Cornwall Housing Limited (202219381)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202219381

Cornwall Housing Limited

31 May 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak from the roof at her property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, she lives in a 3 bedroom, end terrace house with her partner and children. The tenancy began on 19 August 2019. The landlord has recorded 1 of the resident’s children to have a long-standing illness/health condition which it understands to be asthma and eczema. No other vulnerabilities are recorded against the household.
The landlord reports it was advised on 20 March 2023 that the health conditions of the resident’s children were being exacerbated by the housing conditions and that the resident had developed “wheezing”.
The resident first reported a leak to the roof on 26 October 2020, the works order notes state water was coming down the inside of the bedroom wall. As this was during a period of lockdown the resident provided photos to the landlord on 7 November 2020. The photos show bubbling in a corner of the ceiling where it meets the wall alongside spotted staining. Photos provided to the Ombudsman on 23 November 2022 show the staining to have got considerably worse.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2022 and asked it to be considered as an “official complaint”. She said she had been assured that the roof was scheduled “to be looked at” by the end of year, by April 2022. She had not heard anything and it had been nearly 2 years since she had reported the roof leak and no one had come to look at it. She requested confirmation as to when the landlord would look at the roof leak and compensation for:
1. Repairs not being completed in a satisfactory timescale.
2. Having to spend time repeatedly contacting the landlord to try to resolve the situation to no avail, causing stress and frustration.
3. Having to clean mould from the ceiling and wall repeatedly where the water was gradually destroying the plaster on the ceiling.
4. The health implications of having damp/mould in a sleeping area caused by no repair being completed, particularly due to family members suffering from asthma/allergies.
The resident received an automatic acknowledgement on 17 August 2022 which advised she would be contacted within 3 working days and the landlord would aim to respond to the complaint within 10 working days. The landlord sent the resident a further 2 acknowledgements of her complaint, first on 27 September 2022, which apologised for the delay in responding and advised it was due to “staffing issues”. The second, on 23 November 2022, which again apologised for the delay in responding and advised the complaint had been passed to the relevant team to investigate.
The landlord provided a stage 1 response on 2 February 2023, upheld the resident’s complaint and offered £250 as a gesture of goodwill for the delays, the lack of communication and towards the additional costs the resident had incurred. The resident emailed the landlord on 24 February 2023 and said whilst she was happy her complaint had been upheld, she was still “extremely unhappy” with the response due to the “serious inaccuracies” which minimalised the level of maladministration and requested it be raised to a stage 2 complaint.
The landlord provided a review of its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023. Within this response the landlord again, upheld the residents complaint, agreed the leak had been going on for far too long, the resident had received a poor service and offered an increased amount of £2000 in recognition of the “stress, anxiety and inconvenience caused”, “plus the additional expenses incurred over the course of two years of ongoing issues”.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 for the second time on 20 March 2023. The resident raised the level of discrimination felt in the uncaring tone of some of the communication with the landlord and the mental impact of being ignored over this matter had not been recognised. Within this email the resident details worrying about mould spores in all bedrooms and not being able to use the main room with the leak for over 2 years.
The landlord acknowledged this request on the same day and advised a response could be expected by 18 April 2023. The landlord provided its final response on 17 April 2023, upheld the resident’s complaint and offered an increased amount of £2550 to resolve the complaint. It also:
1. Confirmed the roofing works had been completed and the internal works had been instructed to start.
2. “Unreservedly apologised” for the resident feeling her views were dismissed and minimised in the poor communication.
3. Agreed that some of the communications had been defensive but the most recent stage 1 letter had apologised and accepted these shortcomings.
4. Confirmed the change in narrative and approach was due to a change in senior leadership.
5. Said it understood the discrimination felt by the resident referred to the delays in progressing the work, the lack of care and empathy rather than discrimination based on the ethnicity of the household.
6. Said it was looking to improve service standards and change the culture of the organisation to ensure that residents are consistently treated as customers.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman and requested a formal investigation on 11 May 2023 as she was “not completely happy with the outcome” and later advised on 8 September 2023 the reasons for this were:
1. She did not believe all parts of the complaint were fully recognised and adequately compensated.
2. The length of time she had no contact or support from the landlord was “particularly shocking”.
3. She had raised the issue of discrimination in how they were treated, talked to and how others seemed to get issues sorted with less issue. She felt that discrimination played a part in the way she was treated for such a prolonged period and the way she was dismissed when being talked to.
4. Although the landlord had apologised and explained that it was going through a period of change and review, there were still issues up until the work had been complete.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Evidence has been seen which suggests the situation has directly impacted the household’s wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments. However, it is beyond the authority of the Ombudsman to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the complaint and the resident’s physical or mental wellbeing. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been adversely affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord. Whilst we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident reports that they experienced because of any errors by the landlord.
Its outside the Ombudsmans remit to establish whether the actions or inaction of a landlord amounted to discrimination. Allegations of discrimination are legal issues better suited to a court of law to decide. The Ombudsman can assess whether the landlord’s overall communication and responses were appropriate, fair and reasonable. The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”. The Ombudsman will not consider claims for financial loss. This is because the Ombudsman does not have the jurisdiction to award damages, nor does it have the necessary expertise to assess liability and determine loss. These are matters within the jurisdiction of the court and the Ombudsman cannot provide a legal determination. Therefore, the resident may wish to seek independent legal advice on this matter. Whilst we cannot consider damages, consideration has been given to whether the landlord followed policy and acted in a reasonable manner, providing an adequate level of redress proportionate to the circumstance of the case.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of a leak from the roof of her property.

In accordance with the landlord’s repairs policy and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for the repair and maintenance of the structure of the property, this includes the roof. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord’s repairs policy says it will complete routine repairs within 28 days, further guidance says defects to roofs would be 20 workings days, depending on safety. Replacements roofs would be considered as part of a planned maintenance programme where the landlord prioritises replacing components just ahead of when they are expected to fail. This is a reasonable policy stance as the landlord can then expect the maximum lifespan out of larger components within its stock.
The initial works order for a leak raised by the landlord on 26 October 2020 according to its repair logs, was recorded as complete on 30 June 2021, however there are no details as to why this was completed, for example the date it was inspected or the reason for the decision to mark as complete. The landlord provided additional notes for this job which show a “last appointment date” of 25 February 2021. In providing evidence for this case, the landlord has advised it believed this was during the covid period and therefore this assessment was done as a desktop exercise. These notes say the roof repair could not be done unless a new roof was installed due to the roof being foamed on the inside. The landlord noted a referral for this work was sent and was acknowledged by, it’s reasonable to conclude, the relevant department on 5 July 2021. There has been no further information provided on this job up until the resident made her complaint. The landlord in later internal communications acknowledged this referral process to be an issue but this was not until January 2023, over 2 years since the resident first reported the leak. It is also not clear if this referral process remains in place.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a third national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the “stay at home” order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
During lockdowns it is reasonable to assume the landlord moved to an ‘emergency repairs only’ service. It would have been expected that following this period the landlord would have a backlog of non emergency jobs which it had received during the above period, however a plan to work through these jobs with some level of priority would have been reasonable. It was not appropriate for the resident to have endured a progressive leak for over 2 years. She made the landlord aware of the leak and sent pictures that showed the bubbling and staining in the corners of the room. Following her complaint made in August 2022, which mentioned damp and mould in a “sleeping area”, it took the landlord a further 4 months to inspect the property which was not a reasonable amount of time and prolonged the issue for the resident.
The landlord communicated through its complaint responses that the roof replacement was decided in July 2021 and advised it was due to be completed by the end of that financial year but then was put back a year, in its initial stage 1 response. The roof was replaced by April 2023, 30 months after the initial report of a leak from the resident and 20 months after the landlord had decided to replace the roof.
Although it is acknowledged a replacement roof is a large job and indeed needs to be factored into other aspects of the landlord’s repairs schedule, some level of prioritisation should be applied, taking into account the impact of not doing the replacement in that financial year would have on its asset and resident. No evidence has been seen to show the landlord took this into consideration when planning the replacement roof. This resulted in the damp and mould gradually getting worse in the resident’s property, despite her efforts to clean and treat the areas affected, causing considerable distress and inconvenience. The landlord agreed in its review of the stage 1 response on 6 March 2023, that the lack of repair to the leak caused the damp and mould.
Furthermore, its records show the resident was not updated with its plans to replace the roof. The resident endured an extensive period of time where she expected the leak to be inspected and fixed, with little communication from the landlord. She was not aware this was the reason why the landlord was not trying to fix the issue, which is not appropriate and caused her an avoidable, unnecessary amount of distress, frustration and inconvenience.
To summarise, the resident first reported a leak in August 2020, due to pictures sent in by the resident, the landlord did not categorise this as an emergency repair, therefore it was not looked at during the nation lockdown period. In July 2021, when restrictions were lifted the landlord made the decision a repair could not be done and the roof needed to be replaced. This was not communicated to the resident nor did the landlord take any further action on this decision. The roof was then not inspected for a further 17 months and the notes suggest it was only inspected due to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was aware of the elevated impact of ingress and resultant damp and mould on the household, yet no evidence has been seen that this was considered or factored into any prioritising of works. Given the length of time the landlord failed to repair the leak and the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble, experienced by the resident as a result, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.
It is however, encouraging that following the inspection on 20 December 2022, the landlord acted appropriately and arranged for the replacement roof to be done in a reasonable timeframe. In addition, it accepted the lack of repair to the roof and the delay in the replacement caused the damp and mould, not condensation, which its inspection notes seemed to suggest. However, within its complaint process the landlord offered £1250 for not handling the situation well, the delay in the repairs and not responding to the resident’s complaint in a timely manner, which, in the Ombudsmans opinion, does not go far enough to put the matter right for the resident.

The landlords handling of the resident’s complaint.

It is not disputed that the landlord handled the resident’s complaint poorly. The resident’s initial email of complaint on 17 August 2022, was acknowledged on 3 occasions by the landlord. The first being an automated email on the day she made the complaint, the second on 27 September 2022, where it advised of staffing issues being the reason for the delay and the final acknowledgement on 23 November 2022. This is a period of 3 months, and this is an unreasonable amount of time for resident to repeatedly be advised the landlord had her complaint and would respond. Following this no evidence has been seen that the landlord then advised the resident of any timeframe for a response before providing its first stage 1 response on 2 February 2023. Its policy stated at the time a complaint would be acknowledged within 3 working days and responded to within 10. If it required additional time, it would let the resident know. The landlord failed to do this in this case, which was not appropriate.
The landlord did not acknowledge the residents request to escalate her complaint to stage 2 on 24 February 2023, despite the clear and extremely detailed reasons given as to why she wished to escalate the complaint. Rather it provided a review of its stage 1 response on 6 March 2023. In addition to this, in its stage 1 responses, it advised the resident to escalate her complaint to the Ombudsman as her complaint had been upheld. There is no mention of this escalation option in its policy and it also was not in line with the complaint handling code at the time.
Its final response, showed an improved resolution focus, for example, records show discussions with the resident to reach a resolution, however it failed to demonstrate an adequate level of investigation of what went wrong and gave no explanation in how it could prevent this from happening in the future. Although the landlord accepted its failings and apologised, the lack of detail in its investigation into the complaint resulted in the resident remaining dissatisfied, which further damaged, the already fraught landlord and tenant relationship.
The resident’s email of 24 February 2023 where she first requested her complaint be escalated to stage 2, specifically referenced discrimination felt due to the length of time and response she received from the landlord when trying to chase up the repair. This is something that the landlord should have been able to look into and provide a more detailed response on. Instead it noted that it understood that discrimination referred to service failures and it did not investigate the alleged discrimination behind these failings. Failing to investigate and respond to the resident’s complaint fully and effectively, gave further credence to the resident’s perception of bias against her.
Overall, the resident’s complaint took 8 months to conclude. It was evident there was poor communication from the landlord at the start of the process, it failed to follow its complaints policy and it failed to investigate the resident’s complaint in full. The landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it investigated what had gone wrong with the repair and the delays in the resident’s complaint and therefore has not been able to demonstrate any learning from this complaint in order to improve its service in the future. Due to these reasons, a finding of maladministration has been made and the landlord ordered to carry out a case review to highlight areas of improvement in its services.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its response to the residents reports of a leak from the roof at her property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for a senior officer at director level or above to apologise in person to the resident for the failures identified in this determination.
2. Pay the resident directly in total £1750, to include:
  1. £1000 for the failures identified in its handling of the residents reports of a leak from the roof of her property.
  2. £750 for the failures identified in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
This amount is in addition to the £1250 already offered by the landlord. If it has not yet paid the resident this amount it should pay her £3000. In addition to the £1300 it offered for other material losses.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 6 weeks of this determination.
In accordance with 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, within 12 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord must initiate and complete a senior management review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with its senior management team and the Ombudsman outlining, at minimum, its review findings in respect of:
1. Its intentions to ensure that complaint procedures are followed and residents are provided with an estimated timescale for a response where there are likely to be delays.
2. Its intentions to ensure any future potential staffing issues does not impact on its ability to act in accordance with its complaints policy.
3. Its intentions to ensure adequate oversight of its maintenance responsibilities where exceptional impacts are evident and where planned programmes may not deliver an early resolution to avoid extended adverse impacts on residents. This should consider the practices set out in the Ombudsmans Spotlight report on damp and mould.
4. Its intention and a timescale to review its communications to residents who are affected by its planned maintenance programme. This should ensure regular reviews and updates are available to ensure effective communication with its residents.
5. Identified improvements in oversight and associated processes must be brought into its operations within 12 weeks from the date of this report.
The landlord should provide evidence to this service that it has complied with the above order within 12 weeks of this determination.