GreenSquareAccord Limited (201911522)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201911522

GreenSquareAccord Limited

12 May 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:
    1. Bathroom repair works.
    2. The resident’s request for compensation for the bathroom improvements.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s repair records state that various works were completed to the resident’s bathroom on 15 July 2019, including works to the shower to ensure there were no further leaks and repairs to water damage.
  3. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 26 July 2019, as she was dissatisfied with the works completed to the bathroom. She said that the bathroom had several outstanding repair issues and a specialist builder had attended and advised that further works were required. In the landlord’s response, it said that the contractors had confirmed the repair works had been completed to a satisfactory level and it was satisfied that the damp issue had been resolved. It said it had offered the resident minor additional works, which she had declined.
  4. The complaint was escalated as the resident remained dissatisfied with the repair works so she arranged for the bathroom to be replaced herself and she asked the landlord to reimburse her for the works. In the landlord’s final response, it said that it had completed a post-inspection and was satisfied with the quality of the works. It said as the resident had not requested permission to make improvements to the bathroom, it was not responsible for reimbursing her for the works. It advised her of the statutory process of compensation for improvements made by tenants, and explained that compensation would only be awarded following an assessment of the quality of the works, if the resident moved out of the property.
  5. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she wanted the landlord to reimburse her £4000 for the cost of installing the new bathroom.

Assessment and findings

The bathroom repair works

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying. Therefore, the landlord must ensure that it completes any repair issues related to damp in line with its repair policy. According to the landlord’s repair records, a work order was raised to complete various repairs in the resident’s bathroom on 1 April 2019, which were completed on 15 July 2019. The landlord’s repair policy does not have a set timeframe for non-emergency repairs, but states that repairs will be completed “as soon as we can”. Due to the scope of the works and the fact that the landlord had raised multiple jobs to be completed, this timeframe was reasonable.
  2. In its initial complaint response on 29 August 2019, the landlord said that it had spoken to the contractors and they had confirmed the works had been completed to a satisfactory level. It then stated in its stage two complaint response on 9 December 2020 that it had carried out a full inspection of the resident’s bathroom, and it had found no evidence of damp and the works were completed to the required standard. While the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint was reasonable, it would have been helpful for the landlord to address the specific concerns raised by the resident in her complaint and explain the works that had been completed in order to address the resident’s complaint in full. Furthermore, although we have been provided with a copy of a contractor report on 7 January 2021, which concluded there was no evidence of rising damp or excessive moisture, no evidence has been provided to this Service of the post-inspection completed following the resident raising concerns of the quality of the repair. The landlord should ensure that it keeps an accurate record of its repairs works in order to provide evidence that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard.
  3. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the repair work when the resident raised concerns about the quality of the work completed. However, ultimately, the landlord has relied on the findings of its qualified staff and contractors, who deemed that the damp issue in the bathroom had been successfully repaired. As such the decision to not complete further repairs, or install a new bathroom was reasonable in the circumstances. In its initial complaint response, the landlord said it had identified and offered additional works to be completed, but as the resident had declined the works there was no further action it could take.

The resident’s request for compensation for the bathroom improvements.

  1. In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the resident must not make any improvements to the property without the landlord’s written permission. The landlord’s alteration policy explains that the resident must complete a form to request an alteration on its website, it will notify the resident of its decision in writing, and the resident must then provide details of their chosen contractor, before completing any improvements. Furthermore, the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will not award compensation in cases where loss has been caused “as a result of an unauthorised alteration to the property carried out by the customer”. As there is no evidence to suggest that the resident made a request to install the bathroom, or followed the landlord’s outlined procedure, it was reasonable that the landlord did not reimburse the resident for the bathroom installation, as it acted in line with its policy and clearly explained the reasons to the resident. The tenancy agreement also states that the resident is responsible for any repairs to fixtures and fittings that the resident has installed. Upon learning of the improvements made by the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord highlighted this to the resident.
  2. Following further queries from the resident about statutory compensation for improvements, it was appropriate that the landlord outlined the process to the resident and explained that a payment would only be made if the resident moved out, following an assessment of the improvements made to determine the compensation amount.

Complaint Handling

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that at stage one and stage two of its internal complaints process, the complaint must be investigated within ten working days, unless there are justifiable delays. The resident raised a complaint on 26 July 2019, and the landlord responded on 29 August 2019, and while this exceeds the landlord’s response timeframe, the delay was not excessive and was unlikely to have had a detrimental impact upon the outcome of the complaint. It is unclear whether the resident contacted the landlord directly to escalate her complaint, however, following contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord to escalate the complaint on 15 December 2019. This Service then sent further requests to the landlord on 15 January 2020 and 20 August 2020, before the landlord acknowledged the complaint on 25 November 2020, and issued its response on 9 December 2020. As a result, the landlord failed to act in accordance with its complaint policy and it caused a significant delay to completing the complaint process, with no evidence of the landlord discussing the issue with the resident between its responses. As the landlord has failed to acknowledge this delay, this element of the complaint remains unresolved.
  2. At the time when the resident initially raised the complaint, the landlord had a four-stage complaint procedure. This has since been updated, in line with this Service’s complaint guidance, to a two-stage complaint procedure. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage four complaint on 6 January 2021 and told her to advise it of her preferred review method by 14 January 2021. As there was no evidence of the resident’s response and there had been changes to the complaint policy, it was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident on 25 May 2021 that the complaint would not be further escalated and it signposted her to this Service.
  3. In line with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50-£250 are appropriate in cases where there has been a “failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact “. In this case, the landlord has failed to act in accordance with its complaint procedure, and although this did not have an impact upon the overall outcome of the complaint, it caused additional time and effort to the resident in pursuing the complaint. As a result, it is appropriate to award £200 to the resident, in light of the landlord’s failings in complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the bathroom repair works.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request for compensation for the bathroom improvements.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way the landlord it handled the associated complaint.

 

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. In light of the additional time and trouble caused to the resident, the landlord is ordered to pay her £200.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its staff’s training needs in relation to their application of its complaints policies, to ensure it prevents a recurrence of its above service failures.
  2. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure the quality of its repairs and inspections, along with the specific timescales set for each repair.