One Housing Group Limited (202219629)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219629

One Housing Group Limited

20 March 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property. The landlord’s record keeping has also been considered.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a studio apartment with a separate kitchen. The resident entered into a tenancy agreement with the landlord on 2 August 1993. The resident had no recorded vulnerabilities.
3. On 2 November 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord raising concerns about the front door to the flat and communal front door, damp, rotten windows and the skylight.
4. On 7 November 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident advising him that, as discussed in a phone call, job orders had been raised for both front doors, damp, the windows and the skylight.
5. The resident made a complaint to the landlord on 8 December 2022, directly to the landlord and via this Service. He told the landlord he was unhappy about the state of disrepair of his property. There have been many surveys but there were still problems. The landlord acknowledged and spoke to the resident that day.
6. The landlord sent the resident a stage one complaint response on 20 December 2022. It upheld the resident’s complaint. It noted that it had now taken the necessary steps for a number of repairs to be undertaken but acknowledged the impact of the repairs being outstanding on the resident. It apologised for the time taken for the repairs to be arranged. It offered the resident £100 compensation – £50 for “right to repair” and £100 for “impact.
7. On 9 January 2023 the resident advised the landlord that he wanted to escalate the complaint to stage two. He noted that things had still not been resolved and that day an operative had painted a second coat on the front door but there was paint on his overcoat and the door was still not properly finished.
8. The landlord sent the resident a stage two complaint response on 6 February 2023. It acknowledged that “despite [its] attempts to manage several repairs”, some repairs remained incomplete. It set out a list of incomplete repairs. It also acknowledged that a contractor had accidentally got paint on the resident’s coat when painting the front door. It apologised for this. It advised the resident that it had appointed a single point of contact until the repairs were resolved. It set out lessons it had learnt from the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged that the service which the resident had received had been “lacking”. It upheld the resident’s complaint “due to the length of time it is taking to resolve the repairs in your home”. It offered the resident £400.00 compensation, made up of £50.00 “under the right of repair”; £50.00 for the impact on the resident and £300.00 as an additional discretionary payment to reflect the prolonged time taken to undertake the repairs and the impact this has had on the resident. It noted that this fell within the “High Impact” category of its compensation policy.
9. The resident responded on 11 February 2023. Noting that the issues had been ongoing for six years he stated that the compensation offer did not reflect the persistent inconvenience and stress to the resident. He noted that this included increased heating costs. He stated that he felt that £2,000 was reasonable compensation. He noted that many of the issues could have been avoided if his reports were taken seriously in the first place.
10. On 23 May 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord complaining about outstanding works, including to both front doors. It is noted that the majority of the issues referred to were new issues that were not part of the original complaint. On 8 August 2023 a surveyor attended the property and confirmed that the majority of work were completed with only minor works outstanding. These were completed on 29 August 2023.
11. The landlord made an increased offer of compensation to the resident on 10 March 2023. It:
    • acknowledged the failings in the serviced provided by it;
    • offered to meet with the resident;
    • offered the resident £700 compensation, made up of £50 under the right of repair; £500 to recognise the impact and inconvenience; £50 for the delayed complaint response; £100 for the cost of a new coat.
12. The landlord noted that this amount was outside its policy, because it recognised the “high” impact the matter had had on the resident.
13. The resident rejected the increased offer. However, on 15 March 2023 he sent a completed compensation form to the landlord and it appears that the compensation was paid to the resident shortly after this.

Assessment and findings

Repairs handling

14. The landlord acknowledges that there have been failings in its handling of repairs to the property. The crux of the issue in dispute is the compensation which the landlord should pay the resident.
15. The Tenancy Agreement reflects the landlord’s obligation to keep the property in good repair. The landlord has responsibility to maintain and repair the structure and exterior of the property (including the windows) under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. As a general principle, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to respond to reasonable requests to undertake repairs within a reasonable timeframe. This will of course depend on the particular repair and the circumstances. The Ombudsman has also referred to the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Policy which sets out the standards which the landlord commits to follow. This sets out that the landlord’s response time for non-emergency repairs is “within 28 days”.
16. The resident has been dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of repairs to a number of items.

Windows

17. The landlord acknowledges that the windows were rotting and required replacement.
18. A job was first raised by the landlord for a survey on the windows on 19 November 2018. It is not clear from the evidence provided what the outcome of that survey was. The landlord has advised that there were repairs on the windows on 3 May 2019 and 17 August 2020, but has not provided details of those repairs. The records show that a survey on 21 May 2021 concluded that repairs and some full replacements were required for the windows in the property.
19. Before the resident raised his complaint on 8 December 2022 there was an appointment booked to review the windows on 12 December 2022, which the resident cancelled because he was working. In the stage one complaint response the landlord advised that an appointment had been made for 11 January 2023. In the meantime a mould wash would be undertaken on the living room to deal with the mould until the windows were replaced.
20. A contractor advised the landlord on 31 January 2023 that repairs or replacements were needed for the windows and scaffolding would be required for this.
21. On 13 June 2023 the landlord told the resident that new windows were ready and scaffolding was scheduled to be put up on 19 June 2023. The work on the windows was completed on 3 July 2023. A minor issue with a draught excluder was undertaken on 29 August 2023.
22. It therefore appears that the repairs on the windows were completed approximately five years and eight months after the landlord first raised a job for a survey to be undertaken. It is not clear to what extent the windows deteriorated over this period, however it seems likely that as early as November 2018 significant works were required on the windows. The landlord was definitely on notice by May 2021 that the works were needed.
23. Window replacement is a significant job and in this case scaffolding was required. The Ombudsman would therefore expect it to take some time to arrange and install replacement windows. In this case there was a 6-8 lead time to manufacture the windows. This is reasonable. The landlord notes that there were some delays because scaffolding had to be licenced and erected. The Ombudsman also understands that delays with scaffolding may also be difficult to avoid. However, overall the Ombudsman finds that the landlord did not attend to the repairs needed on the windows within a reasonable timeframe. The evidence shows that this had a significant impact on the resident.

Damp/dry rot on ceiling

24. The resident first reported damp on 6 November 2022. The landlord has confirmed that there are no records of the resident raising this issue before then. He sent a further email about a damp patch on 10 December 2022. The resident rescheduled an appointment originally made for 12 December 2022. The landlord investigated the ceiling on 19 December 2022 and 9 January 2023. The landlord’s inspection found that it was not damp or mould, but rather water damage from a roof leak. The resident also raised concerns about damp and mould on 11 February 2023. The stains had dried and no damp or mould was found. Remedial works, including repainting, were subsequently scheduled. On 15 August 2023 the landlord advised that there were some outstanding works on this and a contractor was to attend on 29 August 2023 to paint the ceiling and complete works.
25. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the evidence provided indicates that landlord attended to the resident’s concerns about the damp in a timely manner and undertook appropriate remedial work in a reasonable timeframe. It was not urgent and it was reasonable that time was needed for the area to dry.

Toilet cistern

26. The evidence shows that there was a problem where the toilet cistern needed to be secured on a backboard to the wall. The landlord advised in its second stage complaint response that this would be done on 13 February 2023. It appears that these issues were only raised after the first stage complaint response.
27. The landlords records set out that jobs were raised regarding repairs to the toilet cistern on 18 August 2020 and 3 June 2021. However, no details have been provided on these. The evidence indicates that the issue about it needing to be secured was raised after the first stage complaint response. The repair does not appear to have had an obvious detrimental impact and the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the evidence shows that there has been a failing.

Mastic sealant on hand basin

28. The landlord advised in its second stage complaint response that this would be done on 13 February 2023. It appears that these issues were only raised after the first stage complaint response. The repair does not appear to have been urgent and the Ombudsman is not persuaded that the evidence shows that there has been a failing.

Skylight

29. Following the resident raising an issue with the skylight, the landlord raised an order on 7 November 2022 for repairs to a broken hinge. The landlord has advised that the resident did not raise concerns about this before this date. An inspection on 19 December 2022 found that a replacement skylight was required. This was outside the landlord’s 28 day repair response time. The work was completed on 5 January 2023.
30. The evidence does not show that the repair was having a material adverse impact. It engaged an external contractor to undertake the works. This is likely to have contributed to the inspection being outside the 28 day response time. However, it is noted that the landlord took steps to raise a job on the day the resident reported the issue. the Ombudsman does not consider the timing to be off sufficient significance to be considered a service failure.

Flat roof leak

31. An order to inspect the roof was raised on 20 December 2022. The roof was repaired on 19 January 2023.
32. The issues with the flat roof were referred to in the second stage response. It appears that these issues were only raised after the first stage complaint response because the issues with the roof were only identified after the inspection to look at damp in the ceiling. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord handling the roof repairs in a reasonable manner.

Communal Front entrance door

33. The resident states that he had eight separate visits to inspect the door over eight months. He has advised this service that the front door lock has “still not been fixed sometimes it takes a minute or two to open the door”.
34. The landlord carried out a survey on the door on 13 December 2022 and recommended a new fire door be installed. There was a lead time of 8 – 10 weeks for this to be measured and ordered. It appears that there were also issues with the quality of the paint finish, which the landlord rectified.
35. The landlord submits that the delay was partially due to the need for a survey by a specialist contractor. There was then a lead time of 8-10 weeks for the new door to be fabricated. It considers this to be outside its control and therefore not a response repair issued. It notes that some delays were because the resident cancelled appointments because they were not convenient to him.
36. A key concern with the front door to the communal area was fire safety. The landlord acknowledged that a new front door was needed to meet new fire safety regulations. The Ombudsman notes the multiple communal area inspection reports that the landlord has submitted. The Ombudsman has some concerns that fire safety concerns may not have been appropriately noted in these reports. However, it is not clear what the scope and role of these reports were and that comprehensive records regarding fire safety have been provided. Further, at the time of the reports there may not have been issues under the applicable regulation. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its inspection process of the communal areas for the property to ensure that all relevant and up to date fire safety regulations for doors are included.
37. The Ombudsman understands that engaging external specialist contractors, and fabricating new materials, can take time. However, the replacement communal door was not installed until 16 June 2023. This was approximately seven months after the resident notified the landlord with his list of repair concerns. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord took an unreasonable amount of time to install the new communal fire door. It appears that the installation was mostly successful although the resident has stated that there is still an issue with it opening. The landlord should undertake another inspection to ensure that the communal front door is fully functional.

Flat front door

38. The resident told the landlord on 2 November 2022 that he was concerned that the front door was not fire safe.
39. In an internal email of 8 December 2022 the landlord acknowledged that the door had previously been inspected and there was an action plan proposed that had not, in fact, been actioned. The landlord was not clear why this had not happened.
40. The door was replaced on 3 January 2023. The resident was unhappy with the paint finish for this. This was rectified. It is unfortunate that when a contractor attended the property to paint the front door on 9 January 2023 they splashed paint onto the resident’s coat. There were also some outstanding issues with the paint finish. The resident confirmed on 28 July 2023 that the front door repairs were completed. There was a subsequent issue with the resident asking for a different locking mechanism, however the Ombudsman considers that this is a new issue and not part of the previous repair issue raised.
41. There were clear failings by the landlord with respect to the flat front door. It failed to implement an agreed plan and has not been able to provide a reasonable justification for this. It was also a failing that the resident’s coat had paint on it.
42. Taking into account that there were multiple failings by the landlord over a relatively significant period of time, the Ombudsman finds that cumulatively there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs.

Record keeping

43. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has provided with some repair records for the property. However, these are not extensive and fail to provide a comprehensive account of the repairs reported by the resident and undertaken historically. The landlord has not responded to a further request for information on the history of the repairs considered in this Determination.
44. It is likely that record keeping failings materially contributed to the landlord’s failings in progressing repairs noted above. For example, the landlord did not retain a record of the action plan agreed for the flat front door. It is unsurprising that the work was not progressed where records were not properly kept and updated.
45. The Ombudsman considers that there has been a record keeping failing by the landlord.

Redress

46. The landlord has acknowledged that there have been failings by it. It’s final offer of compensation to the resident, in March 2023, was £700. This was made up of £50 under the right of repair; £500 to recognise the impact and inconvenience; £50 for the delayed complaint response; £100 for the cost of a new coat. It also offered to meet with the resident.
47. The Ombudsman notes the landlord’s offer of £50 for “delayed complaint response”. It appears that this refers to the time taken from the landlord to response to the resident’s response to its stage two complaint response. The resident emailed the landlord to tell it he was dissatisfied with the level of compensation proposed in the stage two complaint response on 11 February 2023 and the landlord did not respond to this until 10 March 2023. The Ombudsman of course would always expect the landlord to respond appropriately to a communication from a resident within a reasonable timeframe. However, the landlord’s formal complaints process ended when it gave the resident the stage two complaint response on 6 February 2023. The landlord included in the stage two complaint response the appropriate referrals to this Service. The Ombudsman clarifies that, whilst not ideal, it does not consider that the delay in responding to the resident’s email of 11 February 2023 was a complaints handling failure which requires compensation as such.
48. In 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. 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, we are 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.
49. The Ombudsman considers that the most significant failing by the landlord was with respect to this windows. The evidence indicates that the windows were in a poor state of repair over a significant period of time. Whilst the evidence does not indicate that the property was uninhabitable due to this, nonetheless the resident understandably found his full enjoyment of the property compromised. This understandably caused notable distress to the resident. Other unreasonable delays with repairs, including the communal front door, understandably exacerbated the resident’s frustration. Given the context, the unfortunate spilling of paint onto the resident’s coat also caused the resident significant distress.
50. The resident has not provided evidence with respect to the cost of the coat, and the Ombudsman is satisfied that £100 is appropriate compensation for that. However, the Ombudsman considers that £550 is not sufficient to reflect the extent of the repair failings, given the impact of the poor windows and the time period for the failings. The Ombudsman considers that £800 more appropriately reflects the distress and inconvenience to the resident. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident directly £900 within four weeks of the date of this Determination. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £700 compensation offered at stage two, it may deduct this from the amount it pays the resident.

Determination (decision)

51. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with respect to its handling of repairs.
52. In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been a service failure by the landlord with respect to its record keeping.

Reasons

53. There were clear failings by the landlord to progress some repairs and in particular the issues with the windows and the communal and flat front doors. There were multiple failings by the landlord over a relatively significant period of time. However, with a number of other repairs the resident has referred to the landlord responded and investigated them in a reasonable manner.
54. The landlord has not provided extensive repair records which are a comprehensive account of the repairs reported by the resident and undertaken historically

Orders and recommendations

55. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident directly £900 within four weeks of the date of this Determination. If the landlord has already paid the resident the £700 compensation offered at stage two, it may deduct this from the amount it pays the resident it may deduct this from the amount it pays the resident.
56. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord identify learnings from the record keeping failings found in this case and implement identified changes. The landlord must provide the outcome of this review to the Ombudsman within eight weeks of the date of this Determination. The landlord should refer to the Ombudsman’s report On the record: Spotlight on Knowledge and Information Management when undertaking this review.