Mount Green Housing Association Limited (202120738)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120738

Mount Green Housing Association Limited

25 May 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 the landlord’s handling of ongoing water ingress in the resident’s property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord in a duplex apartment in a purpose-built block of flats.
In October 2019 the resident reported to the landlord water ingress coming into his property. The landlord attended the same day to try and resolve the issue.
During January 2020 and February 2020, the resident raised further concerns with the landlord about water ingress coming into his property. He said that there had been leaks in the porch and that it had been going on since November 2019. The landlord responded to his concerns and advised that there would be communication with all residents soon on what it was going to do to resolve the issue.
On 25 September 2020 the landlord carried out an inspection of the resident’s property. The inspection found that there was water ingress coming into the property from the leaking fenestration above the entrance porch. It found that the water ingress was due to defects with the new communal window glazing.
Between October 2020 and December 2020, the resident raised further concerns about the water ingress coming into his property. He said that the landlord ‘had long enough’ to sort out the windows and asked the landlord why his family couldn’t be moved. He said that the water ingress in his flat was getting worse and that there was mass mould growth in his property. The landlord responded to his emails and said that it would call him every three weeks to update him on any progress.
On 8 January 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. In summary his complaint said that the water ingress in the porch had occurred due to the windows being fitted incorrectly. He said that the water ingress went under the window instead of out of the window. He said that the water was running down the walls and through light switches, resulting in massive puddles. He said that he wanted compensating for the carpet cleaner he had used and for the extra use of electricity in his flat. He also asked the landlord to consider moving him and his family to another property.
On the 12 February 2021 the landlord responded to the resident with an expression of dissatisfaction letter. In summary the response said that the water ingress was due to the communal window defects and that it was meeting with its contractor to discuss this. The landlord also apologised for not providing a response to his complaint within its timeframe. The same day the resident asked landlord to escalate his complaint. He said that ‘more things had come to light’.
On 26 March 2021 the landlord responded to the resident with a combined expression of dissatisfaction and stage one response letter. In summary the response said:
1. That it would make enquiries about the reimbursement for the hire of the carpet cleaner as a result of the water ingress from the communal windows.
2. It had noted the concerns about the potential water ingress in relation to the cracking of the front elevation, and that it would investigate the exterior and look to inspect adjacent rooms internally.
3. It would continue with mould washing.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord informed the resident that the reimbursement of the two carpet cleaning invoices would be credited to his rent account.
On 19 April 2021 the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint. The resident said that he wanted the landlord to pay the compensation for the carpet cleaner into his bank account. He said that the crack above his bedroom window was still unresolved and that he had concerns over the mould washing provided by the landlord.
On 1 June 2021 the landlord issued its final response. In summary, the response said:
1. It had investigated his complaint in line with its complaints policy.
2. The length of time to complete the repairs had become unacceptable and the landlord could have communicated better.
3. Compensation payments were offset against arrears in line with policy.
4. The landlord needed to improve the way it communicated and updated residents regarding outstanding works.
5. There were outstanding works still required but there was a plan in place and a timeline to carry out the works.
6. It apologised for any inconvenience the resident had experienced.
In the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman, he said that he still had water ingress into his property and that the landlord had promised to complete the work by the summer.
The resident has recently informed this Service that the landlord had resolved 90 per cent of the water ingress in September or October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s complaint policy has an expression of dissatisfaction stage, as part of the stage the policy states ‘If an issue is raised by email or letter an officer will be in contact by 5pm the next working day to acknowledge and clarify the details. Again, if immediate resolution is not possible, actions will be agreed and a resolution plan will be provided in 2 working days’.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that all complaints will be investigated and responded to within 10 working days at stage one.
The landlord’s compensation policy states ‘If the customer owes us money (e.g. rent or outstanding debt), we’ll offset any offer of compensation to reduce or clear the debt’.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that urgent repairs will be attended to within 24 hours and made safe if a full repair cannot be completed. Routine repairs will be carried out within 28 working days.

Scope of investigation

In line with paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process. This is so landlords have the opportunity to consider a complaint and take action to put things right before this Service investigates. As events following on from the date of the landlord’s 1 June 2021 final response have not been the subject of a formal complaint, they are not considered here. However, consideration is given to the overall time taken to resolve the water ingress into the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of ongoing water ingress in the resident’s property

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:

a. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;

b. Put things right, and;

c. Learn from outcomes.

The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
The evidence from the landlord’s repair logs showed that the resident first reported water ingress in his property to the landlord in October 2019. The landlord attended to this report within 24 hours, in line with its repairs policy. However, the issue remained unresolved. This led to the resident raising further concerns with the landlord about the continued water ingress in his property a couple of months later. The landlord inspected the property over seven months later, in September 2020. In the circumstances this was an unreasonable time to wait, and it was contrary to the landlord’s repairs policy for routine repairs. This would have caused significant stress and inconvenience to the resident.
Over the next three to four months the resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord about the water ingress in his property. Although the landlord responded to these concerns within reasonable timescales, there was no evidence that it took any meaningful action to address the issue. It also failed to keep the resident updated on the progress of the situation, as it agreed it would. There was no evidence that it assessed the condition of the property or considered whether a decant would have been appropriate, and it failed to adequately respond to the resident’s request that it consider moving him and his family. Overall, the landlord’s handling of the repair and communication with the resident during this period was unsatisfactory.
The evidence from the landlord’s records indicated that the water ingress was at least in part responsible for mould in the property and that it had caused damage to the carpet. The landlord accepted this and provided the resident with mould wash and reimbursed him for the cost of having his carpet cleaned. The landlord acted fairly and reasonably in this regard, and it was in line with its policy to offset the reimbursement of the carpet cleaner against the resident’s rent arrears.
However, the blanket implementation of such a policy risks a resident who has been awarded compensation for direct financial loss or out of pocket expenses not directly receiving that sum to settle their financial outlay. Landlords should consider the impact such a policy may have on an individual resident or whether the sum to be off-set is in dispute. The landlord should consider reviewing this ‘blanket’ policy.
It took the landlord almost three years to resolve the ongoing water ingress. This was over 30 months outside of its repair’s timescales. The evidence from the landlord’s records showed that the repairs needed to resolve the water ingress were complex. The Ombudsman acknowledges that following its final response the landlord tried to take reasonable steps to address the situation and that it had improved its communication with the resident. This showed that it had tried to ‘put things right’ for the resident. Whilst this is a mitigating factor, some of the delays were avoidable. Given the seriousness of the situation the landlord should have acted more quickly and been more proactive prior to the resident’s formal complaint.
The landlord’s final response admitted failures in its service to the resident. The response said that the time to complete the repairs was unacceptable and it apologised to the resident for this. It also acknowledged that it needed to improve the way it communicates with residents regarding outstanding works, and it identified learning outcomes from the complaint. However, the landlord failed to acknowledge the considerable delays in resolving the matter and the significant distress and inconvenience this would have caused the resident. Given the landlord’s failings it should have offered compensation to the resident to ‘put things right’.
The time it took to resolve the water ingress was considerable and overall, the communication with the resident was unsatisfactory. Whilst the landlord acknowledged some of its failings in its complaint responses it did not address the detriment caused to the resident. The Ombudsman remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out the Ombudsman’s approach to compensation. The guidance suggests compensation of between £600 and £1000 should be considered where there has been a failure from the landlord that significantly impacted the resident. The landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for its handling of the ongoing water ingress in the resident’s property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of the water ingress in his property in October 2020 and November 2020. Whilst the landlord did respond to his concerns, it did not formally respond to his complaint in line with its complaints policy. Given the content of the resident’s emails the landlord should have formally responded to the resident’s concerns, in line with its complaints policy. The landlord also failed to address the resident’s request to be moved or his request for compensation for the extra use of electricity. This was a failure on the part of the landlord that would have caused stress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord’s first formal response to the resident’s complaint was 17 days outside of its timescales. This was contrary to the landlord’s complaints policy, however the landlord acted fairly and tried to ‘put things right’ by apologising to the resident for the delay.
Following the landlord’s response, the resident asked it to escalate his complaint. He said, ‘that more things had come to light’. There was no evidence that landlord had acknowledged the resident’s escalation request, however, over a month later the landlord issued a new, combined, expression of dissatisfaction letter and stage one response. This was a failing from the landlord. The landlord should have escalated the resident’s original complaint and organised a panel hearing within the timescales set out in its complaints policy. This prolonged the complaints process and would have caused distress and confusion to the resident.
The landlord’s final response said that it had investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy. This was inaccurate and shows that the landlord has not taken learning from the case. Overall, there was a cumulation of complaint handling errors which the landlord failed to acknowledge in its final response. This amounts to service failure from the landlord that has not been ‘put right’ for the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests compensation of over £100 should be considered where the resident has been caused stress and inconvenience due to errors by the landlord. The landlord should provide compensation to the resident as detailed in the order below, in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears. This applies regardless of whether the landlord’s compensation policy allows it to do this. As such, the compensation ordered below should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the landlord’s handling of ongoing water ingress in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Orders

The landlord must, within the next four weeks, pay the resident £900.00 compensation, comprised of:

a. £700 for distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s handling of ongoing water ingress in the resident’s property.

b. £200 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.

Also, within the next four weeks, the landlord must review the complaint handling in this case, with reference to the failings identified in this report, to determine what action has been/will be taken to prevent a recurrence of these. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review its complaint handling procedures and identify any training needs.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its ‘blanket’ policy for offsetting compensation payments.