Star Housing (202204097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204097

Star Housing

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

1. The complaint is about the level of compensation offered following the resident’s complaint about repairs.

Background

2. The resident holds a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is an management agent for a local authority. The tenancy is for a three bedroom house and began on 27 September 2021.
3. On 9 November 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint with the landlord as she was experiencing mould within her property. The landlord responded on 15 November 2021 and confirmed that the property had been subject to damp when it was vacant and that works were being carried out to address this. It also apologised that the works had not been carried out in a timely way.
4. The resident escalated her complaint on 15 November 2021 as she remained dissatisfied. The resident said that it was unacceptable that the works had not been completed prior to her moving into the property.
5. The landlord provided a stage two response on 15 December 2021 where it confirmed that the issue with damp had been resolved, but data loggers would be left in the property to monitor over the coming weeks. The landlord apologised for the distress caused and offered £300 compensation, it also confirmed the learning it had identified as a result of the complaint.
6. On 1 April 2022 the resident raised a new stage one complaint regarding outstanding work in her garden. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s complaint was about:
   1. The incomplete fence on both sides of the garden that needed to be erected.
   2. The outstanding work to level the garden.
   3. A large bag of soil was supposed to be moved, so scaffolding could go up around the house, but was not done. Instead, it was scattered around the garden, but this has created lumps. Due to the unevenness of the garden the resident’s daughter was unable to play outside as she has a potential diagnosis of dyspraxia.
7. The landlord responded on 31 May 2022 confirming that the work required in the garden had now been completed and apologised that it had not been completed when the property was vacant.
8. The resident escalated her complaint on 1 June 2022 as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. The resident said that the response did not address all the issues she had faced when she moved into the property and that the works should have been completed while the property was void. The resident also informed the landlord the effect the repairs had taken on her family and was seeking £2,160 compensation, which was the equivalent of 50% of the total amount paid in rent.
9. On 27 June 2022, the landlord provided a final response which said that:
   1. It aimed to carry out all remedial works in as timely a way as possible, but due to Covid-19 restrictions being lifted some jobs had to be prioritised.
   2. Following the resident’s complaint it was reviewing how it carried out works, and ensuring that properties would only let when all repairs were completed.
   3. An offer of £1000 compensation was made as a gesture of goodwill in light of the distress that would have been caused since the resident moved into her home.
10. The resident referred her complaint to this Service on 2 August 2022 where she confirmed that all repairs to the property had been completed, but she wanted an independent review of the complaint to ascertain whether the compensation payment was fair and that the landlord had learnt from the failures it had identified.

Assessment and findings

11. The Ombudsman’s role is to determine complaints by reference to what is fair in all the circumstances and decide if the landlord is responsible for maladministration or service failure. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its dispute resolution principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
    1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
    2. put things right, and.
    3. learn from outcomes.
12. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy confirms that properties which are vacant, also known as void, are let as effectively as possible in order to minimise loss of rental income. In order to achieve that, it had adopted a lettable standard and a systematic approachto meeting that standard, which included undertaking inspections, instructing necessary repair work, monitoring progress until completion and passing properties as fit to let.
13. The landlord does not have a compensation policy, but has informed this Service that it is in the process of producing one.
14. When assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided.
15. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive, but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, this Service is not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
16. On assessing the information provided to this Service, it is accepted by both the landlord and resident that the property was let before all repairs had been completed, which was not in line with its repairs and maintenance policy. The landlord has accepted that this was a failing on its part. As such, it was appropriate that the landlord made an offer of compensation in recognition of this, and to ‘put things right’ for the resident.
17. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedy guidance where there has been a failure which adversely affected a resident but has had no permanent impact, a payment of between £100 and £600 is recommended.
18. In this case, there was a delay of approximately eight months for the landlord to complete all the works required in the property. The resident informed the landlord that the damp and mould could have had an effect on her and her family and that she had incurred costs with running the dehumidifiers, furthermore she had also informed the landlord that her daughter was unable to use the garden due to its condition.
19. In summary, it is clear that the landlord did not let the property in the required standard. This amounted to maladministration in the circumstances. In recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this, the landlord offered a total of £1300 compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
20. As part of the landlord’s complaint handling it also identified the need to review its current procedures when letting a property. This Service has seen evidence that it has sought advice from relevant bodies with regards to undertaking this work, and therefore is satisfied that the landlord has ‘learned from outcomes’ in this case.

Determination

21. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord following the resident’s complaint about repairs.

Recommendations

22. The finding of reasonable redress is made on the basis of the compensation offered by the landlord. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the amount offered in is final response within 28 days of the determination.
23. The landlord should continue to review its current processes, including establishing a new compensation policy.