The landlord’s offer of compensation, amounting to £480 for damaged possessions (which the resident was satisfied with), plus a further £270 for delay and inconvenience, is not considered reasonable. A larger amount of compensation has been detailed in the orders section below, together with a further order that the landlord share with both the resident and this Service, the findings of the stock survey it has completed, or will complete. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord take note of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on water ingress issues for further guidance on how it might consider such issues in future.

Complaints handling

32. It is of concern that the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint has been a significant contributing factor in the overall failures on this case. The landlord delayed in sending an investigation stage response whilst works completed, though the Ombudsman explained why this was not necessary. There is also little evidence of the landlord following up on this investigation stage response as would have been both reasonable and appropriate given the history of the case. The resident refers to multiple contacts with the landlord at this time, and the landlord itself referred to December 2019 contact in which the resident expressed satisfaction with completed works. However, there is no evidence of any such calls, suggesting possible record keeping issues at the landlord’s end.

33. It has not been possible to identify the point at which the resident requested escalation of her complaint, though it is clear, from the Ombudsman’s further attempts to facilitate the case through the landlord’s complaints process from July 2020 onwards, that there were significant issues with the landlord’s service delivery here, resulting in the unofficial CHFO issued to the landlord in December 2020.

34. The landlord’s October 2020 response was retrospectively confirmed as its review response, though this position does not present as satisfactory as the letter only listed works completed, outstanding and not required. The letter did not confirm its status as a formal complaint response, did not signpost to the Ombudsman and did not address the full extent of the resident’s dissatisfaction. It confirmed that it would review compensation upon completion of works, though there is no evidence that this has taken place.

35. The senior review of the case, provided at the point that the landlord provided evidence to the Ombudsman in September 2021, provided a more in depth analysis of the case, dating back to the commencement of the complaints process. This also outlined the steps it would now take in order to resolve the issues at the property. Whilst these comments and actions are welcomed, it Is not clear that this information has been shared with the resident; it is also of concern that this more thorough review of the case has only taken place at the point that the case was awaiting formal Ombudsman intervention.

Determination (decision)

36. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s response to the multiple repair issues at the property.

37. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration with respect to the landlord’s complaints handling.

Reasons

38. The landlord acknowledged that its service delivery had fallen short of service standards when it provided its investigation stage response, for which it apologised and offered compensation. The Ombudsman is also not satisfied that it met such standards thereafter, with no clear response to the specific issues raised. In addition, there was no clear response to the multiple water ingress issues reported within the complaint and showing on the property repair records.

39. The landlord decision to complete a stock review, including consideration of any foundation related water ingress issues, is welcomed, though it is noted that this was agreed more than two years after the initial complaint. In the circumstances, the landlord’s offer of compensation is not considered reasonable nor proportionate, with a further amount ordered to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience over the course of this protracted repairs process.

40. The landlord’s poor complaint handling has exacerbated the resident’s sense of frustration over the course of the complaint, leading to a further deterioration in the landlord/tenant relationship. The investigation stage response was significantly delayed and the review stage response was both delayed and inadequate.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

41. The landlord to pay the resident the £750 compensation detailed in its investigation stage response (if it has not done so already), as well as an additional £750 in relation to the failures identified with its response to the repair issues, plus a further £250 for the failures identified with its complaints handling.

42. The landlord to confirm to both the resident and this Service, in writing, the outcome of the full stock survey it has completed following the September 2021 agreement to do so. The landlord to confirm expected timescales for any recommended works as part of this report.

43. The landlord to confirm compliance with the above order by 26 November 2021.

Recommendations

44. The landlord to review the recommendations highlighted by the Ombudsman in its recent spotlight report on damp/mould issues (Spotlight on… reports – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)

45. The landlord to review the complaints handling failures identified on this case, in conjunction with its self assessment of its complaints handling following the introduction of the Ombudsman’s complaints handling code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) with training to be provided to relevant staff where appropriate.