Home Group Limited (202214165)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214165

Home Group Limited

22 June 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of a shower repair.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mould.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its housing officer.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a two-bedroom flat. She has a mental health condition and a skin condition, which she reported throughout the complaint process to the landlord.
The resident first reported concerns about the shower at the property in 2016, following which an issue with the shower pump was identified. Further issues were reported following the installation of a new pump in 2018 and further instances of issues with the shower or shower pump were reported during both 2019 and 2020. The resident requested that a bath be installed, however this was declined in the absence of supporting medical evidence. The resident complained on this issue, with the landlord’s complaints process on this issue ending in February 2021.
In May 2021, the resident again reported the shower was not working properly. In February 2022, the resident advised the landlord she had an issue with mould in the property and had requested an inspection.Also in April 2022, the resident reported that the shower pump kept leaking.Later that month the resident again reported problems with the shower not draining properly.
The resident made a complaint to the landlord in April 2022. She said she was unhappy with the housing officer, as they did not call her back to discuss the issues in the property. She was also unhappy with the landlord’s handling of her reports about mould. In addition, she said the landlord had advised her to wash in the sink, and she was left for months at a time where she and her child could not wash because of the problems with the shower. She said her child had to have time off school because of this. The resident offered to pay £500 towards the £1,000 cost of a new shower or otherwise for the landlord to install a bath.
The landlord issued its stage one response on 17 May 2022. It made the following points:
1. A works order had been raised for the shower repair, as well as treatment for the mould on the bathroom floor.
2. Its surveyor had explained to the resident that it was not normal practice for the landlord to revert an adapted property back to one with a bath. It had previously asked the resident for evidence of a medical need for a bath. Alternatively, it could consider a management move to another property with a bath.
3. It accepted its housing manager has not always contacted the resident by phone but said there had been email correspondence between the parties.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage two of the landlord’s complaint process on 22 May 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a stage two review of her complaint on 10 August 2022. It apologised for the delays. The resident chased this a few weeks later, and also said there was mould under the kitchen sink as well as the bedroom.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 8 September 2022. It said:
1. It had reviewed the shower repair history, and the reason for the issue was poor communication between the contractor and subcontractor regarding the cause of the fault, which it apologised for. It acknowledged there were a series of emergency and out of hours repairs raised due to the shower not draining properly, and this was attended by a drainage contractor. It said the problem was correctly identified in May 2021 as a crack in the pipe connection to the pump, and a repair was carried out in May 2022. It noted there had been no further issues with the shower since then.
2. An occupational therapist assessment would need to take place for the landlord to consider installing a bath. It advised the resident how to arrange this.
3. In respect of the mould, it said the treatment for this was completed on 18 August 2022.
4. Although the resident had requested phone contact, the landlord thought the housing officer was uncomfortable speaking with the resident due to previous issues with her abusive language. However, it said the housing officer had still responded to the resident. It said that further instances of abusive language and behaviour would not be tolerated, and if it continued, it would issue a Notice of Seeking Possession Order.
The resident brought a complaint to this Service about the shower repair, mould, and housing officer. She said she had not asked for a bath, and only asked if the landlord could fit a bath if the issues with the shower continued. She said the issues with the mould had continued, despite the treatment.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has previously complained to the landlord about its decision not to provide her with a bath. This was a matter of the previous complaint that completed the landlord’s complaints process in February 2021, in which the landlord refused the request without a supporting occupational therapist assessment.
The resident’s complaint to this Service was not about the landlord’s previous response to this issue. The resident’s complaint is that the issues with her shower had been ongoing for so long, that if they were not resolved, then she wanted the landlord to install a bath. This report will therefore focus on the landlord’s response to the shower repairs and will not consider the resident’s previous request for a bath.
The initial reports of shower repair date since 2016. There is no evidence to suggest that the issue has been resolved permanently for over 6 years. Whilst the Ombudsman usually investigates the circumstances of the issue between 6 and 12 months prior to the resident’s complaint, in this instance, we will look into the historic shower repair. In the interest of fairness and in order to identify whether the landlord’s response to this ongoing repair was appropriate, we will investigate the landlord’s action since the initial reports of 2016.

The landlord’s handling of a shower repair

The landlord’s repair policy says that repairs are split into two categories. Emergency repairs are attended to within six hours and completed within 24 hours. Routine repairs are less serious and are carried out within 14 calendar days.
In 2016 and 2017, the resident reported her shower was blocked on three occasions, and the landlord cleared the blockages. On one of the occasions, the landlord cleared the blockages outside of the repairs policy timeframes – repair was reported on 14 April 2017, and completed on 12 May 2017. The rest of the repairs were completed within the 14 days’ time frame, but not as an emergency repair.
On 20 February 2018, the resident again reported the shower was blocked, and the landlord found a new shower pump was needed. This was ordered and installed on 6 March 2018. In March and November 2018, the resident experienced further problems with her shower on three occasions. The landlord found the pump was not working properly and so the shower was flooding the wet room floor when in use. The repair was reported on 6 November 2018 and completed on 30 November 2018.
In 2019, the resident experienced four further issues with the shower not working properly. The resident advised that while she was waiting for the shower to be fixed, she and her child had no other way of washing. She explained that this was affecting her mental health. While two of the repairs were attended the same day that they were reported, the other two were attended 16 and 10 days later.
Following further reports in 2020 and 2021, in May 2021, the landlord identified the full problem with the cracked pump. But a further repair was not carried out for another year. The repair was completed on 27 May 2022. During that period, the resident continued to experience problems with her shower. Even after the landlord’s contractor did identify the correct problem with the pump in May 2021, a full repair was not carried out for another year. This was not reasonable, and significantly outside timescale in the landlord’s repairs policy.
The evidence suggests that the resident has experienced multiple problems with the shower, and about over 20 reports over 6 years. Although the shower was unblocked a number of times by the drainage contractor, given the repeated blockages reported, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have undertaken further investigations into the problem at an earlier stage. However, it failed to do so and identify the underlying problem, and as such permanently resolve the issue at an earlier stage. It did not act in line with its policy, considerably delayed resolving the issue and as such caused frustration in the resident.
She advised the landlord that each time the shower broke, she and her child were left without washing facilities (other than the sink) until it was repaired. The landlord has not disputed the resident’s assertion that she could not use the shower whilst it was blocked, or that she had been told to wash in the sink.
Given that the resident had no other washing facilities in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to take a proactive approach and to make the repairs a priority. However, the repair timeframes ranged between a same day repair to up to four weeks, and five of the repairs took around three weeks to complete. As such, the resident and her child were considerably impacted by the problems with the shower, and on multiple occasions.
Additionally, the landlord said it had preciously asked the resident for evidence of the medical need for her to have a bath. However, the resident’s request for a bath due to her medical condition was addressed by the landlord in its response to a previous complaint made by the resident. The resident confirmed she had only asked for a bath this time if the problems with the shower continued. As such there was miscommunication on the landlord’s part.
In its final response, the landlord admitted failures with the handling of the shower repair and apologised to the resident for the problems she had experienced. Whilst it completed the repair, it did not offer any compensation to recognise the inconvenience she had been caused by this failure. As such it did not act in line with its compensation policy. An effective complaints process allows the landlord to identify where things have gone wrong and take steps to put matters right. It did not do so here as compensation would have been appropriate given the acknowledged distress and inconvenienced experienced by the resident during the period of service failure.
Therefore, although the repair has apparently now been put right, the landlord did not provide reasonable redress. Given the length of time over which the resident experienced issues with the shower, and the number of repairs that needed to be carried out, there was maladministration by the landlord’s handling of the shower repair. Compensation has been ordered for the inconvenience caused by the landlord’s delay in permanently repairing the shower.
Based on the landlord’s repair logs, it seems the total length of time that the resident was waiting for repairs to the shower since 2016 was around 24 weeks. Some of those repairs were as follow, the list is not inclusive:
1. 2017 – repair raised on 14 April and completed on 12 May, repair raised on 14 September and completed on 21 September;
2. 2018 – repair raised on 20 February and completed on 6 March, repair raised on 6 November and completed on 9 November, repair raised on 12 November and completed on 29 November.
3. 2019 – repairs raised on 1 April and 9 April and completed on 16 April, repair raised on 15 November and completed on 19 November;
4. 2020 -repair raised on 17 February and completed on 18 February;
5. 2021- repair raised on 10 May attended the same day, then raised on 12 May and completed on 3 June;
6. 2022 – repair raised on 7 February and attended on 11 February, repair raised on 8 April and completed on 29 April, repair raised on 4 May and completed on 27 May.
Taking the above into account, as well as the landlord’s miscommunication, and the inconvenience caused by the multiple attempts to resolve the issue, it would be appropriate here for £850 compensation to be paid to recognise the impact the matter has had on the resident. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedy guidance of £600 to £1000 were the impact of the failure had a significant impact on the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of mould

The resident initially reported mould in her bathroom in February 2022. She advised the landlord at this time that she was expecting it to arrange an inspection. This Service has seen no evidence of mould reports, or any works raised prior to February 2022.
Following the resident’s reports, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the mould in early March 2022. This was appropriate as the landlord wanted to establish the extent of the problem before arranging a repair. The surveyor found there were some minor issues with mould growth on the silicone and flooring areas of the bathroom, and a repair order was raised. There is no evidence, the repair was completed within the timeframes of the landlord’s repairs policy.
In March and April 2022, the resident questioned why the landlord had not responded to her concerns about the mould. The landlord later advised the resident that the property would need to be inspected again but did not explain why this was necessary. A further inspection did not take place, but the mould was treated in August 2022.
It is clear that it took six months for the landlord to deal with the damp and mould in the bathroom, which was not in line with the landlord’s repair policy. The resident continued to chase the landlord during that time due to her concerns about the mould.
When the resident advised the landlord in August 2022 that there was also mould under the kitchen sink and in the bedroom, it added this to the works order that was due to take place later that week. The mould treatment in the kitchen and bedroom was, therefore, carried out in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
Nonetheless, the landlord took too long to apply the mould treatment for the bathroom. The landlord did not recognise this during its complaint process, and so did not make any attempt to put things right. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of mould and damp. It would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £200 compensation to recognise the inconvenience she was caused by the length of time taken to address the damp and mould.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about its housing officer

The resident complained that the landlord’s housing officer would not call her on the phone to talk about the issues in the property.
Internal emails from the landlord provided to this Service confirm that the housing officer did not wish to speak to the resident over the phone, as she had previously been abusive and aggressive. It was also noted that calls were not recorded, and so the housing officer preferred to correspond by email.
Whilst the housing officer had a valid reason for not wishing to contact the resident by phone it would have been reasonable for the landlord to make this clear at the time. A such the resident would know why the housing officer was not calling her as per her requests. It is evidenced that the landlord explained this in its final response and took further steps after the complaint process had ended.
The landlord’s unacceptable behaviour policy makes it clear that if someone is rude or abusive over the phone, then a manager may determine that for a set period of time, the landlord will only deal with that person in writing. The landlord had an opportunity to implement this measure and did not need to wait for the complaint process to finish before doing so. The landlord’s failure to make it clear to the resident why its housing officer was not calling her caused the resident unnecessary upset and confusion.
However, this Service will take into account any mitigating factors. In other words, the extent to which the resident’s actions have contributed to the situation. In these circumstances, the evidence suggests that the resident was abusive towards the landlord’s staff members, and this was the reason the housing officer did not want to speak with her over the phone. In the circumstances, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £50 compensation for its failure to promptly inform her for the reasons the housing officer would not return her calls.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The resident raised issues about the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and particularly why the response at stage one was issued by the housing officer’s manager (the operational manager). The operational manager called the resident to discuss her complaint, but the resident did not want them involved due to their previous involvement in another complaint related to ASB.
The landlord considered whether it was appropriate for the operational manager to continue looking into the complaint. However, it decided that since the operational manager had line management responsibility for the housing officer that the resident had complained about, it would be appropriate for the operational manager to provide the stage one complaint response.
The landlord demonstrated that it had given consideration to the resident’s request and provided reasonable explanation to its decision. Additionally, the landlord arranged for a more senior member of staff unrelated to the case to provide the stage two complaint response, in order to avoid any possible bias of the complaint handling process. The landlord, therefore, acted reasonably and in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Code, which recommends that a complaint should be reviewed by a senior member, unrelated to the complaint.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. It aims to provide its stage one response within ten working days of a complaint. If a resident is unhappy with its stage one response, they can request that the matter is escalated to stage two. The landlord says it will aim to issue stage two decision within 20 working days.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 April 2022, but the landlord did not issue its stage one response until 17 May 2022. This was 22 working days outside of the landlord’s stated timeframe of ten working days.
Additionally, the landlord received the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two on 22 May 2022. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge this escalation in a timely manner. It acknowledged it on 10 August 2022 and sent stage two response on 8 September 2022. This was 76 days outside of the timeframes set out in its complaints policy. This was unreasonable and contributed to further frustration in the resident and time spent to chase resolution.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint due to the considerable delays, which deprived the resident from a timely revolution under the complaint’s process or an opportunity to bring the complaint to the Ombudsman at an earlier stage. £150 compensation has been awarded to recognise the time and trouble the resident was caused by these delays.

Determination

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. handling of a shower repair;
2. handling of the resident’s report of mould;
3. handling of the complaint.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. response to the resident’s concerns about its housing officer.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident total compensation of £1,250. The compensation should be paid directly to the resident rather than offset against any rent arrears. The compensation comprising:
1. £850 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s its handling of the shower repairs;
2. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by its handling of her report of mould;
3. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s failures in responding to the resident’s concerns about its housing officer;
4. and £150 for the time and trouble caused by its handling of her complaint.
The landlord should contact the resident to establish whether the mould problem has now been resolved. If not, it should arrange for a mould specialist surveyor to inspect the property within four weeks of the date of this report and arrange any repairs if identified to be completed.
The landlord to review its procedures so that when the same repair is needed a number of times, it takes action to establish whether there is an underlying issue that needs to be addressed.
The landlord should confirm its compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks.

Recommendations

If the resident continues to experience problems with the shower, it is recommended the landlord thoroughly investigate any reports of this.