Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202004948)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004948

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

23 December 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. the reports of damp to the resident’s bedroom;
2. the maintenance of the garden since a Highways Notice was issued in July 2020;
3. the related complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant of the property since 17 September 2001. The property is described as a two–bedroom semi–detached house.
The resident has told this Service that she suffers from chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, neurocardiogenic syncope and ME.
The tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the home and the resident is obliged to keep the garden and any land associated with the home tidy and free of rubbish, including trimming of hedges.
The resident does not pay a weekly service charge; however, the tenancy agreement allows for the provision of reasonable new service charges with the landlord calculating the cost of the provision of the service.
The landlord’s repairs policy identifies that it is committed to delivering a high-quality reactive maintenance service that meets customer expectations. The policy aims to deliver repairs right first time and to meet the statutory requirements for the health and safety of residents in their homes.
The repairs policy aims to be responsive and offer choice to residents and shows that if the landlord carries out repairs that are identified in the tenancy agreement to be the resident’s responsibility, the resident will be recharged for the cost of the work and any associated administrative costs.
The landlord’s website has a section providing its Covid-19 repairs update which explains that its service delivery was impacted over the past 19 months, that it returned to business as usual in April 2021 but that difficulties continued.
The landlord had a three stage complaints procedure, with the first contact resolution completed within three days, formal investigation within 28 days and the complaint review within 21 days. In December 2020, the landlord revised its complaint procedure, with the first stage resolution completed in two working days, formal investigation within 10 working days and the review stage within 15 working days.
The landlord’s compensation policy accepts that on occasion high standards may not be achieved and sets out the circumstances in which compensation is payable. The policy excludes claims for damage caused by the landlord or its contractors and advises that those claims will be passed to its insurers for investigation.
Some of the resident’s concerns relate to a decision made by the landlord in 2016 regarding her responsibility for garden maintenance. She has also referred to some historical repairs-related events. These have been considered as context only and this investigation is focused on what happened since September 2019 when the resident began reporting damp problems on a regular basis, these events were subject to a formal complaint that exhausted the landlord’s complaints process in January 2021.

Summary of Events

On 13 September 2019, the resident raised concerns about an outstanding roof repair and asked the landlord whether it could assist with brambles growing in her garden.
The resident complained on 7 October 2019 about water penetration into the main bedroom and the landlord arranged to visit the resident on 9 October 2019. On 5 November 2019, the resident chased the landlord for an update following its visit and on 19 November 2019 the landlord apologised for its lack of contact and advised that the contractor had carried out an external inspection to ascertain the works required to rectify the damp patch in the bedroom.
Over the next two months, the resident chased the landlord for an update on the damp works and it advised that it had visited with its contractor but access had been refused so the contractor would try and arrange another appointment.
Emails were exchanged between 13 and 14 February 2020 as the resident wanted a meeting with the landlord in addition to the appointment arranged with the contractor. Following the visit, the previous week by the contractor, the resident chased the landlord on 28 February 2020 requesting a start date for the work.
Emails were exchanged between the landlord and the resident on 6 March 2020, with the landlord confirming it had arranged an asbestos survey and the resident requesting a visit at her property.
On 1 June 2020, the resident chased the asbestos check for the bedroom wall with the landlord. In response, the landlord advised on 4 June 2020 that the asbestos contractor would be in contact to arrange a convenient appointment.
On 12 June 2020, the landlord’s records show that it left a voice message for the resident to reiterate its position that it would not carry out any further work to the garden.
The resident made an initial complaint by telephone on 13 July 2020. She complained that:
1. there was ongoing damp at the property, which had caused her health issues she had been chasing this for weeks without receiving a response and she felt like she was ‘hitting her head against a wall’
1. the asbestos check had been completed, that the bedroom wall needed to be taken down and the damp– proof course installed
2. works were previously carried out to the garden and she had been informed that there was no action that the landlord could take but the local authority highways department had issued a seven-day legal order for the obstruction from the garden to be resolved
3. she was in ill health and did not believe that it was fair that the gardening work was her responsibility to resolve when the landlord had originally failed to resolve the issue.
The landlord’s internal email of 14 July 2020 show that it had communicated with the resident and previously advised that, due to Covid-19, contractors were not working in occupied properties.
On 15 July 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to request a copy of the highways notice, which the resident supplied that same day. The Highway Notice was dated 9 July 2020 and advised that the local authority had a duty to ensure that the highway is kept free from obstructions and to achieve this it required that the boundary hedges along the fence line be cut back to stop the obstruction of the footpath. It added that a further inspection would take place in seven days.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 15 July 2020 – it noted that she was not happy with the initial response to the complaint and requested contact from the contractor responsible for remedying the damp. The resident explained that her main reasons for escalating the complaint were related to the garden as:
1. due to her health problems, she could not carry out much maintenance, but did mow the lawn and trim the hedges
1. a second opinion assessment she had received had advised that the work completed by the landlord to the garden in 2016 had not been completed to a good standard
2. the work required was landscaping and this was not the type of maintenance a tenant was required to carry out
3. she had received a Highways Notice dated 7 July 2020 and she had been given 11 days to resolve the overhanging branches
4. landlord representatives had visited in February 2020 and agreed with her about the garden issues
5. for over a year, she had experienced a lack of response to her phone calls and emails.
The contractor carrying out the work to remedy the damp emailed the landlord on 20 July 2020 to advise it had contacted the resident and it could start the installation of the damp proof membrane by mid–late August.
On 27 July 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint advising that:
1. it had arranged to inspect with its contractor regarding the damp report and the brambles in the garden following her contact on 13 September 2019 but when it attended there was no access
1. it had tried to contact the resident on 3 March 2020 to advise that it would not undertake any further works to the garden and on 4 March 2020, the resident provided her current contact details
2. the landlord and its contractor visited on 12 March 2020, and the asbestos contractor was asked to arrange a convenient appointment to carry out the asbestos survey for the bedroom wall
3. it would not undertake any further work to the garden as the tenancy agreement required the resident to maintain the garden including the hedge
4. all internal work, including asbestos surveys, had to be suspended to comply with Covid-19 government guidelines but the asbestos contractor had completed the survey on 18 July 2020. Now the lockdown restrictions had eased, the damp contractor had advised that the work may take place in mid-August and it would confirm the date.
The landlord subsequently spoke with the resident about the garden and it visited on 11 August 2020. The landlord’s records note that during the visit, it confirmed its position that it would not undertake any further garden works.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 August 2020, outlining her dissatisfaction with the complaint investigation because of:
1. the time taken to undertake the required internal work to remedy the leak in her bedroom as the work had not started and no one had been in contact to carry it out
1. the previous work to the garden had been unsuccessful as the trees had not been killed off properly, bramble was not cut back, and the weeds were not subdued during the visit in February 2020.
The contractor undertaking the damp works emailed the landlord on 25 August 2020 to advise that they had spoken with the resident at the end of July 2020 advising that it was unable to start the work for a few weeks and that it intended to start shortly .
On 26 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her request for a complaint review and adding that she should receive a response within 15 working days. The landlord emailed the resident on 2 September 2020, requesting a convenient time to discuss the complaint.
The landlord emailed the damp contractor on 3 September 2020 to request that it keep the resident updated.
The resident responded to the landlord on 4 September 2020, advising that she had other information to add to her complaint and preferred that communication remained in writing.
Emails were exchanged between the landlord and the resident on 15 September 2020, confirming that the landlord had:
1. provided a provisional schedule of works for the resident to review
1. advised it would visit the property on 25 September 2020 to discuss solutions for resolving the issues in the garden
2. reimbursed her for the costs of clearing the brambles in the garden.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 September 2020, advising that, as there were works outstanding at the property, it intended to respond to the complaint by 2 October 2020.
The landlord emailed the resident on 28 September 2020, confirming that:
1. the garden would be cleared, once a suitable date was agreed
1. proposals would be put forward for the maintenance of the garden with the understanding that there would be a possible recharge to the resident
2. it was waiting for confirmation from the contractors that the loft inspection had revealed no water ingress from the outside and that there was no requirement to remove any part of the ceiling
3. the plaster to be hacked off the wall, damp proof membrane installed and the wall replastered
4. gesture of good will for the bedroom walls to be redecorated.
On 30 September 2020, emails were exchanged with the landlord and the resident discussing the scope of the work, and the resident requesting an inspection of the roof/gutter to ensure there would be no future problems.
On 16 October 2020, the landlord emailed the resident to advise that:
1. it had been informed that the resident had arranged with its contractor for an additional inspection to take place before the damp work commenced to be satisfied that no other work would be required other than that detailed in the original specification
1. the garden clearance would take place before the end of November 2020
2. it was waiting to receive the ongoing maintenance costs for the garden and once it was received, there would be a discussion with the resident before the next steps were agreed.
Further discussion occurred between the landlord and the resident between 21 October 2020 and 30 November 2020 regarding the damp works. The landlord advised:
1. that the contractor would need access to the bedroom for a week
1. subject to the weather, the initial spray of the garden would take place the following week to kill off the vegetation and then the contractor would return to site to remove it
2. it was waiting for the contractor carrying out the damp works to advise if it was possible for it to carry out the work at the weekend.
Discussions continued between the resident and the landlord during November 2020 about agreeing a start date for the damp works and whether it was appropriate for the resident to try and obtain alternative accommodation while the works took place as the national lockdown restrictions were in place.
Emails were exchanged between the landlord and the resident on 10 December 2020 with the resident chasing the work to the garden. The landlord confirmed its contractor had advised that the work would take place the following day and that by 15 January 2021 it would attend to complete the work.
The resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the response that day (10 December 2020) and requested in writing:
1. confirmation that the work to the garden would be completed before Christmas as it had been due to completed by the end of November 2020
1. a detailed explanation of the work to be carried out in the garden
2. details of the work to be carried out to the bedroom
3. confirmation that the property would be professionally cleaned before her return
4. photographs of the bedroom and a written inventory of its contents before the work commenced.
She said that she was sleeping in a bedroom causing ‘horrific’ health conditions and that her day-to-day life was severely affected by the delay.
The landlord responded to the resident on 11 December 2020, explaining that the garden contractor had experienced staffing issues related to Covid-19 such as the self-isolation of its staff. In addition, it confirmed that the garden contractor was due to attend that day to carry out the spray treatment and that, before Christmas, it would remove the dead vegetation.
That same day (11 December 2020), the landlord acknowledged that works to the bedroom had taken longer than it should have and provided the following schedule of work:
1. repairs to remedy the leak to the bedroom would start on 6 January 2021
1. the work involved the removal and damp proofing of the bedroom wall, including reboarding and plastering of the new wall
2. the plastering and painting of the ceiling
3. decoration of three walls and cleaning of her property
4. a site meeting to be arranged on 4 January 2021 with the contractor, who would take photographs and produce an inventory of her home
5. a site meeting to be arranged for 13 January 2021 to inspect and sign off the work.
Further discussions took place between the landlord and resident on 14 December 2020 about the spray treatment to the garden. The landlord advised that a new garden contractor had been commissioned and that on 17 December 2020, the works to the garden would be carried out dependent on the weather (if not, it said that the spray treatment would be carried out after Christmas). The landlord and resident discussed the frequency of the treatment.
Evidence seen by this Service shows that on 17–18 December 2020 the garden contractor carried out work to remove all vegetation and growth to ground level, and to trim the laurel hedge on the side and top.
On 23 December 2020, the resident emailed the landlord attaching information from the alternative accommodation provider advising that her booking may be affected by Covid-19 restrictions.
On 4 January 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident at the final stage of the complaint procedure, advising that there were two outstanding issues to be addressed:
1. work to the bedroom which would start on 4 January 2021 and would involve her moving out of the property for a week and works had previously been delayed due to Covid-19
1. the work to remove vegetation and reduce growth to ground level from the rear garden took place before Christmas and the contractor would return to spray the cleared areas and it would agree a schedule of future maintenance subject to the service charge being acceptable to the resident.
Evidence seen by this Service show that on the 6 January 2021 the alternative accommodation was cancelled by the provider due to Covid-19 restrictions. The landlord advised the resident that it could carry out the work with the resident in situ or the landlord could move the resident to one of its empty properties. The resident advised that due to her personal circumstances remaining at home while the work was carried out was not convenient.
Further discussions also took place between the landlord and the resident regarding the works to remedy the damp between 19 January 2021 and 10 March 2021 as follows:
1. the landlord advised that the plans to carry out the works had changed due to the country being in a full national lockdown
1. the resident agreed to source her own temporary accommodation
2. the damp works were completed by mid -March 2021
3. the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the quality of the bedroom decoration
4. the landlord agreed to redecorate the whole bedroom wall.
The landlord advised that it carried out a post inspection of the damp works on 15 March 2021, which is disputed by the resident. Evidence seen by this service show that the damp works including decoration were completed by its contractors by the end of March 2021.
On 22 April 2021, the landlord received confirmation from its contractors that the spray treatment to the garden was completed on 16 February 2021. However, the resident disputed it had been carried out and the landlord’s records show that a member of the landlord’s staff agreed that when he visited ( the date has not been provided) it did not look like the spray treatment had occurred.
The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 24 June 2021 as the bedroom and garden repairs had started but had not been completed and she was having trouble in getting the landlord to return and complete the work. She advised that communication had failed as promised call backs had not occurred and the work remained incomplete.
Communication subsequently continued between the landlord and the resident about the works to remedy the damp and the garden. The landlord advised that the offer for its decorator to carry out the work remained and that, as a gesture of goodwill, it had paid for the clearance and spraying of the garden. Furthermore, the landlord confirmed that it was prepared to provide a periodic cut back of the garden which would be service chargeable. The resident remained dissatisfied with the quality of the decorating, lack of action to her reports of damage when the work was carried out and the landlord’s proposal regarding further work to the garden.

Assessment and findings

Damp

The resident reported potential water ingress and damp to her bedroom from September 2019. On receipt of the report of damp, the landlord was obliged to inspect and complete the necessary repairs in accordance with the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy to ensure that the resident’s property was free from defects.
The resident continued to chase the landlord to carry out the repairs to remedy the dampness and in October 2019 it carried out a visit to inspect the resident’s home and in November 2019 appropriately apologised for its lack of response. The landlords’ contractor carried out an external inspection in November 2019 and the resident had to chase it again in January 2020 to obtain an update to ascertain what action it proposed to take. However, it is noted that during January the landlord did attempt to visit with its contractor and the resident refused to allow them access.
The resident experienced further delays as the landlord did not carry out a further inspection until February 2020 and then it took until March 2020 before it arranged for the asbestos contractor to carry out an asbestos check to enable the works to take place. This was an unreasonable delay as the landlord inspection had revealed a requirement for the works to be carried out.
While the landlord’s repairs policy does not stipulate different categories of repairs or the time frame for carrying out repairs, it is evident that it delayed between at least September 2019 and February 2020 in taking any action to inspect the resident’s property and draw up a schedule of works. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
The delay that the resident experienced was later compounded by the Covid-19 pandemic which meant that the landlord was unable to progress repairs. This Service accepts that March 2020 onwards has been a difficult period for most organisations and we are aware that businesses often had to put in place different operating models to ensure continuity of service. The landlord ceased carrying out routine repairs, its contractors were not working in occupied properties.
The landlord drew up a schedule of works in September 2020 to install a damp-proof membrane to the bedroom wall to remedy the damp in accordance with its repairing obligation. It took further action to establish there was no other water ingress by carrying out inspections in the loft to the roof and the gutter. This was reasonable to ensure that the works that it was carrying out would resolve the reported problems. The resident requested an additional inspection and the landlord agreed a revised schedule of works accommodating colour paint choices from the resident.
The landlord contacted the resident to agree a start date for the damp works in November 2020. However, the resident could not accommodate the proposed start date and then difficulties arose with the acquisition of suitable temporary accommodation for the resident as a result of lock down restrictions. The landlord’s contractor was also hesitant about commencing the work due to the Covid-19 guidance and did not want to start the work without being assured that it could be completed. This was reasonable as it had accepted the residents reasons for wanting to move out of her home while the works took place to remedy the damp and it continued to offer different options for the resident to consider.
The damp works to the property was concluded by early March 2021and the landlord is satisfied that those works have been undertaken following its post inspection on 15 March 2021.
The resident chased the landlord for updates before and during the commencement of the work to remedy the damp and while it did communicate regularly with its resident, it did not initiate the contact but responded to the resident’s request for information. The landlord could have been more proactive in its communication with the resident to discuss and agree the scope of the work which would have reduced the frequency in which the resident chased it for information. However, it recognised the importance of keeping the resident properly informed as it asked its contractor in July 2020 and September 2020 to ensure it kept the resident updated.
In September 2020, before it agreed the original schedule of works to remedy the damp, the landlord consulted with the resident and agreed in October 2020 to the resident’s request for an additional inspection to take place with the contractor before the works started. In November 2020 it then agreed to amend the schedule of work to accommodate the resident’s suggestions. This demonstrates that the landlord listened, considered the points raised by the resident and agreed to extend the scope of the damp works.
The landlord was resolution focused as it agreed to supply alternative accommodation while the damp work was taking place to reduce the inconvenience to the resident and it considered her personal circumstances when doing so. In addition, when the first accommodation supplier cancelled the January 2021 booking due to Covid -19 restrictions, the landlord suggested that it could carry out the work with the resident remaining at home or try and source accommodation within its own stock in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord therefore appropriately considered the needs of its resident and the impact on her by offering options to her and acted according to her requirements.
In summary, the landlord was responsible for remedying the resident’s reports of damp but it initially delayed between September 2019 and February 2020 in inspecting the property to diagnose the cause of the problem and addressing the required repairs. While some of the delay can be attributed to Covid-19 related issues, agreeing the schedule of works and the sourcing of alternative accommodation it is accepted that the repairs to remedy the damp should have been concluded should have been concluded much sooner.

Garden

The resident received a notice from the Highways Authority on 9 July 2020 about remedying overhanging branches from her garden which were obstructing the highway. The landlord had previously advised the resident when it wrote to her in 2016 that the maintenance of the garden was her responsibility and that the terms of the tenancy agreement required the resident to manage the garden. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in advising the resident that the garden was her responsibility.
On receiving a copy of the Highway notice and following a visit in September 2020 the landlord exercised its discretion by offering, as a gesture of goodwill, to reimburse the resident for the cost of clearing the brambles and organising for the garden to be cleared and sprayed. This demonstrated that the landlord was resolution-focused and willing to act beyond its obligations to assist the resident given her circumstances.
The work to the garden was due to be completed in November 2020, however this was initially delayed as the landlord’s contractor was impacted by Covid-19 as its staff were self-isolating which led it to commission a new contractor in December 2020. This was an appropriate action for the landlord as it had agreed to carry out the work before the end of November 2020.
The landlords’ offer to the resident in its final complaint response in January 2021 to agree a schedule of future garden maintenance and to calculate a service charge for this was proportionate as it considered that the resident had difficulty maintaining the garden in accordance with the tenancy agreement. The agreement sets out that there may be occasions when new services are required and allows for the provision of new service charges. In addition, in deciding on the reasonableness of the service charge, the landlord advised that it would assess the cost and discuss it with the resident. The landlord was therefore acting in accordance with its contractual obligations when it looked into the potential for completing a gardening service and charging the resident for this.
While the landlord has provided a copy of the invoice for the gardening work carried out on 16 February 2021., there is a discrepancy in the landlords internal records as to whether the work to spray the garden was actually carried out.
In summary, although it was not obliged to complete the garden maintenance, the landlord used its discretion once the resident supplied a copy of the Highway Notice. It reimbursed the resident for her costs in clearing the garden, carried out works to the garden and made suitable offers to the resident for it to put in place future arrangements for garden works.

Complaint

The resident made an initial complaint to the landlord on 13 July 2020 and escalated her complaint to its resolution stage on 15 July 2020 as she was unhappy with its response. In accordance with the resolution stage of the complaint’s procedure, the landlord responded within 28 days notifying the resident that it tried to make contact regarding the damp works in September 2019 and reiterated its position that it was not responsible for undertaking work to the garden.
The resident escalated her complaint on 26 August 2020 to the final stage of the complaint procedure and the landlord contacted the resident on 2 September 2020 requesting a convenient time to discuss the complaint. This was appropriate to ensure that the landlord understood the residents’ concerns and to resolve the matters bought to its attention.
The complaint procedure sets out that complaints at its final stage should be concluded within 21 days. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident on 16 September 2020 as it would not meet its published timescale to provide a revised date of response.
The landlord explained in its letter of 16 September 2020 that it could not respond to her complaint as the resident had works pending at her home and it intended to respond by 2 October 2020. However, the matters complained about at the time – the delay in the work taking place to remedy the damp and the landlord’s decision not to carry out work to the garden – could have been explained at the time to the resident and it did not need to wait before the works to remedy the damp were concluded before providing its position on the issues raised in the complaint.
The landlord did not provide a further update to the resident on her complaint until it issued its final complaint response on 14 December 2020. That response did not provide the resident with her referral rights to our Service and the resident was sent a corrected final response on 5 January 2021. There was an unreasonable delay of four months that the resident had to wait to receive the landlord’s response to her complaint.
In summary, the landlord failed to provide its final response in line with its complaint policy timescale. The complaint response did not acknowledge the delay experienced by the resident or offer an apology for the time taken to address her concerns. Although the landlord was communicating with its resident about the substantive matters, it failed to review its handling of the resident’s concerns and advise her of its decision.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of:

the reports of damp to the residents’ bedroom
the related complaint.

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the maintenance of the garden since a Highways Notice was issued in July 2020.

Reasons

The landlord delayed in inspecting the resident’s property between September 2019 and February 2020 in response to her reports of damp. There were further delays between March 2020 until the works were completed in March 2021 which cannot be wholly contributed to the landlord’s failures as the progress of the works was impacted on by Covid-19 restrictions and other related issues. However, overall, the damp works took an unreasonable length of time to complete.
The landlord used its discretion and as a gesture of good will carried out work to the resident’s garden when she advised she had been issued with a Highways Notice.
The landlord delayed by four months in providing its final complaint response to the resident. It missed the opportunity to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity and ensure the repairs were being progressed in a timely manner.

Orders

The landlord to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
The landlord to pay compensation of £350,
1. £250 for the delays in remedying the damp.
2. £100 for the delay in issuing its complaint response.
The landlord should confirm compliance with these orders within four weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord to re–offer to carry out the decorating work as identified in its email of 21 October 2021.
If it has not already done so, carry out complaint training with its staff to ensure compliance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord should confirm its intentions in regard to these recommendations to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report.