Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202128300)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128300

Thirteen Housing Group Limited

3 November 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 the landlord’s handling of:
   1. the checks it carried out prior to the resident moving in (the landlord’s void inspection).
   2. The resident’s reports of damp and water leaks in the property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord.
3. The resident viewed the property on 24 August 2021 and accepted the property on 30 August 2021. Upon viewing the property, the resident and the landlord did not identify any damp patches or any leaks in the property.
4. On 23 September 2021, the resident reported a leak in the kitchen, which was originating from the bathroom. The landlord attended the property on the same day and sealed an area in the bathroom where the leak was originating from. On the same day the resident reported damp and mould in the living room.
5. On 27 September 2021, the resident reported an inlet pipe in the kitchen was leaking when the washing machine was being used. The landlord attended the property on 29 September 2021 and repaired the inlet pipe, stopping the leak.On the same day the landlord inspected the damp and mould in the property and raised for a plasterer to attend to resolve this.
6. On 30 September 2021, the resident reported water pooling in the kitchen. The landlord attended the same day and replaced a stop tap which resolved the leak.
7. The resident raised a complaint to the landlord on 30 November 2021. She stated that since moving in she had experienced two leaks. Furthermore, the resident reported a “shocking” amount of damp and mould in the living room, which the resident believed to be “rising” from the floor. The resident was dissatisfied with the process to treat the damp and mould, as a painter attended but a plasterer was required as well. The resident felt that the plasterer should have attended in the first place. The resident requested financial reimbursement for the costs incurred due to the damp and leaks and a rent refund, as she felt she should not have to deal with so many issues when she had just moved into the property.
8. On 15 October 2021, the plasterer attended the property and arranged follow-up works for 11 November 2021. However, these repair works were subsequently cancelled at the resident’s request.
9. The landlord issued its final response to the complaint on 15 November 2021. It stated that there was an expectation that all repair issues should be resolved prior to moving in, but this was not always possible as some repairs cannot be identified until the new resident came to use certain items. The property’s repair history showed that damp around the fireplace in the living room was an issue; but, following a repair in 2021, no further issues were reported, which suggested the problem was resolved. It stated that no damp proofing was requested as part of the voids process, and no damp and mould issues were reported during three inspections prior the resident moving in. In regard to damp and mould occurring currently, work had been planned to resolve the issues but the repairs were cancelled due to the resident leaving the property. In regard to the resident’s request for a rent refund, the landlord stated that the property was habitable and, therefore the resident was required to pay rent for the period she lived in the property. Furthermore, due to the living room needing to be redecorated following the damp and mould works, the landlord offered the resident £200 in decorating vouchers. However, after taking into consideration the inconvenience caused, it awarded the resident a refund of two weeks’ rent (£200).
10. The resident referred this matter to the Ombudsman on 12 April 2022. The resident remains dissatisfied with the condition of the property when she moved in, the landlord’s response to her reports of damp and the leaks that occurred in the property. As a resolution the resident would like her rent arrears to be cleared, a rent refund, and compensation for the carpet she laid in the property.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures.

11. The landlord’s responsive repairs states that emergency appointments will be attended to within 24 hours; these types of repairs are any defects that put the health, safety or security of the resident or anyone else at immediate risk. It states that appointed repairs should be attended to within 28 days; these are repairs that are not emergencies.
12. The tenancy agreement states that residents are responsible for keeping the property in a clean condition and decorating all internal parts of the property.

Scope of investigation.

13. The resident stated that her child has eczema which was ‘extremely bad’ and living in a ‘damp property was not good for him’. The resident stated she had to seek medical attention for her child due to the severity of his eczema. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her child’s health and we understand that this would have been a distressing time for her in view of his condition. However, there is no evidence that the resident reported this to the landlord during the complaint procedure, so it remains uncertain if the landlord was aware of this issue at the time of the complaint. If the landlord was not aware of this issue it could not reasonably have been expected to take any action to address it. In addition to this it is outside the remit of the Ombudsman to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing and therefore we cannot determine what effect, if any the landlord’s handling of the repairs had on the resident’s child’s health.

Voids process.

14. When a property is void, a landlord is obligated, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that when a tenancy commences it is ‘fit for human habitation’ and free from category one hazards.  During the void period, prospective tenants have the opportunity to inspect the property, to see if the property is suitable for their needs. The landlord would also be expected to inspect the property and to carry out any repairs which are identified following its inspection. Urgent repairs should be carried out before the new tenant moves in but more minor repairs identified in a void inspection can be carried out after the new tenant has moved in. This ensures that properties can be let to tenants as soon as possible without any avoidable delay, which is necessary due to a lack of availability of social housing.
15. This Service has seen the landlord’s voids checklist which included photographs of the property, and, as per this evidence, there was no damp and mould identified or treated in the property following the void inspection. This is further supported by the fact that upon visiting the property on 24 August 2021 both the resident and the landlord did not identify any damp or mould in the property, and this was not raised by either party. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord failed in its voids process, meaning the property was ‘fit for human habitation’ when the resident moved in. Although it is acknowledged that there were repair issues a short time after she moved in and this would have caused her inconvenience.
16. The resident also was dissatisfied that holes in her roof were not identified by the landlord during the voids process and has said that the landlord misinformed her about the cause and origin of these holes. As explained above, whilst the void inspection should identify any visible repairs it is not intended to be a detailed survey of a property and in some cases there may be repair issues present which are not identified in the void survey and are only identified later, after the new tenant has moved in.
17. The resident stated that the landlord must have been into the roof and seen the holes due to completing a boiler repair and therefore ‘ignored’ the holes. In the evidence provided to this Service, there has been no suggestion that the landlord entered the roof of the property during the void inspection. A void inspection would not generally involve looking in the roof so it is understandable that this may not have been done and therefore the holes in the roof may not have been identified until later.
18. It is acknowledged that the landlord should not have concluded the cause of the holes without inspection, as this could lead to incorrect information being provided, which is what occurred here. It is generally good practice that landlords should await the specialist report of its contractor prior to concluding the cause of any defects. In this case the landlord did not do this and instead provided incorrect and misleading information to the resident. However, this did not have an overall impact on the handling of the repair as the landlord still attended within its repair timeframe and resolved the issue. Therefore, whilst this Service acknowledges the impact that the misinformation might have had on the resident, it did not have a material impact on the outcome of the repair.
19. As a resolution to her complaint the resident has requested to be reimbursed for the cost of laying carpet in the property. It is understandably disappointing for resident to fit a new carpet only to then move out a short time later. However this would not mean that the landlord would be expected to reimburse the resident for the carpet. This is because it would be the resident’s responsibility to decorate the property, as set out in the tenancy agreement and the landlord would not be responsible for these costs.
20. In addition, the resident has requested the rent arrears on her account be ‘cleared’ and a rent refund for the period she was living in the property, as she feels that she should not have had to pay for a property in an unfit condition. As per the tenancy agreement, the resident is obliged to pay rent to the landlord for the duration of her tenancy. In some cases a rent refund might be considered if the resident was unable to live in the property because it was uninhabitable. A property would not generally be considered uninhabitable if it is in need of repair. It would only be uninhabitable if there was evidence that it was unsafe to live in and/or lacking in basic facilities for washing and sleeping etc. In this case, there is no evidence that the resident’s property was uninhabitable, although it was in need of repairs. Therefore, the landlord was reasonable by stating it would not refund the resident any rent payments or clear any arrears that have accrued on the account, as per the terms of the tenancy agreement.

Damp and Leaks

21. The resident first reported the damp and mould on 23 September 2021, with the landlord attending the property on 30 September 2021. Therefore, the landlord responded within a reasonable timeframe of five working days from the date when it was made aware of the issue.
22. The resident raised further concerns with the landlord about the appropriateness of the contractors attending and the work being carried out. The landlord stated that ‘a painter attended the property to establish if damp proofing could be carried out. As it could not, the repair was passed to the plastering team.’ Landlords are entitled to assess what damp and mould treatment would be required for the property, and the attendance of a painter was reasonable in these circumstances as the landlord explained this was to see if damp proofing could be completed. In some cases a damp proof paint may be sufficient to resolve damp and mould although in other cases plastering works may be required. It was reasonable for the landlord to complete an initial assessment first before deciding to complete plastering to see if this was necessary to resolve the problem.
23. The resident has said that she had been in contact with the previous resident who stated the property had a damp issue prior to her moving in. Whilst the landlord is not obliged to discuss any information with the resident about its previous tenant’s repair history, this Service has seen evidence that there were no ‘continuous’ reports of damp and mould in the property prior to the resident moving in. Therefore, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that the landlord was made aware that this was an ongoing issue in the property. The landlord would only be expected to act on repair issues it was made aware of and it would not have been obliged to take action if the previous tenant had experienced damp and mould but had not told the landlord about it.
24. It is also acknowledged that the contractor who attended stated he had been in the property during the voids process and was aware that damp treatment had been carried out in the living room. This aspect of the complaint was not thoroughly explored in the landlord’s complaint response and, therefore, this Service is unaware if the landlord investigated these claims. This lack of explanation in the complaint response is a failing by the landlord which has been considered when looking at the landlord’s overall off of compensation.
25. In conducting its investigations, the Ombudsman relies on contemporaneous documentary evidence to ascertain what events took place and reach conclusions on whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable in all the circumstances of the case. In this instance, there is no written record of any request for damp and mould treatment and no evidence that any treatment was carried out.
26. The evidence shows that the resident was initially provided with a £100 decorating voucher, which was subsequently increased to £200 due to the decoration required in the living room, after the damp and mould treatment. It was reasonable for the landlord to provide a voucher, to assist the resident with redecorating the property and the landlord was not obliged to do anything further with regard to the cost of redecoration. Furthermore, the landlord is not obliged to offer a cash alternative to the vouchers. This amount was in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance (published on our website) which suggests awards in this range for instances where there has been service failure by the landlord which caused distress and/or inconvenience to the resident but where the failure was of short duration and did not affect the overall outcome of the complaint. Therefore, it is this Service’s opinion that the landlord has offered a reasonable amount of compensation prior to this investigation, which is in line with our remedies guidance.
27. The resident reported that an inlet pipe in the kitchen was leaking when the washing machine was being used. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord informed the resident that due to the kitchen being refitted during the voids process it was ‘possible’ that the pipe had been disturbed, but it would not have become apparent until the washing machine was in use. Therefore, the landlord has provided a reasonable explanation as to why it had not identified the leak from the pipe during the voids process. Furthermore, when the resident reported this leak the landlord attended the property on the same day to repair the pipe. The landlord attended within two working days, which was reasonable as the leak was not uncontrollable as it only occurred when the washing machine was used. Therefore, the landlord has acted reasonably in this circumstance.
28. The resident also reported that water was leaking from the ceiling, as a result of the sealant on the bath ‘coming away’. This repair would not have been identified until the bathroom was being used. The landlord attended the property on 29 September 2021, which was the same day the repair was reported. Therefore, the landlord classified this repair as an emergency and acted as per its repairs policy and attended within 24 hours, as there was a potential risk to the resident’s health and safety due to the leak going through the ceiling and was consequently a risk to the electrics.
29. The resident reported a further leak on 30 September 2021 where water was pooling in her kitchen. The landlord attended the same day and a stop-tap was installed to stop the leak. Therefore, the landlord attended the property as an emergency repair, as it appeared the leak was uncontrollable and resolved the leak within its policy timeframe of 24 hours.

Determination

30. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s void checks satisfactorily.
31. In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint regarding the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and leaks satisfactorily.

Recommendations

32. It is recommended that the landlord:
    1. Pay the resident the £200 rent refund offered at stage two of its complaint process, if it has not done so already.
    2. Correct its repairs policy, to remove reference to the ‘empty property policy’, which as per the landlord’s communication is no longer in-use.