Manningham Housing Association Limited (202118694)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118694

Manningham Housing Association Limited

12 September 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:
  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property, including her concerns about pests and repairs.
  2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord at the property.
  2. Between June and August 2021, the landlord carried out several visits to the resident’s property, in order to carry out several repairs. The repairs included works to the cold taps in the property, and inspecting to identify whether there were any holes or openings in the loft that might allow for pests to enter the property.
  3. On 3 November 2021, the landlord received a letter from the resident’s local MP, in which it raised several issues on behalf of the resident. The resident stated that there were persistent damp and mould issues, uneven flooring, pest infestations, and unresolved issues with the cold taps and pipes. The landlord inspected the property on 9 November 2021. Following this inspection, the resident raised concerns about the conduct of one of the inspecting officers. The landlord responded to, the resident’s reports about its agent’s conduct, issues relating to the loft, and the uneven flooring on 14 December 2021 as part of its stage one response. However, the landlord did not respond to the issue of the cold taps and the damp and mould.
  4. The resident requested escalation to stage two, which consisted of a panel hearing. As part of the escalation request, the resident raised the uneven flooring, pests, cold taps and damp and mould. The landlord gave its final response on 18 January 2022, in which it addressed all issues raised except for the cold taps. It arranged for further inspections of the loft area; it also advised that though the pests were the resident’s responsibility it would arrange for a pest contractor to attend. The landlord also provided general advice about managing condensation and mould growth, and promised to arrange for a structural engineer to attend the property to determine the safety of the uneven flooring. Additionally, although the landlord had failed to address the cold taps throughout the ICP, it did carry out repairs to them.
  5. The resident approached this service with concerns that repairs were outstanding, and with how the landlord had handled her reports of problems throughout the property. In an email to this Service on 17 June 2022, the landlord advised that it had confirmed with the resident that there were no more outstanding repairs.

Assessment and findings

Policies & Procedures

  1. Section 5 of the landlord’s Customer Handbook states that the landlord will ‘provide a full response within 10 working days. If the complaint takes longer to investigate [the landlord] will keep [the resident] informed’.
  2. Page 19 of the Customer Handbook states that ‘[the resident is] responsible for dealing with pest infestations. If [the resident has] any problems with pests (for example, cockroaches or rats), phone [the local authority’s] environmental health department’.
  3. Page 30 of the Customer Handbook states that routine repairs ‘will be carried out within 22 working days’.
  4. Section 3 of the tenancy agreement states that the landlord agrees ‘to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises’.

Scope of investigation

  1. As part of the resident’s formal complaint, an issue was raised about the conduct of one of the landlord’s staff members towards the resident and her daughter. The landlord addressed this issue in its stage one response, however, her appeal letter received by the landlord prior to the stage two panel hearing did not reference any ongoing concern here; as such it was not referenced as part of the landlord’s final response. This Service cannot investigate aspects of a complaint which have not fully exhausted a member landlord’s complaint procedure.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about uneven flooring, a collapsed fence, damp and mould, repairs to cold taps, and loft repairs relating to a potential pest infestation

  1. Records show that between 9 June 2021 and 9 September 2021, the landlord had attended the property to repair taps, and to assess the loft area for holes and openings that could possibly allow pests to enter the property. The landlord’s records show that these works were completed.
  2. Following these repair works, the next correspondence between the landlord and resident (or representative of the resident) was on 3 November 2021, in which a letter was sent to the landlord from the resident’s local MP, on behalf of the resident. The letter advised that the resident had been living with outstanding work to the taps and openings in the loft, as well as raising separate issues with damp and mould, and uneven flooring.
  3. Although the resident had advised her local MP that the issues were outstanding, there is no evidence that indicates the resident had chased up outstanding issues with the landlord between 9 September 2021 (the date of last repair), and 3 November 2021. Whilst it would be beneficial, and good practise for the landlord to be proactive in contacting the resident to ensure that she was satisfied with the repairs, it would also be reasonable for the landlord to assume that the issues had been resolved, as it had not heard further from the resident following the repairs. If unsatisfied with any completed repairs, the resident would be expected to raise this with the landlord within a reasonable timeframe.
  4. Following the letter from the MP on 3 November 2021, the landlord sent agents to the property to inspect the issues that had been raised. The inspection took place on 9 November 2021. This was a reasonable and appropriate response time from the date that the issues were brought to the landlord’s attention. The inspection concluded that the uneven floor level was within tolerance, and that the floor had been that way since the property had been built in 1993. However, it was noted that due to health and safety reasons, the attending agents were not able to climb up to the loft to check for possible entry points for pests, though an appointment was made for a contractor to carry out such an inspection.
  5. As noted, a work order was raised on the day of the inspection to send a contractor to check for further damage to loft and to repoint the verge on the roof. It was also raised for a contractor to check floor level. According to the landlord’s records, this was completed on 30 November 2021. Regarding the assessment of the possible uneven flooring, no details of the inspection were provided. The landlord is expected to keep robust records of its voids and repairs works. When there is a disagreement in the accounts of the resident and the Landlord with regard to the condition of the property, the onus would be on the landlord to provide documentary evidence showing how it satisfied itself that the repair work had been completed to a satisfactory standard. However, the records do show that the inspection was completed, along with the repointing of the roof verge.
  6. The work done to the roof was an appropriate response to the resident’s claims of pests within the property. Page 19 of the Customer Handbook states that ‘[the resident is] responsible for dealing with pest infestations. If [the resident has] any problems with pests (for example, cockroaches or rats), phone [the local authority’s] environmental health department’. Therefore, the landlord would not be expected to inspect for pests, or to attempt to deal with them if any were to be found. However, any holes in the exterior or structure of the property that would allow pests to enter the property would be the responsibility of the landlord to repair.
  7. As stated in section 3 of the tenancy agreement, the landlord agrees ‘to keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises’. The landlord identified a potential entry point and addressed the issue within a reasonable timeframe. The order was raised on 9 November 2021 and was completed on 30 November 2021. Page 30 of the Customer Handbook states that routine repairs ‘will be carried out within 22 working days’. Therefore, the landlord addressed the repair within the designated timeframe set out in its policies.
  8. Additionally, although it had been made clear in both the stage one (14 December 2021) and final response (18 January 2022) that the resident was responsible for pests within the property, the resident agreed in its final response to send its own pest control contractor to carry out further checks to the loft. As such, a visit was carried out on 21 January 2022 to fill holes and carry out treatment for pests, and a further visit was carried out on 3 February 2022, in which it was determined that there were no more holes in the loft, and that there had been no further evidence of a pest infestation. There was a final inspection of the loft on 5 April 2022 in which the landlord confirmed that there was no evidence of pests and that the resident was happy with the final visit.
  9. The landlord’s attempts to fill holes and repair the structure of the property were to be expected and within the landlord’s responsibilities. However, by attending the property with its own contractor in order to eradicate any pest issue, the landlord went above and beyond its obligations in order to satisfy the resident’s needs. This showed an attempt by the landlord to maintain and improve the landlord/tenant relationship by demonstrating to the resident that it was willing to take the extra step in order to resolve and remedy the difficulties that she had been facing.
  10. The landlord had determined through an agent’s visit, and a contractor’s visit on 11 January 2022 that the flooring was safe and that it met National House-Building Council (NHBC) standards, although the resident remained dissatisfied with this. The resident highlighted that she feared for her health and safety regarding the structural integrity of the building, and this feeling was enhanced by what she perceived as uneven flooring to a dangerous level.
  11. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s fears for her safety and said that it ‘[did not] want any of [its] tenants to live in fear of not feeling safe’. It agreed to send a qualified structural engineer to assess the flooring. The engineer attended towards the end of January 2022 (no specific date provided), and determined that the floor was not an immediate health and safety risk. However, it did make a recommendation to expose a section of the floor in order to determine the possible cause of the unevenness. This was completed on 3 March 2022. The section of flooring was removed and the timber joists beneath were inspected and found to be safe ‘with no signs of any defects or stress’. It also replaced any defective floorboards with new ones in order to minimise the sound of squeaking that the resident had raised concerns about. This was confirmed to have been completed in a letter to the resident on 7 March 2022.
  12. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the advice of its professionals in determining that the floor was safe and up to standard. However, the landlord exceeded its expectations in addressing the resident’s health and safety concerns by seeking further advice from a qualified structural engineer, having already determined that the floor was safe. By going to such lengths to ease the resident’s concerns and fears for her safety, the landlord had shown again, a willingness to not only resolve the issue for the resident, but to also ensure that the resident was comfortable and satisfied with the outcome. This was demonstrated further by following through with the engineer’s recommendation to remove a section of flooring to determine the cause, and also in replacing floorboards.
  13. Regarding the reports of damp and mould in the property, the landlord acknowledged this during its inspection on 9 November 2021.No mould was found during the investigation, but it did give advice to the resident on how to prevent minimise condensation. During the landlord’s inspection of the property on 11 January 2022, the landlord also investigated the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord noted that there were ‘minimal’ spores and advised that it had been caused by high humidity levels, and that it required adequate ventilation in order to prevent it from persisting. The landlord provided a leaflet to the resident which contained information on how to do this. This was reasonable as there was no indication that there was a defect within the property that was causing damp or mould growth within the property.
  14. Whilst the landlord addressed the issues above appropriately and reasonably, there were failures in of how it handled the resident’s reports of issues with the cold taps and pipes. The landlord failed to raise a repair when the issue was first raised in the letter from the resident’s MP. It was clearly a concern of the resident, and had been identified as an outstanding repair by her. As stated on page 30 of the Customer Handbook, routine repairs ‘will be carried out within 22 working days’. The landlord failed to do this, and there was also a missed opportunity to raise the repair following the resident’s request to escalate to stage two.
  15. The repair was raised on 14 January 2022, the day following the stage two panel hearing. The taps and pipes were fixed on 15 February 2022. Although it is good that the issue was eventually addressed, the delay in resolving the issue from the date of it being raised to the date of it being fixed was a service failure. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was a ‘failure to meet service standards for actions and responses but where the failure had no significant impact’ payments of £50 to £250 are reasonable. As the resident had not lost use of the taps, it is reasonable to determine that the delay in resolving the issue did not have a significant impact on the resident’s quality of life. However, the general inconvenience caused has been taken into account.
  16. The resident raised her concerns about a collapsed fence as part of her complaint. This included specific reference to this issue in the appeal document she provided immediately prior to the stage two panel hearing. Her appeal letter stated that she had requested repairs to this wooden fence back in 2018, including a suggestion that it be heightened to deter local children from scaling it. As this was a historic issue, with the resident’s initial report some time before the complaint under investigation here, no service failures have been identified. However, a recommendation has been included for the landlord to discuss this issue with the resident and clarify its position, including whether it will take any remedial action.

The landlord’s complaint handling

  1. The issue of the cold taps was raised as part of the MP’s letter to the landlord, and in the resident’s request letter containing things that she wished to discuss as part of the stage two panel hearing. However, the landlord failed to address the matter in both of its complaint responses. LL failed to acknowledge the tap repairs in either complaint response.
  2. It is important for the landlord to identify and respond to all aspects of a resident’s complaint, even if it feels that the issue raised had already been resolved. By not responding to this aspect of the complaint, it failed to allow the resident an opportunity to understand the landlord’s reasoning for not initially carrying out the repair.
  3. Had the landlord responded to this in its complaint responses, it would have allowed the resident to better understand the landlord’s actions. The landlord’s failure to acknowledge and respond to this aspect of the complaint until after the final response had been given was a service failure.
  4. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that where ‘[the Ombudsman recognises] that there has been service failure which had an impact on [the resident] but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome of the complaint’ a payment of £50 to £250 would be reasonable and appropriate. It is reasonable to determine that the overall outcome of the complaint was not significantly affected as the work was completed, but nonetheless, it could have been complete sooner had it been acknowledged and addressed as part of the landlord’s complaint responses.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports about the condition of the property.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord ordered to pay a total of £100 to the resident. This can be broken down to:
  1. £50 in recognition of the delay in carrying out repairs to the cold taps and pipes.
  2. £50 in the landlord’s failure to address the cold taps issue in either of its complaint responses.
  1. The above order is to be actioned within 28 days of this investigation, with evidence to be provided to this Service by the same date.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to discuss her concerns about her fence. As part of this discussion, the landlord to confirm whether it will inspect the issue and whether it will carry out any identified works.