Home Group Limited (202213632)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213632

Home Group Limited

1 February 2023

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:
   1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room of the property.
   2. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property has a single-story room next to the kitchen which is used for utilities and is accessible through a upvc door. The room also has another door used for external access. For the purpose of this report, this room has been referred to as through outhouse/utility room.
3. Between March 2021 and May 2021, the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room of the property on several occasions, via social media. She stated that the landlord had attended the property at the time, and agreed to replace the internal door between the outhouse/utility room and the kitchen. In June 2021, the landlord discussed internally the works it would carry out, such as; plastering, and installing a single skin building (a single layer or brick wall) under planned works. In addition, it stated that the roof of the outhouse/utility room needed to be changed and thermaboards installed. The resident continued to chase the repairs needed.
4. On 18 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord as the repairs to the outhouse/utility had not been completed, and she was concerned that the damp, mould and rust were bad for her health. She stated that her fridge and freezer were stored in the outhouse/utility room as there was no space in the kitchen, and that they regularly broke due to the conditions. She continued to pursue her concerns and a survey of the outhouse/utility was completed on 9 May 2022. The surveyor stated that they would not complete the works previously suggested, but would replace the internal hard board door with a upvc door. This was completed on 11 May 2022.
5. On 30 May 2022, the resident asked to raise a complaint. She stated that she had waited nearly two years for the repairs to the outhouse/utility room and was dissatisfied that the landlord was now stating that the room was classed as a “shed”. She added that the outhouse/utility room had electrics in it which regularly tripped due to the damp. She informed the landlord that in winter, the light switches gave off electrical shocks and raised concerns about water ingress from the tin roof, which led to puddles on the floor creating a slip hazard. She was unhappy with the landlord’s poor communication and informed it that the damp had spread to the kitchen and bathroom. Ultimately, she was seeking for the roof of the outhouse/utility room to be replaced, and wished for it to be damp proofed and plastered, or, alternatively, for it to be knocked down. She acknowledged that the landlord had stated it would remove some kitchen cupboards to make space for her fridge and freezer.
6. On 14 June 2022, the landlord stated that a manager had agreed for the previously suggested works to take place. An inspection was completed on 16 June 2022, where a scope of works was created. On 22 June 2022, the landlord informed the resident that it would replace the roof on a like–for–like basis and carry out any other necessary repairs, but it would no longer skim or thermal board the outhouse/utility room as it was classed as an external store. Due to this, the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated as she remained dissatisfied that the landlord would not complete the works it had previously agreed to.
7. In the landlord’s stage two response on 16 September 2022, it apologised for the conflicting information it had provided and stated that it would provide staff training in view of this. The landlord asked the resident to let it know whether she wished to go ahead with outhouse/utility roof replacement work. In addition, in view of its failings, it offered the resident £185 compensation (£55 for poor communication, £75 for the incorrect information provided and £55 for complaint handling delays).
8. The resident escalated her complaint to this Service on 26 September 2022. She was unhappy that the tin roof of the outhouse/utility room continued to suffer from water ingress, which ran on to the electrics. She was also dissatisfied that the landlord had changed its mind about the works needed and with its handling of her complaint. She stated that she was dissatisfied with the cold temperatures of the property due to the condition of the outhouse/utility room, and wished for a heater to be installed in the kitchen to try and combat this. The resident is seeking for the roof of the outhouse/utility room to be renewed, and for the walls to be re-plastered. On 13 January 2023, this Service contacted the landlord about the status of the repairs. The landlord stated that no works had been completed as the resident remained dissatisfied with its final scope of works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room of the property.

9. As per the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure of the property in good repair, including any outbuildings. Section 11 of The Landlord and Tenants Act 1985 states that structural repairs are elements of a dwelling which give it its essential appearance, stability and shape. It also states that internal and external plaster should be treated as structural works. Therefore, regardless of the definition of the outhouse/utility room, the landlord is responsible for any repairs needed to the structure, exterior and electrics. The tenancy agreement also states that the landlord will keep in good repair and proper working order any installations that it has provided for the supply of electricity.
10. Furthermore, 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. In addition, it states that ‘Electrical hazards’ include shocks and that electrical installations should avoid close proximity to damp. It includes methods of assessing electrical hazards such as a visual inspection, or if necessary a full inspection and test report by a qualified electrical engineer.
11. The landlord’s repairs policy states that an ‘Emergency’ repair will be completed within 24 hours, and includes anything that puts a tenant, or the people around them in danger. The landlord’s rented home handbook states that it aims to resolve all ‘standard’ repairs within 14 days. It states that the landlord works towards a planned maintenance approach to reduce reactive repairs and associated budgets.
12.  It is not disputed by either party that the outhouse/utility room of the property needed repairs due to its condition. The resident had initially reported her concerns about the damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room on 11 March 2021. The landlord acted appropriately by carrying out an inspection at the time, and concluded that works did need to be completed. However, between March 2021 and May 2022, the resident pursued the landlord regarding this matter on several occasions, and there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord responded.
13. On 9 May 2022, a surveyor inspected the outhouse/utility room and stated it would not complete the works which had been previously agreed in 2021. However, following a further inspection from the maintenance supervisor on 16 June 2022, the landlord did agreed to complete the works before later changing the scope of works again on 22 June 2022. At that point the landlord said that it would replace the tin roof with a like-for-like roof and would carry out any other necessary repairs, but would not Therma board or skim the area as at the outhouse/utility room was an ‘external store’. The landlord’s responses evidence not only a failing to manage the resident’s expectations throughout this process but also to provide a consistent response, which was understandably frustrating for the resident.
14. On 11 June 2022, the resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould from the outhouse/utility room had spread to her kitchen and bathroom. From the evidence provided, the landlord has not demonstrated that it inspected the property based on these concerns. The Damp & Mould Spotlight Report (2021) provided by the Housing Ombudsman highlights the importance of a landlord responding to concerns within a timely manner which reflects the urgency of the situation. In this case, the landlord’s lack of communication and lack of action was below an acceptable level, which is a further failing on its behalf. 
15. This Service acknowledges that there is a dispute in relation to the scope of works suggested by the landlord, in that it intended to replace the roof with a like-for-like replacement but would not install insulating thermaboards or complete plastering as previously agreed. It should be noted that the landlord would not be obliged to complete improvements to the outhouse/utility room, and its decision to replace the roof with a like-for-like tin roof as planned maintenance works was not unreasonable.
16. Similarly, the landlord would not be obligated to install thermaboards in the outhouse/utility room, as this would be considered as an improvement. However, as the resident had reported further concerns in the outhouse/utility room, the landlord was responsible for ensuring that any outstanding damp and mould, water ingress and electrical concerns had been addressed in line with its obligations. In addition, the landlord would need to ensure that any replacement roof was of an adequate standard, so that any concerns relating to electrics, damp and/or mould did not continue past the point of works being completed. Ultimately, it is the landlord’s decision on what works it will carry out at any property, and the resident would be expected to provide the landlord with access to ensure it can complete any works.
17. Whilst the resident seems to have refused works due to the dispute in the scope of those works, the onus would have been on the landlord to ensure it had clearly explained what work it would do when it stated it would ‘complete any other necessary repairs’, in order to appropriately manage her expectations. The landlord’s failure to do this was an example of poor communication on the landlord’s behalf, which impacted the resident and led to a potential delay in any works taking place.
18. This Service contacted the landlord on 13 January 2023, to ask whether any repairs had been carried out. The landlord confirmed that no works had taken place. This shows a lack of progression in addressing her concerns, which should have been prioritised given the potential hazard. This is a significant failing on the landlord’s behalf and suggests that the resident is still suffering from damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room, as well as the water ingress and electrical concerns which are likely to have had a significant impact on her.
19. Throughout the entire process, the resident had to repeatedly chase the landlord for a response in relation to her concerns, but very rarely received a response. Whilst this Service acknowledges that there will sometimes be circumstances that lead to delays, the landlord would be expected to communicated with the resident, explain the reason for the delay and provide an update on any outstanding repairs. This significantly impacted the resident throughout the process, and led to distress and inconvenience, and the time and trouble trying to get the issues resolved. The landlord acknowledged that there had been poor communication throughout its handling of the reports, and in view of this, it offered the resident £55 compensation.
20. On several occasions, the resident had raised concerns to the landlord about the standards of the electrics in the outhouse/utility room. On 30 May 2022, she reported that the electrics were tripping regularly due to the damp. More concerningly, on 11 June 2022, she informed the landlord that in winter, the light switches were giving off electrical shocks. This is a significant health and safety risk within the property, whether the landlord perceived the outhouse/utility room to be an outhouse or not.
21. The landlord confirmed on 13 January 2023, that it had not carried out any repairs to the electrics in the outhouse/utility room. This Service acknowledges that the landlord has stated this was at the resident’s request, as she was unhappy with the final scope of works suggested by the landlord. Nevertheless, the landlord has an obligation to provide a home which meets health and safety standards, and as such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to treat this as an emergency repair, due to the associated risk, and to have ensured an inspection had taken place within 24 hours.
22. The resident also raised concerns that her kitchen appliances, such as her fridge and freezer, were stored in the outhouse/utility room as there was no space in her kitchen. The landlord acted appropriately by offering to remove some of the kitchen cupboards so that the resident was able to store them in the kitchen instead. This was appropriate for the landlord to consider, and is in line with the ‘Decent Home Standard’ which states that a dwelling should have reasonably modern facilities such as; a kitchen with adequate space and layout. However, whilst the landlord appropriately considered this, it remains unclear whether the resident agreed for these works to go ahead.
23. Likewise, the resident also raised concerns about the cold temperatures in the property, such as on 30 May 2022. She has informed this Service that she believes a heater in the kitchen may assist with this, although there is no evidence that the resident had requested this from the landlord. The Ombudsman cannot comment on what repairs would be appropriate, however, it would be reasonable for the landlord to confirm its position on this. It should be noted that the landlord did take some steps to address the temperature in the property, such as replacing the hard board internal door with a upvc one. However, the resident has informed this Service that the property is still cold and it would therefore be appropriate for the landlord to consider other steps it can take to investigate this, in line with its obligations.
24. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
25. In this case, the landlord has acknowledged that during its handling of the resident’s reports, there was poor communication on its behalf, and times in which it provided the resident with conflicting information. It apologised and offered the resident £130 compensation. In addition, it showed some learning, as it committed to providing further staff-training in relation to the conflicting information it had provided.
26. This Service acknowledges that the landlord attempted to put things right. However, when considering the above factors in this case, the amount of compensation was not proportionate to failings identified. Especially when taking into account the urgency and severity of the electrical concerns and damp and mould issues that are ongoing within the outhouse/utility room.
27. It is therefore the opinion of this Service that and additional payment of £470, bringing the total compensation payable to £600 would provide adequate redress to the resident. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service which states that compensation of £100 to £600 is appropriate in cases where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempt to put things right, but the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation. In addition, the landlord is ordered to inspect the property and create a scope of works within four weeks of the date of this letter. For the outstanding works needed, the landlord should appropriately identify the urgency of the works in line with its repairs policy, and inform the resident of its plans to complete them.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

28. The landlord’s complaint information provided on its website states that it will respond within ten working days at stage one, and 20 working days at stage two. The Complaint Handling Code provided by the Ombudsman lists the Ombudsman’s expectations for a landlord’s handling of a resident’s complaint. It states that a complaint should be acknowledged within five working days.
29. The resident raised a complaint on 30 May 2022, which the landlord acknowledged on 10 June 2022. It acknowledged the complaint for a second time on 22 June 2022, before providing the stage one response on 30 June 2022. This was a total of 21 working days, which was outside of the appropriate timeframe listed in the landlord’s complaints policy.
30. Within the stage one response, the landlord failed to address all of the residents concerns which she had raised in her complaint. For example, it did not respond to her concerns regarding the electrical hazards within the outhouse/utility room, nor did it respond to her concerns about the damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room. As per the Complaint Handling Code, a landlord is expected to address all points raised in a complaint. This impacted the resident as her concerns had not been considered, and the appropriate works had not been raised following this. It is therefore recommended that the landlord considers providing additional staff-training to its complaint handlers about its complaint handling expectations.
31. Prior to the stage one response, the resident had requested for the complaint to be escalated on 24 June 2022, due to her dissatisfaction with the landlord changing the scope of works. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to wait until the stage one response had been issued on 30 June 2022, before escalating the complaint. The landlord acknowledged the escalation on 23 August 2022, and provided the stage two response on 16 September 2022. This was a total of 56 working days from the stage one response being issued, and was therefore again outside of the appropriate timeframe as listed in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord acknowledged that there were delays in its handling of the complaint and in view of this, it offered the resident £55 compensation.
32. Overall, there were delays throughout the landlord’s handling of the complaint, which impacted the resident and resulted in distress and inconvenience. Furthermore, the landlord provided the resident with incorrect information about the acceptable timeframes in which it could respond to complaints. During the escalation process, it informed the resident that it had eight weeks to acknowledge the complaint, and then a further 20 working days to respond. Whilst the landlord had offered the resident appropriate compensation for the delays in its complaint handling, it failed to identify the misinformation it had provided to the resident, which constitutes a further failing.
33. In view of this, it is the opinion of this Service that compensation of £150 would provide adequate redress for the failings listed above, which is inclusive of the £55 compensation previously offered by the landlord, if this has not yet been paid. This is in line with the remedies guidance provided by this Service as detailed above. In addition, it is recommended that the landlord provides further staff-training to its complaint handlers about appropriate timeframes for handling a complaint, in line with the Complaint Handling Code provided by this Service.

Determination

34. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in the way it handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room of the property.
35. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in the way it handled the associated complaint.

Orders

36. That within 28 calendar days of this determination, the landlord it to:
    1. Pay the resident £600 compensation in respect of its failings with regards to its response her reports of damp and mould in the outhouse/utility room of the property. This is inclusive of the £130 previously offered, if it has not already been paid.
    2. Pay the resident a further £150 for its complaint handling failures. This is inclusive of the £55 compensation previously offered by the landlord, if this has not already been paid.
    3. Address the resident’s concerns about the electrical safety in the outhouse/utility, and to ensure that any repairs are carried out in line with the appropriate timeframe as per the landlord’s repairs policy.
    4. Create a scope of works for any other works that are necessary to the outhouse/utility room, and to provide a copy of this to the resident and this Service for our records.
    5. Confirm to this service that it has complied with these orders.

Recommendations

37. The landlord is recommended to provide further staff training on its expectations for repairs and managing a resident’s expectations effectively.
38. The landlord is recommended to provide further staff training to its complaints handlers about the appropriate timeframes in which a complaint should be acknowledged, and ensuring all aspects of a complaint are addressed.