Platform Housing Group Limited (202204721)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202204721

Platform Housing Group Limited

3 February 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom skirting board, bathroom door, bathroom cupboard flooring, a crack in the kitchen ceiling, a faulty intercom, and bathroom handrail.

Background

2. The resident is a tenant of the landlord and lives in a flat.
3. The resident registered a complaint with the landlord on 6 January 2022 regarding numerous repair issues at her home. She implied that the majority of problems had resulted from a leak from a neighbouring property. The location of the neighbour’s property is not apparent from the evidence. She said that she had initially reported the leak in April 2021 to the concierge, but the landlord did not act to address the necessary repairs until September 2021. The resident specifically said that since her flat was flooded by the neighbouring property, there were two sites that weren’t repaired, one of which was her kitchen ceiling. She said she had repeatedly reported this issue but that it had not been rectified. She said that the outstanding repairs included missing skirting board in the bathroom and a faulty bathroom door. She said that her intercom had not worked since she had moved into the property, and, during remedial work undertaken to the bathroom, the landlord had removed her handrail over the bath, but had not replaced this. The resident also said she suffered with damp and mould issues as a result of a leak. She detailed a number of areas that had been affected by mould, which included the floor in her bathroom cupboard.  At that time, the resident said that she had not been living at the property for three months, as she believed it was in an uninhabitable condition.
4. The landlord issued its stage one response on 26 January 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint and apologised that the issues were not reported to it after the resident had contacted the concierge. It said that it liaised with its repairs team regarding the outstanding repairs, and found that there were delays in completing jobs due to issues with gaining access into the resident’s property.. It encouraged the resident to contact it directly going forward, to discuss any arrangements relating to repair appointments. It said that its operative had reported that all repairs were completed on 26 January 2022, and that a job to stain block the ceiling had been scheduled for completion on 27 January 2022. It said that although some delays in resolving the repairs had been due to no access, the length of time taken to resolve them had fallen outside of its expectations. In light of this, it offered the resident £150 for the delays and the inconvenience caused.
5. The resident escalated her complaint as she said that having visited the property in late January 2022, following the stage one response, she discovered that no work had been done. In February 2022, she advised the landlord she was unhappy with the compensation amount as she believed it did not suitably remedy her experience. She also highlighted that she was paying rent, despite not living at the property due to the ongoing situation. In correspondence with the landlord in March 2022, the resident clarified which repair issues she believed were outstanding.
6. The landlord issued its final response on 11 April 2022. In addition to addressing other repairs the resident had raised, it said it would raise a repair to replace the skirting board, and that it would have the bathroom door assessed to ensure it was functional. Regarding the resident’s bathroom cupboard mould issues, it said it would carry out a mould clean and make good the damaged plaster ready for the resident to decorate. It said that it did not provide flooring to this area of the property in any other flat. It highlighted a number of repairs that it said were the resident’s responsibility to undertake as it said it considered them to be decoration works. These included the crack in the kitchen ceiling as it said that this was a hairline crack. It increased its offer of compensation to £250 “to recognise the inconvenience for the repairs identified not being remedied within a reasonable timescale”. It said that the resident had chosen to not live at the property of her own accord, and that no issues had been identified that made the property uninhabitable. It highlighted that the rent was still payable in line with the resident’s tenancy agreement, and advised her that a long-term absence from her home may adversely affect her tenancy. It confirmed that its complaints process had been completed, and included details by which the resident could refer her complaint to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
7. The resident referred her complaint to this Service as she remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, and handling of repairs to the crack in the kitchen ceiling, replacement of the bathroom door, repairs to the intercom, replacement of flooring in the bathroom cupboard, replacement of the skirting board in the bathroom and replacement of the bathroom handrail. To resolve the complaint, she wanted the landlord to complete the above repairs. The resident has since said that the she had replaced the bathroom handrail herself.

Assessment and findings

The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s policies

8. The tenancy agreement sets out that it is the landlord’s responsibility to keep in good repair and maintain the structure of the premises, including internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards, and plasterwork, but not including internal painting and decoration. It states that it is the resident’s responsibility to keep the property in good and clean condition and to decorate all internal parts of the premises as often as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order, in addition to keeping the floors covered with appropriate floor covering.
9. The landlord has a repairs and maintenance policy. It defines appointed (routine) repairs as all non-emergency and non-specialist repairs that cannot reasonably wait for cyclical or planned/ programmed works. It sets out that these repairs will be completed in a single visit where possible. The policy does not give a specific timeframe for routine repairs. However, the usual standard amongst social landlords is around 28 days, and so that is taken as a baseline against which to consider the landlord’s action in this case.
10. The landlord has a rechargeable repairs policy. This states that for “minor wall and ceiling plaster work suitable for filling with pollyfiller”, this would be the resident’s responsibility to undertake. It states that repair or replacement of floor damp-proof membrane and associated concrete repairs are its responsibility to undertake.

Crack in the kitchen ceiling

11. The earliest record of this repair seen in the evidence, is in January 2022, when the resident said in her initial complaint that the kitchen ceiling had not been repaired since it was affected by a leak. However, the resident also said that she had reported the leak and remedial works to the concierge as early as April 2021. The landlord’s subsequent stage one response did not clarify when it had first received notification of the kitchen ceiling issue. In general, the landlord did apologise that repairs were not reported to it after the resident had contacted the concierge, but did not clarify if it had made investigations with this staff member, or if the concierge had recorded each of the issues. In doing so, the landlord set the expectation that it had accepted that the resident’s account was accurate, in that she may have reported this issue as early as April 2021, and that it had delayed in completing this since.
12. The landlord did apologise that the overall length of time to resolve all repairs had fallen outside of its expectations. It also outlined that the delay in completing all repairs was in part due to access issues, although the examples it gave did not relate to this repair or any of the repairs concerned in this investigation. This was unreasonable, and thus it cannot be said that the landlord provided a satisfactory explanation to explain the delays.
13. In its stage one response, the landlord said that all repair issues had been resolved at that stage (with the exception of stain blocking works). This unreasonably set the expectation that it had completed repairs to rectify damage to the resident’s ceiling. The resident subsequently reported that all works had not been completed, and the landlord later advised the resident that it had misinformed her due to miscommunication between its repair service and its contractor. It is noteworthy that no contemporaneous evidence was provided of the conversations the landlord said it had with its technical officer, which it relied upon in satisfying itself that all repair work had been completed at that time. This has raised concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s inaccurate response meant that the resident had to escalate her complaint, causing a delay in getting the outstanding repairs resolved.
14. Given the number of repairs the resident raised in her initial complaint, it would have been good practice for the landlord, it its initial response, to address the outstanding repairs individually. This would not only have helped give the resident reassurance that the landlord was going to adequately resolve all her individual concerns, but it also would have ensured that the landlord had a better understanding of the resident’s collective repair requests. It should be noted that the resident’s initial complaint and stage two correspondence, did not specifically mention a crack in this ceiling. The first mention of a crack in this area, was in the landlord’s final response it issued in April 2021, so it is reasonable to assess that the landlord clarified the exact nature of the issue with the resident, shortly before issuing its response. The landlord’s failure to clarify the scope of the ceiling repair request, at an earlier time, meant that its communication regarding the issue was poor and contributed to delays in it addressing the matter.
15. It is understood that the landlord relied upon photos that the resident provided during its stage two investigations, when assessing the kitchen ceiling crack. Its refusal to undertake this repair in its final response, by saying “these are hairline cracks [which] would be the responsibility of the [resident] to address when decorating”, appears to be in accordance with it repairs policy. However, the landlord reached this position, potentially one year after the issue had occurred, which was unreasonable. Furthermore, this Service cannot assess or comment on what repairs would be appropriate. In deciding whether the landlord acted appropriately in refusing this repair, it would expect to see relevant repair records or internal correspondence that demonstrates that the issue was assessed by an appropriately qualified member of the landlord’s repair service. No such assessment was seen in the evidence. This again has raised concerns with the landlord’s record keeping. Therefore, the landlord has failed to demonstrate that it acted reasonably in determining that the crack was a shrinkage crack, as opposed to the result of leak damage or its delay to resolve the leak, and as such whether this was its responsibility to repair. This was a service failure.

Bathroom door

16. This Service asked the landlord to provide evidence of the inspection it said it would undertake of the resident’s bathroom door, following its final response. This was not provided, which again indicates poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked. In this particular case the investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand, but a recommendation has been made in light of this.
17. The landlord provided a repair record that stated that this job was raised on 17 November 2021, and completed on 30 November 2021. However, this was more than one month prior to the resident registering her complaint, in which she clearly indicated that the condition of the door at that time was such that it needed replacement.
18. Considering the above, from the outset of the complaint, the landlord should have clarified if it had record of the issue being brought to its attention following its operative previous attendance. If not, it should have taken robust action to assess the door and address any issues it identified, as the resident had implied that the door had sustained damage due to it operative’s actions.
19. As mentioned, in its stage one response, the landlord’s communication was poor and it set the expectation that all repair issues concerned in the resident’s complaint had been resolved. In doing so, it implied that the bathroom door had been replaced at that time. Again, the landlord’s inaccurate response meant that the resident had to escalate her complaint, causing a delay to get the bathroom door repair resolved. In its final response, in April 2022, the landlord appropriately agreed to have a joiner inspect the door, which it would need to do in order to ensure its obligations were being met.
20. When considering the above, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (published on our website) sets out that, in resolving a complaint, a landlord’s offer of remedy must clearly set out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
21. However, the landlord failed to provide a clear timeframe in which it would undertake the inspection, and there is no evidence it carried out the inspection following this. The landlord should have done this with a view to share it findings with the resident, and confirm its position in regard to whether it will undertake any repairs to her bathroom door. Therefore, the landlord has not satisfied this Service that it is meeting its obligations in that regard. This left this aspect of the complaint unresolved, and was thus a service failure.

Replacement skirting

22. There was also a considerable delay in the landlord replacing missing skirting in the resident’s bathroom. In her initial complaint in January 2022, the resident said “this has been this way since the bathroom was installed.” It was not apparent from the evidence which installations the resident was referring to. Again, the landlord should have clarified from the outset if it had previous record of the issue being bought to its attention. Lacking this, it should have taken robust action to inspect the repair within a reasonable timeframe.
23. As discussed, in its stage one response, the landlord set the expectation that all repair issues concerned in the resident’s complaint had been resolved, and in doing so implied that the skirting had been replaced. Again, the landlord’s inaccurate response meant that the resident had to escalate her complaint, causing a delay to replace the skirting in the bathroom.
24. In its stage two response in April 2022, the landlord simply said it would “have a joiner attending to carry out the installation of the missing skirting.” However, it was unclear, from this response, if the landlord was specifically referring to missing skirting in the bathroom, or another issue later discussed in the complaint response that concerned missing skirting that was identified following the removal of an appliance in a different area of the property.
25. Furthermore, the landlord failed to confirm a timeframe in which it would undertake the above repair it its final response. The relevant repair record shows that this job was completed on 12 August 2022. It was unreasonable that it took intervention by this Service to prompt the landlord to progress this repair, completing it more than seven months after the resident raised the issue as part of her complaint, and four months after its final complaint response. This considerably exceeded any reasonable measure of a timeframe for routine repairs. No evidence has been provided to suggest that there was a reasonable explanation for the landlord’s considerable delay in completing this repair, and the initial delay appears to be due to miscommunication between its repairs team and contractor. It has also not remedied the additional inconvenience and time and trouble the resident would have been put to in resolving the matter, since its final response.

Floor in the bathroom cupboard

26. The resident’s initial complaint concerned damp and mould issues in her bathroom and hallway. She specifically stated that one of the areas affected was the boiler cupboard floor, and her outstanding issue is that the landlord has not agreed to replace the flooring in this area of her home. The earliest record of the cupboard floor issue in the landlord’s records, is dated 5 August 2021. The corresponding repair log noted: “follow on from inspection… condensation is causing problems in the airing cupboard…need a carpenter to go and check the floor follow-on job required”. Although it appears that the landlord carried out works to treat mould and damp and replace flooring in other areas of the property, nothing in its records specifically referred to actions it took regarding the cupboard floor.
27. As discussed, in its stage one response, the landlord set the expectation that all repair issues concerned in the resident’s complaint had been resolved, and in doing so implied that the mould issue with the floor had been rectified. Again, the landlord’s inaccurate response meant that the resident had to escalate her complaint, causing a delay in the landlord confirming its position regarding what action it would to address the issue.
28. In her stage two correspondence in March 2022 the resident clarified that she believed that the floor needed replacing, as she said that the “floor in the bathroom cupboard hasn’t been changed since the leak”. It was unclear from the resident’s correspondence, if she was referring to existing floor covering that had been removed, or whether the subfloor had sustained damage. The landlord should have taken robust action to clarify its understanding of this, as is reasonably expected of landlords if any aspect of a resident’s complaint is unclear. It was not seen in the evidence that it did so. This was unreasonable because repairs to the resident’s floor covering and subfloor are two distinct repairs. Subflooring would usually be considered to be part of the structure of the resident’s home, and as such the landlord would have a particular obligation to keep this in good repair.
29. The landlord should have clarified this aspect of the resident’s complaint to determine if an assessment of the subfloor was required, to ensure it was in good repair and did not suffer from penetrating damp. This would have been particularly appropriate, given that the evidence indicates that the landlord had previously replaced the underlying wooden subfloor in various other rooms of the resident’s home, as a result of water damage.
30. Therefore, the landlord did not go far enough to sufficiently address the resident’s concerns, by simply stating in its final response that “[it] has not provided floor covering to this cupboard in any other flat” (thus implying it would not replace the floor in this area). Its failure to establish the scope of this repair was a service failure, in addition to it not confirming its position until approximately seven months after the earliest evidence of it being aware of the issue. This undoubtedly would have caused the resident considerable inconvenience and time and trouble in pursuing the matter.

The intercom and bathroom handrail

31. The earliest record of an issue with the intercom and bathroom handrail being reported, is when the resident made her initial complaint on 6 January 2022. Unreasonably, the landlord’s stage one response did not explain why it had delayed in addressing these repairs, nor confirm if it had previous record of the issues being reported to it. As discussed, in its stage one response, the landlord set the expectation that all repair issues concerned in the resident’s complaint had been resolved, and in doing so implied that the intercom and handrail had been repaired.
32. It is noteworthy that, when the resident corresponded with the landlord in March 2022 to confirm which repairs remained outstanding, she did not mention these repairs, and both were omitted from the landlord’s final response it issued in April 2022. Generally, a landlord needs to be given opportunity to address all aspects of a complaint at both stages of its complaints process. Nonetheless, this Service requested the landlord to clarify its position in relation to whether or not it considered these repairs to be part of this complaint, and, if so, encouraged the landlord to provide a further response to the resident addressing them.
33. As the landlord wrote to the resident to progress the above repairs, and did not clarify whether a new complaint was needed, it is reasonable to assess that it considered them to form part of this complaint. As such, good practice would have been for it to issue a further complaint response, addressing these elements individually. It should have identified any service failures in its handling of each repair, proposing appropriate remedies needed to put things right, in addition to considering any additional time and trouble the resident has experienced in resolving matters since issuing its final response. There is no evidence of the landlord doing so, which was unreasonable.
34. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 August 2022, and said that its repairs surveyor logged the intercom and handrail repairs on 18 July 2022, and inspected the issues on 5 August 2022. It said that on inspection, the bathroom handrail was resolved to the resident’s satisfaction. This somewhat accorded with internal correspondence on 5 August in which the landlord’s surveyor noted “all works completed”. However, the landlord records did not detail what work was undertaken to replace the rail and therefore has not been transparent about its handling of the matter. The resident has since advised this Service that the handrail issue was resolved because she replaced the handrail herself, so it cannot be said that the matter was resolved to her satisfaction. What is clear is that the landlord did not satisfy itself that the rail had been replaced until eight months after the resident’s initial complaint. This considerably exceeded any reasonable measure of a timeframe for routine repairs and was a service failure.
35. The landlord’s handling of the bathroom hand rail was a notable service failure. Its records clearly show that the rail was originally installed for the resident as an adaptation. This type of work is usually agreed to in order to assist residents where a medical condition may impede their ability to use a part of their home in a practical way due to its existing set up. The absence of this adaptation is likely to have had a significant impact on the resident. An order has been made for an increased offer of amount of compensation, in part, in light of this. This is for the distress and inconvenience the resident will undoubtedly have experienced due to the landlord’s considerable delay to address this issue, which ultimately, it has not sufficiently demonstrated that it resolved itself, and thus has failed to meet its obligations in that regard. It was unclear if the resident wanted the landlord to reimburse her for the cost of undertaking the work herself. Therefore, the resident should consider contacting the landlord with this request, if she so wishes, as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to respond to this aspect. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s response, then she can raise this aspect as an additional complaint.
36. The landlord advised this Service that an external contractor visited the resident on 8 August 2022 and recommended that a new handset for the intercom was required. However, it was not seen in the evidence that the landlord managed the resident’s expectations regarding when the repair to her intercom would be completed, and is further evidence of its communication issues. The landlord considerably exceeded any reasonable measure of a timeframe for routine repairs to progress the matter, eight months following the resident’s initial complaint. It is also not apparent if the landlord has completed this repair since. This was unreasonable and thus an additional service failure.

Compensation

37. In its final response, the landlord revised its initial offer of compensation to £250, “to recognise the inconvenience for the repairs identified not being remedied within a reasonable timescale”. This was appropriate. However, this offer was not proportionate to the circumstances of this case, given the number of repairs the complaint concerned, and did not take into account the landlord’s poor communication and service failures identified by this investigation in relation to its handling of repairs, in particular the bathroom handrail, which is likely to have caused considerable inconvenience. In addition, it did not remedy the additional inconvenience the resident would likely have experienced following the landlord’s response to have all of her concerns adequately addressed.
38. Considering the above, the landlord has ultimately left the resident’s complaint unresolved. To remedy this, orders have been made including an increased amount of compensation that is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out that amounts of £100 to £600 may be awarded in instances where the landlord has acknowledged failings and made some attempts to put thing right, but failed to address the detriment to the resident and/or the offer was not proportionate to the failings identified by our investigation.

Determination

39. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom skirting board, bathroom door, bathroom cupboard flooring, a crack in the kitchen ceiling, a faulty intercom and bathroom handrail.

Orders

40. Within four weeks of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Write to the resident and apologise for the service failures identified by this investigation.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £300 for its failings in handling the repairs. This is in addition to the £250 it previously offered, which it should now pay if it has not already done so.
    3. Carry out a review of the handling of the repairs in this case, to include the communication issues identified in this report, and what action has/will be taken to ensure that the identified service failures do not happen again. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman detailing the outcome of this review.
    4. Undertake an inspection in conjunction with a senior member of its staff of the resident’s bathroom door, bathroom cupboard floor, and crack in the kitchen ceiling, creating a report of the inspection and its findings, and then write to the resident (copying in this Service) confirming which works it intends to complete, and the date that this will be done by. If any of the above repairs have already been inspected/addressed, then it should write to the resident (copying in this Service) to confirm this, and the outcome.
    5. Write to the resident and confirm, with evidence provided to this Service, when the intercom was repaired. If this repair is outstanding, it should contact the resident and agree a mutually convenient appointment to repair the intercom (which should also be within four weeks).

 Recommendations

41. It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure quality of repairs inspections, repair and repair activities, as well as the discussions it had between its complaints team and repairs team when investigating repairs.