Places for People Group Limited (202201987)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201987

Places for People Group Limited

19 February 2024

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 the resident’s reports of draughts from her windows and doors.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and the property was a new build and within the defects period. At the time of the complaint the resident lived with her 5-year-old child and was pregnant.
4. The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 1 February 2022 which said that:
   1. In October 2021 she had reported draughts coming from her windows and patio doors and was struggling to lock the front door. An operative had attended that month and sprayed the doors with WD40.
   2. She raised the repair again in December 2021 which were attended on 28 January 2022. The operative advised the resident that the property was under warranty, and he could not complete the repairs.
   3. She had waited over 8 weeks, and nothing had been done. She was living in a house that was “always cold” with a 5-year-old child and was 35 weeks pregnant.
   4. She was reluctant to put the heating on for fear of receiving “extremely high” bills.
       
5. A stage one response was sent on 16 February 2022. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s defects had been allocated to the wrong team causing confusion when operatives attended to undertake remedial works. The landlord confirmed that a senior manager would visit the resident’s property and complete a thorough review of the repairs.
6. The senior manager and two operatives attended on 9 March 2022 and advised the resident that the front door and patio doors would be a priority repair. The resident followed up with an email to the landlord on 6 April 2022 to chase the repairs after she had not heard from the landlord. She said that she and her children were suffering in “beyond freezing temperatures” due to gaps in the windows and doors.
7. A window specialist surveyed the property on 25 May 2022 and identified refitting works to the windows and doors.
8. In an email to the resident on 4 July 2022, the landlord apologised for its delayed response and explained that it had been waiting for the report from the window specialist. It had instructed works to commence to the windows on 12 July 2022 which were completed. It recognised the inconvenience that the resident had suffered, as well as her increased heating bills and offered £500 as a goodwill gesture.
9. A stage two response was issued on 12 July 2022. The landlord apologised for the delay in responding which was due to a “communication failure” and said it had been experiencing significant delays with its contractor which was out of its control. It confirmed it was not its policy to compensate, but to remedy defects covered under the warranty provision. However, due to the inconvenience caused by the delays and the increased heating bills it increased its compensation offer to £600. Further, it would consider any additional out of pocket expenses upon receipts being provided.

Events after the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints process

10. On 5 November 2022 the resident confirmed that despite a temporary fix to her patio doors, it was over a year since she reported the issue, and her living room was freezing because of the gaps in the doors. Despite the window specialist arranging to attend in September 2022, two further appointments arranged for 11 and 18 November 2022 were subsequently cancelled.
11. In an email to the landlord on 24 November 2022, the resident advised that she had been “let down” again by the window specialist. She was having to keep her thermostat at 27 degrees to heat downstairs which was costing her £200 per month.
12. The landlord confirmed that the replacement doors were fitted on 20 January 2023.
13. The resident has confirmed that she only received £500 compensation from the landlord.

Assessment and findings

14. The resident’s tenancy agreement confirms that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair, the structure and exterior of the premises which includes the windows and the doors. 
15. Generally, there is a ‘defects period’ with any new build between six and 24 months. During this period the builders/developers remain responsible for any defect or snagging issues. The Service would expect the landlord to act as an appropriate intermediary coordinating matters to ensure that repairs are satisfactorily managed and completed in a timely manner.
16. When the resident reporting the issue of draughts in October 2021, the landlord would be expected to attend within a reasonable period and assess the repairs. While the resident confirmed an operative attended, the action taken was not meaningful in remedying the issues at the earliest opportunity.
17. The landlord acknowledged in February 2022 that the resident’s defects had been “incorrectly allocated to the wrong team” because of internal changes. This is indicative of a record keeping failure, which is addressed later in this report. Because of this the resident was caused further inconvenience and delay.
18. A survey for the windows and doors was completed in May 2022, 7 months after the resident had reported defects. The landlord’s response does not demonstrate that it was proactive in completing the repairs, that it had due regard to the vulnerabilities in the household or that it had considered the concerns raised by the resident that her house was “always cold.” The evidence shows that the resident spent one winter with draughty windows and two winters with draughty doors which meant she was living in a house that was colder than it should have been. Had the landlord responded to the matter within a reasonable timeframe, the impact upon the resident could have been reduced.
19. The Service expects landlords to take a proactive approach to repairs handling to limit the negative impact repairs have on its residents. In this case the landlord failed to coordinate an effective approach with its contractors or keep an accurate record of the repairs its contractors completed. The landlord was unaware that the doors were not replaced in September 2022 and was only alerted to the fact by the resident’s contact.  The patio doors were replaced six months after the landlord’s stage two response and 15 months after the resident initially reported the issue.
20. The landlord does not dispute that there were delays that impacted the resident and that its communication was poor. In assessing this the Ombudsman considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
21. The landlord confirmed in its stage two response that it takes complaints as an “opportunity to improve its service” and prevent similar occurrences in the future.
22. However, the landlord’s failings continued to mirror those that had previously occurred. Appointments to replace the patio doors were cancelled on three occasions without a justifiable explanation to the resident and compounded its earlier failings to adequately resolve the issues. This meant the resident experienced a second winter in a cold house. 
23. The Service does acknowledge that some of the delays were caused by the landlord’s contractors however it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have appropriate oversight of its contractors to ensure repairs are allocated and completed to a satisfactory standard. That the landlord was only alerted to the fact that the patio doors had not been replaced in September 2022 after the resident’s contact is a concern. The landlord has not demonstrated that it learned lessons despite its assertions, or that it took the opportunity to review its process to coordinate repairs with its contractors adequately. 
24. The landlord’s offer of £600 provided tangible recognition of the failures in its handling of the matter. As the landlord was aware at stage two that some of the works remained outstanding, it would have been appropriate to have confirmed that it would review the compensation offer once the works were completed. As the patio doors were not replaced for six months after the stage two response, an additional compensation amount has been awarded to reflect the further detriment caused to the resident during this time.
25. For the failings identified, the Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs and has made an order for additional compensation to be paid. The landlord’s compensation guidance does not specify compensation amounts and so the Ombudsman has made an order in line with the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance, proportionate to the impact on the resident for the landlord failing to demonstrate sufficient learning from the complaint. 

Record keeping

26. As part of this investigation, the landlord was requested to provide relevant repair records that would reasonably be recorded and retained by the landlord. The landlord failed to provide contemporaneous repair or call records and provided limited information and brief emails as a summary of events. These do not provide the level of detail expected to be recorded and readily available when dealing with repairs.
27. Clear record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, assisting the landlord to fulfil its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that outstanding repairs can be monitored and managed accordingly and are crucial to effective complaint investigation.
28. In reviewing the evidence, it is clear that the landlord’s record keeping contributed to its poor management of the repairs, impacting both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the associated complaint. This caused delays, as well as further annoyance and frustration to the resident, in her pursuit to resolve matters. There was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and an order relevant to this has been made.

Determination

29. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord is its handling of:
    1. The resident’s reports of draughts from her windows and doors.
    2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Orders

30. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident additional compensation of £700 consisting of:
       1. £400 for the impact of living in a property where the windows and doors were draughty over a winter.
       2. £200 for the time and trouble pursuing the repairs that were identified in October 2021.
       3. £100 which the landlord awarded at stage two (increase from £500 to £600) if this has not already been paid.
       4. Upon receipt of bills to evidence an increase in energy use for the period July 2022 to January 2023 compared to a period where there were no outstanding repairs to the doors and windows, the landlord should reimburse the resident for additional heating costs.
    3. Contact the resident to carry out an inspection of the works to ensure that the repairs have been completed and that there are no further issues with draughts in the resident’s property. 
31. Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to review its approach to its repairs record keeping, considering the failings identified in this case. Particularly:
    1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
    2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions.
    3. Considering the number of missed appointments in relation to this case, it should consider what steps are required to avoid this in future.
    4. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman with the outcome of this review.