Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA) (202232443)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202232443

Retirement Lease Housing Association (RLHA)

30 April 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is the leaseholder of the property, which she purchased in March 2022. The property is a first-floor flat, which is part of an estate for elderly retired persons. The landlord is a housing association, which owns the freehold of the property.
The resident sent an email to the landlord on 7 April 2022, in which she said:
1. She had been kept awake for 2 consecutive nights by winds rattling her single glazed sash windows.
2. Her flat had very high ceilings and large windows. Her heating system was always struggling to reach a comfortable temperature because of the heat loss through the windows.
3. She had read the landlord’s service charge literature, which said its budgeting strategy allowed for costs such as replacing windows. She thought this should be a priority given the estate was home to elderly residents, and she wanted the landlord to consider upgrading her windows to double glazing.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 April 2022, stating that:
1. It would only consider replacing windows if they were faulty and no longer fit for purpose.
2. It appreciated the windows were “large, wooden and single glazed” but they were not considered faulty. However, they may require a draught excluder to aid with any rattling.
3. It was in the process of arranging for a window contractor to attend to check the windows and, if necessary, obtain quotes. Any costs for repair or replacement windows would be the estate’s responsibility.
4. The estate had a future maintenance fund which could be used for major works, such as window replacement. There were a number of projects requiring attention on the estate, of which the residents’ association were aware. The replacement of windows was not a priority.
The resident wrote a letter addressed to the landlord’s chief executive on 8 September 2022, in which she said:
1. She had been “amazed” how cold her property had been since she moved in. The windows rattled in the wind and the boiler could not adequately warm the property because of the heat loss through the windows.
2. The windows were tall, single glazed sash windows with crumbling wood. They were also stuck at the top from being over-painted. She felt the windows were not fit for purpose, particularly given the increase in heating costs.
3. The windows were part of the landlord’s repair and maintenance contract with leaseholders. The landlord had told her it would send a surveyor for an inspection, but this had not happened.
The landlord received the letter on 14 September 2022. It sent its response on 13 October 2022, in which it:
1. Apologised for the delay in its response, which was caused by annual leave and unplanned absence of the complaint handler.
2. Said the resident would have had sight of the energy performance certificate prior to purchasing the property, which would have given details of the energy efficiency. It was to be expected that an older Victorian property would be less energy efficient than a modern property.
3. Stated it completed site visits every 5 years to decide which works to prioritise. It appreciated the windows were old and not as efficient as modern windows, but this did not necessarily justify replacements.
4. Said the resident was free to upgrade the windows outside of any planned works, but this would be subject to approval and at her cost.
The resident emailed the landlord on 14 October 2022 expressing dissatisfaction with its response and stating she would bring the matter to this Service. The landlord responded the same day, stating it had only completed stage 1 of its complaints procedure and needed to issue a stage 2 response before the resident could approach this Service. The landlord asked the resident if she would like it to raise a stage 2 complaint, but the resident did not respond to this.
The resident sent another email to the landlord on 17 February 2023 expressing concerns about the quality and age of the windows. She said replacement of the windows should take priority over replacement of the garage doors on the estate, which the landlord was in the process of completing.
The landlord’s estate manager sent an email to its complaint team on 21 February 2023, in which he said he had viewed the windows. The estate manager said the windows were “in a very poor condition and…now creating mould in many areas of the flat despite efforts to keep the property at ambient temperatures”. The estate manager was of the view that the windows needed to be repaired or replaced. The landlord responded to this, stating it would not offer to do anything until after its chief executive had completed the stage 2 response.
The landlord sent the stage 2 response on 1 March 2023, in which it said:
1. It had seen correspondence the resident had written prior to purchasing the property, in which she recognised the work needed to the property. The resident had also understood she would need to replace the windows. It had therefore concluded that the resident had purchased the property in full recognition of the work required, and it was sorry she was now feeling differently about this.
2. It had looked at the windows and was “moving any repairs forward”. The windows were the original sash windows and would not be fully draught-proof, as noted in the energy performance certificate.
3. It considered its stage 1 response was fair and reasonable, but it hoped this further response would enable the resident to “move forward”.
The resident responded to the stage 2 response on 3 March 2023, stating that:
1. The windows were not fit for purpose. They rattled in the wind, the woodwork was rotting, and she could not close the shutters to reduce heat loss because they were stuck.
2. The landlord was not following the terms of the lease, which placed an obligation on it to ensure the property was kept in a good state of repair. It was also not honouring its duty of care to the residents.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 March 2023 thanking her for the email and stating it had noted her comments.
The resident duly made her complaint to this Service on 17 March 2023.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows

In its responses to the resident, the landlord argued that, while the windows may have been poor quality, they were not in a state of disrepair. The landlord did not dispute the resident’s claims that the windows rattled in the wind, were stuck due to over-painting and allowed significant heat loss. Its response was that that this was to be expected in an older property, and that the resident knew these issues when she purchased the lease.
Given the windows rattled in the wind, were stuck, and allowed significant heat loss, it cannot reasonably be said that they were being kept in good and substantial repair. Windows are supposed to be tools for allowing ventilation of the property whilst protecting the property from the outside weather. If the windows are stuck, they cannot allow adequate ventilation. If they allow significant heat loss, they do not protect from the weather.
In its response to the resident on 27 April 2022, the landlord acknowledged its responsibility for maintaining the windows. It said it was in the process of arranging for a contractor to check the windows and to obtain quotes if necessary. It also said any costs related to this would be the responsibility of the estate. However, we have seen no evidence the landlord arranged for a contractor to attend, or completed any other follow up.
The landlord told the resident on 27 April 2022 that the windows were not considered faulty, but it had not inspected the windows before reaching this conclusion. In the same email, the landlord said the windows might have required a draught excluder to aid with any rattling. We have seen no evidence it took any action regarding this.
It is evident that the estate manager told the landlord of the presence of damp and mould, and blamed disrepair of the windows for this, in the email sent on 21 February 2023. The landlord should have provided this information to the chief executive so that that this could have been considered in the stage 2 response.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk-based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. “Damp and mould” and “excess cold” are both considered hazards under the HHSRS. In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, a landlord is obligated to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from hazards.
The email from 21 February 2023 shows the landlord was made aware of the hazards of damp, mould and heat loss in the property, but it did not act satisfactorily in response to the reports. This was contrary to the landlord’s obligations under the lease, as well as the HHSRS. This was a significant failure given the resident is elderly, as elderly people are more vulnerable to the health effects of cold, damp and mould. The resident highlighted this herself, pointing out she lived in an estate for elderly retired people.
The Ombudsman released his “Spotlight on: Damp and mould” report in October 2021 which emphasised, among other things, that landlords should take responsibility for damp and mould. Some of the recommendations in the report were for landlords to take a “zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould” and to “ensure that their responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue”. The landlord did not respond to the damp and mould in accordance with the “spotlight” report.
For its failure to fulfil its obligations under the lease and HHSRS, despite the resident raising concerns on several occasions, and the detrimental impact this had on the elderly resident living in a cold property affected by damp and mould, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.

The landlord’s complaint handling

At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints procedure confirmed it would provide its stage 1 response within 14 days (10 working days) of the resident raising the complaint. This matched the timescale required under section 5 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) at the time.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response to the resident 20 working days after it received her letter, which was double the required timescale. The landlord said the reason for the delay was the complaint handler being absent. It is reasonable that the landlord could have arranged cover for the complaint handler to prevent such a long delay.
Section 5.8 of the Code at the time of the complaint said the landlord must provide certain information in its stage 1 responses, including “details of how to escalate the matter to stage 2 if the resident is not satisfied with the answer”. The landlord provided no details in its stage 1 response on how the resident could escalate her complaint if dissatisfied.
At the time of the complaint, the landlord’s complaints procedure confirmed its chief executive would provide a stage 2 response within 5 working days of the resident raising an escalation request. The landlord provided its stage 2 response 8 working days after the resident’s request, which was 3 working days outside the required timescale.
The landlord said in its stage 2 response that it was “moving any repairs forward” for the windows. It is not clear what the landlord meant by this, and we have seen no evidence it took any action regarding the windows to warrant this statement.
Section 5.16 of the Code at the time of the complaint confirmed stage 2 responses must contain certain information including “details of how to escalate the matter to the Housing Ombudsman Service if the resident remain(ed) dissatisfied”.
The landlord ended its stage 2 response by stating it hoped its response had enabled the resident to “move forward”. It provided no details on how the resident could bring the matter to this Service. This was not compliant with section 5.16 of the Code at the time.
Following its issuing of the stage 2 response, the resident continued to argue the windows were not fit for purpose. She also told the landlord again it had responsibilities under the lease. The landlord did not take this opportunity to re-examine the complaint, or provide a referral to this Service. Instead, it merely told the resident that it “noted her comments”. This was poor customer service, and could have prevented the resident from exercising her right to approach this Service with the matter had she not researched this independently.
For the delays in issuing its complaint responses, the failure to follow up with promises to “move repairs forward”, and the failure to inform the resident about how she could escalate her complaint if dissatisfied, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the windows in the property.
2. Complaint handling.

Orders

It is ordered that, within 16 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord carries out a survey of the condition of the windows and prepares a schedule of works for the windows to be repaired. If repair is not feasible, the landlord should prepare a schedule of works for replacement of the windows.
It is ordered that, within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord completes a review of its damp and mould response strategy in line with the lessons outlined in the Ombudsman’s “spotlight on damp and mould” report published in October 2021 and the follow up report published in February 2023. The landlord is ordered to provide a copy of this review to this Service, including details of any changes it will be making to its existing procedures.
It is ordered that, within 8 weeks of the date of the report, the landlord contacts the resident to ascertain if there is still any mould in the property caused by the window disrepair. If so, the landlord should send an operative to remove the mould for the resident.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides an apology to the resident written by a senior member of staff.
It is ordered that, within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord provides the resident with a payment of £1,300. This comprises:
1. £1,000 for the inconvenience, distress and additional heating costs caused by the heat loss, and damp and mould, over the period of 2 years.
2. £300 for the inconvenience and delays caused by the complaint handling failures.