Connect Housing Association Limited (202113795)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202113795

Connect Housing Association Limited

13 March 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

This complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at her home, including internal door replacements throughout the property and skirting board replacement in the hall and kitchen.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s radiator replacement request.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos concerns at the property.
4. Communications and complaint handling.

Scope of investigation

The resident and landlord have provided historical information in relation to the repair reports and complaints to give context to the complaint and other matters that have been raised through the complaints process. This is useful information but cannot, and has not, been taken into consideration during this complaint investigation. This is because they relate to complaints from 2014 and an Ombudsman determination of 2018 about separate issues.
These are outside of the scope of this investigation in accordance with paragraph 42(m) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme) which states that we will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy with the landlord that began on 17 September 2001. This is a three-bedroom town house (the property).
The tenancy agreement stipulates certain conditions, including repairs that the landlord and tenant are responsible for maintaining respectively. Repair of the structure and exterior is covered at part 5 where it specifies parts of the property that the landlord should maintain. Part 5 includes the following:
1. To keep in good repair, the structure and exterior of the premises including:
  1. (iv) Internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decoration.
The landlord has provided its responsive repairs policy (2022) that outlines its obligations and provides further clarification on specific repairs.
The landlord’s complaints policy (January 2021) outlines how it handles complaints. This includes a two-stage complaints process, timescales, compensation procedure and gives examples of what it pays when there is a service failure.

Summary of events

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at her home, including internal door replacements and skirting board replacements in the hall and kitchen

The landlord has provided the repairs history for the property that shows, on 2 February 2021, an order was raised with an actual completion date of 18 March 2021. The order asked for an assessment of the doors and to make it clear to the resident that this was an assessment only.
A note on the same order stated “Repair internal door OR frame to leave sound and in good working order including repairing or renewing or refixing any handles, latches or joinery trim.” The relevant notes on this order stated:

All doors assessed and in good condition. A description of the doors was given and a comment was made relating to a previous surveyor stating that the doors were not up to specification anymore. The resident referenced a previous surveyor attending before lockdown and commenting that the doors needed replacing. The inspector questioned this comment and made reference to his personal opinion that he thought the doors and frames should be painted with handles and latches changed.

On the same day, the landlord’s records show a further order request raised. The notes state “as per previous visit – internal door handles need replacing – pick up on day – 8 internal door handles and latches.” The actual completion date shown is 18 March 2021.
On 17 January 2022, an independent survey was carried out on the property. The report has been provided to the resident and a copy sent to this Service. It confirmed that the internal doors and fittings were “functional for purpose”.
The survey also confirmed that the skirting surfaces were affected by general wear and tear and any damage was decorative in nature.
On 22 March 2022, the landlord’s repairs history shows an order was raised for a loose living room door handle and two doors loose. It also asked for checks to the skirting in the kitchen and bathroom reported as ‘rotten’. No completion date is provided.
The landlord has provided information to this Service which refers to the resident previously questioning why joinery work was not completed on a routine planned replacement programme. The landlord has confirmed that it repairs or replaces internal joinery items only as and when necessary.

Radiator replacements

The landlord’s repairs history for the heating system shows two repairs to faulty radiators on 26 January 2018 and 30 September 2020.
On 19 February 2021, an order was also raised for a leaking radiator and then on 16 April 2021, another order was raised to check all radiators to ensure they were working and adequately sized. The landlord’s records show that these orders were marked as ‘completed’.
The landlord has evidenced that the maintenance contractor attended the property on 30 November 2021. A note on the order confirms “balanced system to give more heat to living room radiator. All radiators now working ok.” It gives a detailed analysis of the heat loss survey and a further note states:
1. The resident has to bleed the radiators often.
2. No visible leaks.
3. A further visit was required to add leak sealer and recharge the expansion vessel and the boiler was left on.
The landlord’s records show a work sheet dated 4 March 2022 and notes stating “add leak sealer”. A further note stated “expansion vessel recharged, boiler working”.

Asbestos concerns

The landlord’s repair records show that an order raised in February 2021 noted that the resident had been promised a ceiling repaint after a repair to an asbestos ceiling. It goes on to say that previously, the repaint was only to the area affected but it should have been the whole ceiling. It is unclear if these comments were made by the operative or resident.
On the same order of February 2021, the operative made a request for the artex to be tested for asbestos content as the resident was worried. It made reference to the resident’s children bringing their bikes in the house and some damage to the artex walls as a result of this.
The landlord has provided a copy of the asbestos management survey report, produced by a specialist asbestos analytical service, dated 4 May 2021. This gives a detailed analysis by location descriptions, product type, damage extent on a rating system, surface treatment and asbestos type. It also shows areas not accessed due to limited access. The survey data sheet gave recommendations by each room and identified either low risk, very low risk or no asbestos containing materials. Where low or very low risk, recommendations were made as follows:

Whilst asbestos containing material continues to remain undisturbed, no immediate action is required. However a system of ongoing management should be implemented which includes routine condition inspections.

In relation to the roof void, the asbestos management survey of 4 May 2021, gave a recommendation that the asbestos containing material should be removed and disposed of in full accordance with current and relevant legislation.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 24 November 2021 made reference to it having arranged another asbestos survey and the outcome of this being that the textured coating (artex) to the walls within the property were negative and there was therefore no risk from asbestos and that normal refurbishment of these areas could be carried out by the resident. It offered to remove the cement debris in the loft and left it with the resident to make contact if she wished to go ahead with this work.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response of 2 February 2022 referred to asbestos concerns being dealt with in the stage one complaint response. It makes reference to enclosing a copy of the asbestos survey report for information but it is unknown which report this relates to as it makes no reference to the date of the report. It referred to the potential for asbestos fibres to be in the textured coatings on the walls but that their previous investigations revealed that this was not the case, as referred to in previous correspondence. It confirmed that there should be no issues in removing the textured coating on the walls in the process of redecoration. In relation to the offer to remove cement debris in the loft, it confirmed that it did not believe that it had heard back from the resident on whether to go ahead with this work.

Communications and complaint handling

The landlord’s records show that on 20 September 2021, the resident requested a formal complaint be logged about the outstanding repairs. The resident raised concerns about repeatedly requesting a review on the repairs issues over a two-year timeframe and asked for a solution focused plan.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord’s records show the resident requested an update on the formal complaint. Various email correspondence took place on the same day between the landlord and resident. An update on some items was given and it was left that the resident would await the stage one complaint response.
On 24 November 2021, the landlord’s records show that it emailed the stage one complaint response to the resident. A summary of the outcome is provided below:
1. Asbestos – The asbestos report showed no risk of asbestos, there was asbestos in the loft and the landlord confirmed it was happy to arrange for this to be removed.
2. Skirting boards and internal doors – It confirmed there was no reason to replace any of the items and referred to a spare door that could be arranged to be fitted.
3. Radiators – It confirmed that it had instructed its maintenance contractor to review the radiators.
The landlord’s records show that the resident emailed the landlord on 24 November 2021, remaining dissatisfied with the response. The resident raised the issue with long-standing miscommunications and concerns in raising repairs and the time taken to respond.
The landlord’s records show that on 29 November 2021, clarification by email was confirmed that the resident wanted to escalate her complaint to stage two of the complaints process.
On 17 December 2021, the landlord’s records show that it emailed the resident to request a surveyor attend the property to carry out a full survey before being able to finalise the complaint outcome. The landlord wanted to arrange an appointment on 21 December 2021 but the resident requested this for the first week in January 2022. Arrangements were made for a surveyor appointment on 4 January 2022. The resident subsequently advised the landlord that the surveyor did not turn up on this date.
On 24 January 2022, the landlord’s records show that the resident emailed the landlord to chase up the complaint. The landlord responded stating that the officer dealing with the complaint was not in the office but a chase up would be made the following day.
A copy of the stage two complaint has been provided by the resident and landlord. This is dated 2 February 2022. It apologises for the delays in responding which it stated was due to having to involve different parties.
The stage two complaint summarised the complaint and advised that the inspection by the independent surveyor found:
1. Internal doors and fittings were functional for purpose.
2. Damage to walls and skirting surfaces was general wear and tear and decorative in nature.
3. It made reference to the main issue being the textured coating which restricted choices for decoration.
4. No reference to the radiators was provided within the report. It noted that an officer had arranged for a contractor to inspect the heating and confirmed that this happened 30 November 2021.
5. It enclosed a copy of the independent survey report for the resident dated 17 January 2022.
6. It noted that due to the resident having to bleed the radiators and no visible leaks being present, it recommended a leak sealer be added into the system along with recharging the expansion vessel. The landlord commented that it was disappointed that this had not already been actioned and advised the resident that she should expect contact from the contractor shortly to arrange the work.
7. The landlord referred to the heat loss survey that suggested the radiators were broadly adequately sized for each room. In four cases, output of existing radiators was slightly below that considered ideal under current recommendations but it commented that the difference was within normal tolerances and therefore it would not normally upgrade these radiators as improvements were marginal.
8. It planned to seal and repressurise the heating system and then review its performance and advised the resident that an officer would discuss the outcome to decide what, if any, further works were required.
9. It confirmed that the asbestos was dealt with at the stage one complaint and that there should not be any issue in removing textured coatings on the walls in the process of redecoration.
10. The landlord made reference to a repair relating to the removal of cement debris in the loft and that it had not heard back from the resident about whether she wanted this work to go ahead.
11. In conclusion, the landlord confirmed that the evidence suggested that the resident’s home was in adequate repair and that the requests constituted improvements which the landlord was not obliged to carry out.
The landlord has not provided any information to confirm the outcome of the review of the heating system and follow on discussions with the resident.
The resident provided an update to this Service on 17 February 2022. It is noted that the resident states that the internal door requests had been ongoing for over ten years and that this was impacting her mental health. The resident commented on the following items:
1. During the stage one complaint, a door scheme was being considered but this had never materialised. During a previous complaint outcome, the resident advised this Service that the landlord had offered the resident alternatives such as purchasing the doors and the landlord would fit them or that she could buy the doors from it for £50 per door. The resident has said she declined this offer as she believed it was the landlord’s responsibility to replace the doors.
2. Previously, she experienced a leak after a new bathroom was fitted which caused the kitchen roof to hold water for some time and then this brought down the kitchen ceiling, leaving the kitchen and hall flooded. Over the years, the resident stated the damp caused the skirting boards to rot or break off.
3. The radiators were the original ones that have been painted over a number of times and she requested that these be looked at in relation to their effectiveness.
4. The artex was depressing and old fashioned and impacted on her mental health. She commented that she was unable to hang wallpaper and that she did not believe it was within the tenant’s duties to carry out plaster works.
5. There had been many asbestos surveys and before the Covid-19 lockdown, she was informed that she would have to move out for asbestos work to be carried out but then another survey and different report was provided.
6. One area of the artex was treated on the landing and this should have been followed up with a re-paint as this was agreed but not actioned.
7. Communication with staff was below standard and complaint responses had taken two years.
The resident added that she is a single parent with a child with chronic asthma and allergies and the situation was causing stress due to the delayed repair issues.

Assessment and findings

The Housing Ombudsman provides a dispute resolution service which is an alternative to a legal route. Our approach to providing remedies to cases following investigation is framed by three principles – be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at her home, including internal door replacements and skirting board replacements in the hall and kitchen

The landlord’s repair obligations within the tenancy agreement and repairs policy show that it is responsible for internal doors and skirting boards.
The repairs policy classifies response times for emergency repairs (to be attended within 2 hours and completed within 24 hours). It gives examples of these types of jobs, which include gas leaks, electrical faults, structural danger, central heating, etc. Its other category is non-emergency repairs, which are to be responded to within 15 working days at the most, but with an aim to complete 8 out of 10 of these jobs within 10 working days. It states that non-emergency repairs should be carried out by appointment and it aims to complete 80% of repair orders in a single visit.
It is unclear when the resident first reported a problem with the skirting boards; the landlord’s evidence shows that it appointed an independent survey of the property which took place on 17 January 2022. This was an appropriate response by the landlord and demonstrated that it wished to check whether any repairs or replacements were required. The survey confirmed that the skirting boards were affected by general wear and tear which was decorative in nature. There was therefore no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the skirting board report.
The inspection of the doors, replacement of door handles and latches were ordered on 2 February 2021 and completed on 18 March 2021, a six-week time frame. It is unclear when the resident made contact with the landlord to prompt this order. As this was non-emergency work, the landlord’s repairs policy states that it aims to complete these works within 15 working days – this was therefore completed outside the landlord’s timescales. However, given the landlord needed to assess the door condition and then complete any repairs and the appointment needed to be agreed with the resident, these works were carried out within a reasonable timescale.
Due to the long-standing concerns raised by the resident, the landlord instructed the independent survey to be carried out of the property in January 2022. This was again a reasonable approach to involve an independent third party surveyor to give an impartial assessment of the property.
The survey report detailed the property condition by room and concluded that the internal doors and skirting board were fit for purpose. There were wear and tear issues identified but the items were still functional. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably, and in accordance with its repair obligations, in its decision not to carry out repairs to the internal doors and not to carry out replacement work to the doors or skirting boards.
The landlord does not offer a planned replacement programme of works for joinery. As the resident had previously expressed her view that she thought the landlord should do so, it proactively sought an independent view, as part of its Asset Investment Strategy, on how it deals with planned replacement works in relation to joinery. This was to take a position on whether it was out of step with others in the sector. The response was that it was unusual for housing organisations to undertake internal joinery replacements on a planned programme. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord to review its position on joinery works and check it was in line with other landlord’s in the sector.
It is unclear what the landlord’s position is in relation to a door replacement scheme whereby the resident is able to pay the landlord to carry out this work. It appears this may have been offered to the resident in the past but, at the time, she declined due to believing it was the landlord’s responsibility to replace the doors. It is also noted that in the landlord’s records that there is mention of the landlord hanging a spare door. No evidence has been provided to confirm the outcome of this – a recommendation is therefore made below in this regard.
The resident made reports that she believed the internal doors and a section of the skirting boards in her home required replacement. The landlord responded appropriately to these requests by repairing the doors and instructing an independent surveyor for their opinion. The landlord has to balance its repair and maintenance obligations against essential and non-essential work and is not under an obligation to carry out work over and above its repair duties. In providing a reasonable explanation as to why it would not do the works to the doors and skirting boards that the resident was requesting, it acted appropriately in its response.

Radiator replacements

The landlord is responsible for the maintenance of the heating system, including the radiators, as per the tenancy agreement and repairs policy. It specifically says that all central heating repairs should receive attendance within eight working hours.
The landlord’s repairs history shows that it has responded to individual radiator repairs as follows:
1. Order received 26 January 2018; completed 2 February 2018. (Faulty radiator).
2. Order received 30 September 2020; completed 5 October 2020. (Faulty radiator).
3. Order received 19 February 2021; completed 23 February 2021. (Leaking radiator).
4. Order received 16 April 2021; completed 19 April 2021. (Check all radiators in the property were in working order and adequately sized).
It is unclear if the landlord attended to the individual radiator repair orders within its eight working hour timescale. However, the completion time frame shows an average of three working days which is a reasonable time frame for this type of work.
The landlord instructed its contractor in November 2021 to balance the heating system to give more heat to the living room radiator and provided a detailed analysis of the heat output for each radiator. The survey showed no visible leaks on the system but it agreed to add leak sealer to the system as a precautionary measure.
Delays are identified in the order to add the leak sealer to the heating system and despite this work being ordered on 25 November 2021, the landlord’s records show that this work was not completed until 4 March 2022. Whilst this work was apparently carried out as a precautionary measure, the landlord acknowledged its disappointment in the duration of time it was taking to complete this work. It was unreasonable for it to take over three months to be completed.
The landlord confirmed in its stage two complaint review that it would review the heating system performance once the seal and re-pressurisation had taken place. It advised the resident that an officer would liaise and discuss the outcome with her to decide what if any further works were required. No evidence has been provided to suggest that it did this. This was again unreasonable given the resident’s concerns and the landlord’s commitment to do so to put right its earlier failing.

Asbestos concerns

The resident has advised this Service that various asbestos tests at the property have occurred.
The resident reported concerns of asbestos in March 2021 but it was not until May 2021 that an asbestos management survey was carried out, meaning there was a delay of two months. This was an unreasonable delay given the resident had health and safety concerns.
The asbestos survey data sheet of May 2021 gave recommendations by each room and identified either low risk, very low risk or no asbestos containing materials. Where low or very low risk, recommendations were made as follows:

In relation to the roof void, the asbestos management survey of 4 May 2021 gave a recommendation that the asbestos containing material should be removed and disposed of in full accordance with current and relevant legislation.
The evidence provided suggests that it was not until November 2021 that the landlord informed the resident of the outcome of the asbestos survey report despite this being dated May 2021. The report gives recommendations for work to be completed in the loft and monitoring of other areas that contain asbestos. There is no evidence that the landlord proactively followed up on this. Again, this was an unreasonable delay given the resident’s health and safety concerns.
In its correspondence, the landlord advised the resident that cement debris had been identified around the loft hatch, made reference that the work may be able to take place whilst the resident still resides at the property and added that it would arrange to have an order raised and then confirm how long the works to the loft would take. The landlord also confirmed that it was happy for the resident to decorate the artexed walls.
The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 24 November 2021 made reference to it having arranged another asbestos survey and the outcome of this being that the textured coating (artex) to the walls within the property were negative and there was therefore no risk from asbestos and that normal refurbishment of these areas could be carried out by the resident. It offered to remove the cement debris in the loft and left the resident to make contact if she wished to go ahead with this work. It is unclear from the evidence provided if this work has been carried out. However, this advice was confusing – the landlord should have explained to the resident why another asbestos survey was required to clarify any confusion. It is of concern that the landlord left the decision with the resident as to whether she wanted the work to go ahead in the loft area when the survey report of May 2021 gave a clear recommendation for the landlord to carry out this work.
It is also unclear from the evidence provided why another asbestos survey was required. The landlord has not provided this Service with the survey report it referred to in making its decision contained within the stage one complaint response. It is also unclear from the evidence provided if the resident has a copy of the asbestos survey report from 4 May 2021 or a more recent report the landlord refers to in its correspondence to the resident.

Communication and complaint handling

It is clear from the evidence provided by the landlord and the chase ups that the resident had to make to the landlord that there was significant delay from the stage one complaint being made on 20 September 2021 to the response letter on 24 November 2021. The landlord’s complaints policy states that complaints at all stages are acknowledged within two working days of receipt of the complaint and a full written response is sent within ten working days.
From the evidence seen, there were no acknowledgements of complaints received and no updates from the landlord during this time apart from when the resident chased this up. Further, the stage one response letter did not advise the resident of their right to escalate the complaint. This was inappropriate and not in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
Again, at stage two of the complaints procedure, delays were evident. The stage two complaint was received on 29 November 2021 and the response letter was not provided until 2 February 2022. The landlord did advise the resident that it needed the outcome of the independent survey before it could respond and arrangements were made for the survey to be carried out and a date given to the resident but it is apparent that the surveyor did not keep this appointment.
Although the landlord apologised for the delays in responding within its stage two complaint response, this was insufficient redress given there had been delays at both stages of its complaints procedure which caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at her home, including internal door replacements throughout the property and skirting board replacement in the hall and kitchen.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s radiator replacement request.
In accordance with section 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos concerns at the property.
2. Communications and complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord acted appropriately in relation to the requests to replace the skirting boards by proactively seeking an independent surveyor’s opinion. It also attended to door repairs within a reasonable timescale and conducted a follow-up inspection in January 2022 to confirm the doors required no further repairs.
The landlord delayed by more than three months in carrying out work to add leak sealer to the heating system. It recognised this delay and expressed its disappointment in its stage two complaint response but it failed to offer any redress to the resident.
The landlord failed to review the heating system performance and discuss the outcome with the resident. This was unreasonable and does not give any closure to the resident on if any follow up work is required.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of asbestos concerns were delayed by eight months; from the time reported to it communicating the outcome. The landlord’s response to the resident is contradictory to that contained within the report of May 21. This is because the asbestos management report shows evidence of asbestos in some areas and recommendations for a plan of management. However, the landlord has not followed up on these recommendations and its response to the resident confirms the tests to be negative which seemed to contradict the earlier report.
The landlord failed to comply with its complaint policy as it did not inform the resident of how she could progress her complaint and did not keep to timescales or keep her updated. Instead, the resident had to chase up the complaint progress several times.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report and:
1. provide her with evidence to confirm whether there is asbestos in the artex and whether there are safety concerns connected to this given the damage reported by the resident (this should include an up to date asbestos report to clarify this issue and an action plan of how it intends to deal with any works required);
2. provide her with clarification in relation to the repaint of the damaged ceiling including its intended action to resolve this matter.
The landlord to pay the resident compensation of £550 within four weeks of the date of this report, made up of:
1. £100 for the service failure identified in its handling of her radiator replacement requests;
2. £250 for the service failure identified in its response to her reports of asbestos concerns at the property;
3. £200 in recognition of the failures in its handling of communications and her complaint.
The landlord to review its handling of this case within eight weeks of the date of this report and advise this Service what actions it will take to ensure that its stage one complaint response letters advise residents how they can escalate their complaint under their complaints policy.
The landlord should reply to this Service in accordance with the timescales set out above to demonstrate compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

The landlord to review the heating system, if it has not already done so, discuss the outcome with the resident and provide a written response to her confirming the outcome.
The landlord to update the resident on its position on a door replacement scheme and clarify its position on the internal door it offered to fit if it has not already done so.
The landlord to reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to confirm its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.