ForHousing Limited (202111500)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111500

ForHousing Limited

28 July 2022

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 handling of works to replace external doors and to remedy damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is the tenant of the landlord.
3. During June 2020 the landlord raised an order to replace the rear door to the property, and during July 2020, it raised an order to replace the front door. The landlord’s records indicate that the bottom of the rear door was damaged and there was a gap between the front door and frame. The landlord also carried out a damp inspection on 14 January 2021 in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 15 February 2021 as the doors had yet to be replaced despite being measured several times and the follow-on works recommended by the damp inspection had not been actioned. The landlord subsequently arranged for the damp-related works to be completed between 15 and 19 March 2021, which included the clearing of gutters, repairs to brickwork, the installation of a damp proof course and plastering works in the kitchen. As part of these works the kitchen had to be removed and replaced. The front door was replaced on 20 March 2021.
5. The resident was dissatisfied with how the works had been carried out. He raised concerns that during the replacement of his kitchen, the worktop and sink had been left outside and uncovered overnight. He reported that he found a bottle of urine left in a cupboard, worktops had been stacked on top of his washing machine, he had needed to chase the landlord for a temporary sink which he then had to help the operative put together, and the temporary mini cooker provided during the kitchen works was inadequate. He said the back door had not been replaced and that the repointing works had not been completed. He also said that works were outstanding to the kitchen tiles, kickboards and skirting boards, and the extractor fan had not been installed.
6. The complaint was escalated through the landlord’s complaints procedure with the final response provided on 9 June 2021. In its responses the landlord said that:
   1. There had been delays in replacing the doors and carrying out the damp works, for which it was sorry.
   2. The back door had been ordered on 8 March 2021, as had further brickworks.
   3. The worktop and sink had been replaced following the resident’s reports that they had been damaged by being left outside.
   4. It had raised the issue of the bottle containing liquid with the operatives, who denied the allegation made by the resident. No further action could be taken in relation to this matter as it could not prove what the contents of the bottle were or who had left this in the property.
   5. The resident had provided pictures of the kitchen worktop being stacked on his washing machine, and it had asked the resident to confirm if any damage had occurred to his appliance so it could consider this further.
   6. It was sorry the resident had to chase the temporary sink. The plumber had confirmed a joiner was present with the plumber to install the sink, but as the resident had disputed this it would look into this further.
   7. While it appreciated the difficulty in using temporary cooking facilities, it had acted in line with its procedure by providing the mini cooker while the kitchen was being fitted.
   8. All outstanding repairs would be dealt with as a priority.
7. Following this, there was ongoing contact between the resident and landlord regarding outstanding repairs in the property. During January 2022, the landlord confirmed to this Service that the resident had been offered a new property which it was decorating and adapting to his needs.

Assessment and findings

8. The tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure and exterior of the property. Therefore, the landlord was responsible for maintaining the exterior doors and would have been expected to carry out any necessary replacement of these within a reasonable timeframe, taking into account any manufacturing times. The front door was replaced approximately eight months after the replacement was requested, which constitutes an unreasonable delay given likely manufacturing times. The rear door was replaced, confirmed in the landlord’s stage 2 response but it is evident there were significant delays in progressing the matter, as the repair was first raised in June 2020 and then re-raised in March 2021.
9. The landlord apologised to the resident for the delay in completing the door replacement works, and additionally offered financial redress of £100 for the resulting distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord offered explanation in its previous complaint response for the excessive delays in completing these works. The landlord has since added further door contractors to its framework as well as a dedicated sub-contractor supervisor and planner to ensure residents are kept updated on orders. This is evidence of it learning from the complaint and that steps had been taken to prevent such service failures from occurring again.
10. The landlord arranged follow on works after the damp inspection was carried out in January 2021, once prompted to do so after the resident raised his formal complaint about the matter. There was a five week delay in the landlord raising the order and the landlord apologised for the delay despite this being within the 100 working day prescribed repair timescale. The landlord has since reviewed its timescale for damp repair reducing this to 40 working days illustrating learning from the complaint.
11. The landlord confirmed in its stage one complaint response that further brickwork had been ordered. This is supported by the repair records which indicate that the relevant order was raised on 19 March with a target of 21 April 2021. Although, the resident subsequently raised concerns in his stage two complaint that these works had not been completed, the landlord addressed this matter in its stage two response of 9 June 2021 requesting updates of the outstanding repairs which were not subject to the original complaint be provided to the panel and the resident within 5 working days.
12. In relation to the resident’s reports about him having to assist with installing the sink, the landlord’s final response did not draw a conclusion on this matter and agreed to seek more evidence from the contractor about this. This was a reasonable response in light of the conflicting reports that the resident and contractor had given. Subsequently, the landlord investigated the matter further with the contractor who confirmed both operatives worked independently to install the sink, although the Ombudsman cannot be sure when the landlord conducted the interviews. This is contrary to the resident’s reports about him having to assist the operatives. Given both parties dispute this aspect, and without further evidence, the Ombudsman cannot provide a determination on this issue.
13. The resident reported that the landlord’s operatives had stacked worktops on his washing machine during the kitchen replacement works. The landlord carried out a fair and impartial investigation into the matter as it raised the matter with the contractor concerned, asked the resident for photographic evidence and asked the resident to confirm if any damage had occurred to the appliance. It is not known if the resident has responded to the landlord on this point and it is recommended that the resident follows up on this if any damage occurred. Overall, the landlord responded reasonably as it has indicated that it is willing to consider a claim for any damage caused to the washing machine.
14. In relation to the resident’s claim that the worktop and sink had been left outside and uncovered overnight, the available evidence indicates that the landlord arranged for the worktop and sink to be replaced. Therefore, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of the complaint.
15. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the mini cooker, the landlord investigated this matter and confirmed that the temporary cooking facilities had been provided in line with its policy. While it is understandable that the resident was inconvenienced while the kitchen replacement works were being carried out, the options for providing temporary cooking facilities were likely to be limited and there is nothing to suggest that there were any service failures in this regard.
16. Regarding the reported bottle of urine left at the property, the landlord responded appropriately by investigating the matter and speaking to the contractors concerned. Given that it could not be proved conclusively that the bottle contained urine, nor who had placed the bottle in the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the matter could not be taken any further.
17. It is evident that further problems have occurred in relation to ongoing repairs in the property since the landlord issued its final response to the complaint, and compensation has been offered to the resident for this. This Service is unable to consider these repairs as they did not form part of the complaint under investigation. If the resident remains dissatisfied with how these repairs have been handled then he should ask the landlord to escalate the matter through its complaint procedure in the first instance.

Determination

18. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of works to replace external doors and to remedy damp and mould in the resident’s property.

Orders and recommendations

19. The landlord is ordered to do the following:
    1. Pay the resident £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs. This is inclusive of the £100 previously offered.
    2. Complete any outstanding repairs considered by this investigation if the resident has not yet moved.
    3. Confirm to the resident in writing the steps it has taken since issuing its final response to the complaint to investigate his report that he had to assist with installing the sink.
    4. Review its handling of the repairs with a view to identifying what went wrong and why, and implement any necessary remedial action to prevent these service failures from happening again. The review findings should be provided to both the resident and this Service.
20. Orders a, b and c should be completed within four weeks of the date of this report and order d should be completed within eight weeks of the date of this report.
21. It is recommended that the landlord does the following within four weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Considers compensating the resident for any evidenced damage caused to his washing machine as a result of its contractor stacking items on top of it.
    2. Arranges for its staff involved in complaint handling to complete this Service’s free online training on dispute resolution, available on our website, if they have not already done so.