Accent Housing Limited (202303477)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202303477

Accent Housing Limited

29 November 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of draughts and the property not retaining heat.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Request for evidence of its service charge expenditure.
4. Complaints.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. His tenancy began in June 2015. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat. In communication with the landlord, the resident says the draughts, damp and mould, heat loss had a negative impact on his mental health.
The landlord’s records show the resident contacted it on 5 January 2023 to report draughts in the property. He advised heat was escaping the property. Due to these issues, the resident advised he was no longer able to have his daughter stay at the property. The resident informed the landlord he had previously requested invoices of the service charge expenditure, but the landlord had not provided them. The landlord said the windows were due for refurbishment and it would ask the surveyor to advise when this would take place. However, in the meantime it would raise a repair.
On 6 January 2023, the resident contacted the landlord to say the front door, kitchen and bathroom windows were still draughty following repairs that day. Additionally, the glass in the bedroom window had blown due to condensation. The resident stated there was damp and mould around the windows and door frame. The landlord raised further repairs and initiated step 1 of its damp and mould procedure.
On 9 January 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord concerning the state of the windows. The resident said:
1. He had several calls with the landlord regarding the state of the windows.
2. A surveyor was supposed to visit the property last year; therefore, he took the day off work. However, the surveyor did not attend and there was no follow up visit. The evidence provided does not confirm a date on which the visit was due to take place.
3. The condition of the property had deteriorated. Due to damp and mould, he could not have his daughter over to stay.
4. There were draughts coming from the windows and the property was very cold. He acknowledged that the landlord had completed repairs, but said these had not resolved the issue.
5. He felt there had been no follow up by the landlord regarding his concerns and it had not dealt with his concerns properly.
6. He sought clarification over his service charge and asked for a copy of the landlord’s expenditure. The resident said he had previously requested this but had not received a copy. The local authority advised him of his right to see this information.
On 16 January 2023, the landlord emailed the resident to say it was still investigating his complaint and aimed to provide a response within the next 5 working days.
On 8 February 2023, the landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response and said:
1. Following the resident’s complaint, a surveyor attended the property and raised repairs to the front windows. However, the resident tested positive for COVID-19, meaning it needed to reschedule the repair from 6 February 2023 to 17 February 2023.
2. It delivered a damp and mould kit to the resident (the complaint letter says 10 February; however, the landlord’s records says it was delivered on 10 January 2023). It had arranged to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom on 31 March 2023.
3. If he remained dissatisfied with the response, he could escalate his complaint to stage 2. It also apologised for the inconvenience he experienced.
Between February 2023 and April 2023, the landlord and the resident communicated about his concerns. The resident sought to re-open and escalate his complaint. The resident stated the landlord had placed warning flags on his account which he felt were delaying repairs to his property. Further, he requested invoices of the service charge expenditure. He believed the landlord was in breach of the tenancy agreement by not completing outstanding repairs to the windows.
On 28 April 2023, the resident contacted the landlord seeking to escalate his complaint. The landlord records show it escalated his complaint on the same day. On 24 May 2023, the landlord’s record says it issued a complaint acknowledgment letter to the resident. This service has not received a copy of this email.
On 28 June 2023, the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord said:
1. On 6 January, it raised repairs to the windows and front door. It attended on 9 January 2023 and adjusted the front door. It also replaced the seals to the kitchen and bathroom windows and did not feel any further draughts.
2. It had taken measurements to replace the glass in the bedroom window as it had blown. Due to the resident testing positive for COVID-19, it rescheduled the repair to 3 March 2023. It acknowledged it did not replace the window as scheduled on 3 March 2023.
3. On 9 March 2023, the resident reported draughts from the windows and doors. A contractor attended on 20 March 2023 and installed further draft excluders to the front door and resealed all the windows in the property. The contractor took measurements of the bedroom window and sent these to the manufacturers. This glass in the bedroom window was replaced on 27 April 2023.
4. It acknowledged there was a delay in the service provided and it was working with its contractors to ensure repairs were timely and efficient.
5. On 17 May 2023, a surveyor visited the home and said the windows had been repaired to a satisfactory standard. The surveyor also said there was no damp and mould present. It confirmed he could report further instances of damp and mould.
6. It attended the property with a surveyor on 17 May 2023 and confirmed the windows were in a fair condition. On 13 June 2023, it visited the property and investigated the windows. It found some debris on one side of the window which prevented it from closing. It cleared the debris, and the window would fully close.
7. It was planning to replace the windows in 2025. However, until then it would continue to make any necessary repairs.
8. It did not have individual invoices for the resident’s property as he paid a fixed service charge. However, it had arranged for its service charge department to contact the resident with the information it could provide.
On 24 July 2023, the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. Therefore, he referred his complaint to this service to investigate. The resident sought the windows to be either repaired or replaced and compensation for the financial costs incurred including the additional heating costs. He also wanted the landlord to carry out damp and mould treatment and to cover the cost of redecorating.
On 13 November 2024, the resident told this service the damp and mould in the property had not been resolved. Further, there was still draughts in the property and the windows which required further repair or replacement.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the window, damp and mould, draughts and heat lost in the property negatively impacted his health. While the Ombudsman does not dispute the resident’s concerns, it is beyond the ability of this service to determine a causal link between the landlord’s actions (or inaction) and the impact on the resident’s health. Such a determination is better dealt with through an insurance claim or by a court. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has advised he has an ongoing complaint with the landlord regarding his kitchen. He also raised complaints concerning warning flags on his account and staff conduct. This report has not considered the resident’s complaint regarding these matters. The Ombudsman cannot consider matters which have not exhausted the landlord’s complaint process as per 42.a of the Scheme. The resident may wish to raise these matters as a new complaint with the landlord if he has not done so already. Should the resident remain dissatisfied following the completion of the landlord’s complaint process, he is able to refer it to the Ombudsman for an investigation.

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the windowsills, window frames, sash cords and window catches.
The landlord’s repair policy says where repairs will be carried out within 28 days where it does not pose an immediate risk to customers.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says when a customer contacts the landlord, it should establish some of the following:
1. Which rooms are affected?
2. Are windows operational?
3. Is there a leak?
4. Are there any visible wet areas?
The landlord’s damp and mould policy states it has several stages.
1. First stage – it is to request residents to provide photographs. It will make residents aware of its prevent damp and mould video and leaflet. It will create a repair order to send out a damp and mould eradication kit to the resident. After 4 weeks the landlord is to call the resident to confirm whether the kit was used, and if the issue has been resolved.
2. Second stage – if the resident contacts it a second time. Or if the resident advises the damp and mould kit did not resolve the issue it will ask for further photos to be emailed. The landlord will agree a time and date with the resident for an inspection with a surveyor. Within 5 working days of the inspection, the landlord should write out to confirm its findings and works to be carried out.
3. Third stage – if the resident contacts the landlord a third time, then it will be escalated to the building service manager to investigate.
At the time the resident made his complaint, the landlord operated a 3 stage complaints procedure. Its complaints policy stated it would acknowledge a complaint within 24 hours and then respond to its early resolution stage, stage 1, and stage 2 complaints within 5 working days. If the resident remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response, the resident could refer the matter to this service for an external review.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (2022) says that landlords should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days. Where there is likely to be a delay, we expect landlords to contact the resident, explain the reason for the delay, and provide a new response time, which should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.

The landlord’s handling of draughts and the property not retaining heat

The resident reported the property was draughty and was not retaining heat. Due to this, he could not afford to heat his home. The resident says his ongoing concerns regarding the draught and cold meant his daughter could not stay at his property and the issue was negatively impacting his health.
When the resident first reported the issue on 5 January 2023, the landlord acted reasonably in raising a repair to help with the loss of heat. It also created a task for a surveyor to investigate and advise when the windows could be replaced. The landlord’s records do not show what repairs were carried out, but it did not resolve the issue.
On 6 January 2023, the landlord raised repairs to the property as the previous repairs had failed to resolve the draught in the property. This meant the resident had to contact the landlord again to raise the issue. The landlord acted in accordance with its repair responsibilities as on 9 January 2023 it replaced the seals to the kitchen and bathroom window. It adjusted the front door and took measurements of the bedroom window to replace the broken glass.
It is not disputed by the landlord there was a delay in replacing the glass in the bedroom window. On 6 January 2023, the resident reported the glass in the bedroom window had blown due to condensation. On 9 January 2023 it took measurements of the window and scheduled to replace it on 6 February 2023. However, the landlord rescheduled the repair after the resident advised that he tested positive for COVID-19. Any delays as the result of the resident having COVID-19 was outside of the landlord’s control.
The replacement of the bedroom window was rescheduled for 3 March 2023. It has acknowledged within its complaint response the work did not take place on 3 March 2023, but it did not explain the reason why it hadn’t taken place. The contractor who attended that day was unaware of any measurements required of the bedroom window. It has not explained why the contractor who attended on 3 March 2023 was unaware measurements of the bedroom window were required. The original measurements matched those taken on 22 March 2023. The landlord has not explained why it could not rely on the original measurements taken even if the operative who took the measurements had left. Its records show the glass for the bedroom window was ready on 6 February 2023, but the landlord has not explained why it was no longer available. The records show the glass was not re-fitted until 27 April 2023. There were missed opportunities by the landlord to progress the repair sooner. While it acknowledged service failure, it could have done more to put things right for the resident by offering compensation for the inconvenience caused.
The resident complained he could not afford to heat his home, and that the property did not retain heat. While the landlord took steps to repair the draughts, it would have been appropriate for it to complete a heat loss survey or assessment to determine if there were any other causes for the property losing heat. The resident did advise the landlord the property was not retaining heat and had raised concerns about the cost and affordability of heating his property. The landlord has demonstrated it considered the resident’s concerns by offering support. In an email dated 16 March 2023, the landlord offered to carry out an affordability assessment. It also provided a link to the local authority’s website concerning the cost of living. In an email dated 17 March 2023, it advised the resident once window works were completed, he should contact it so it could consider any support for additional costs he may have incurred. Additionally, it advised him to provide meter readings or bills to support a claim for funds. These were reasonable actions from the landlord.
Throughout his complaint, the resident said the condition of the property was having a negative impact on his health. The landlord demonstrated that it acted in line with its safeguarding policy by reporting concerns the resident had raised about his mental state to the police, indicating that it took his concerns seriously. It also took steps to offer support where concerns were raised about his daughter staying in the property. It offered to contact the relevant parties to ease their concerns. Due to him mentioning on several occasions issues concerning his mental health, the landlord did make the resident aware of its crisis line and the Samaritans. It could have considered offering or referring the resident to further additional support.
The landlord’s stage 2 response said the windows were due to be replaced in 2025. Landlords are entitled to complete major works, such as replacing windows, as part of a planned programme of works to be carried out over a financial year rather than on an ad hoc basis. The landlord would not be expected to replace windows outside of its planned programme of works unless the item in question was beyond economical repair.
It may have been reasonable for the landlord to have considered bringing the planned programme date forward. However, a surveyor attended the property on 17 May 2023 and confirmed the windows had been repaired to a satisfactory standard and they were in a fair condition. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably in completing repairs to minimise the impact prior to the planned replacement of the property windows.
As the resident has confirmed the draughts are ongoing, the landlord should inspect the windows to determine whether there are further steps it can take to minimise the impact of draughts and heat being lost before the planned program date. The landlord should also confirm when in 2025 it plans to complete the works.
The Ombudsman finds there was maladministration in the resident’s handling of the resident’s reports of draughts and the property not retaining heat. While it acknowledged the delay, it missed opportunities to replace the glass in the bedroom in a reasonable time. It has not demonstrated it completed an assessment concerning the property not retaining heat. The Ombudsman determines the resident should be awarded £150 in compensation.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould

On 6 January 2023, the resident reported damp and mould in the property. The landlord took reasonable steps to ask and establish which parts of the property were affected in line with its damp and mould policy. It asked whether the windows were operational, if the vents were obstructed, whether there was a leak and if there was any wet areas. The resident confirmed the damp and mould was present around the door and windows. It asked the resident to provide photos and said it would send a damp and mould kit. It delivered the damp and mould kit on 10 January 2023.
In line with its damp and mould policy, the landlord is expected to contact the resident 4 weeks after delivering the damp and mould kit to determine whether the issue is resolved. Once it delivered the mould kit on 10 January 2023, there is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to check whether the damp and mould issue had been resolved.
The landlord acted in a reasonable time by providing the damp and mould kit. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out an inspection of the property to determine whether there were any contributing factors to the damp and mould. The landlord’s records state it arranged an inspection of the windows on 9 January 2023, but there is no detail or notes in its repair records to show whether it carried out an inspection of the damp and mould in the property, or that it established what was causing the issue.
Additionally, in his reports to the landlord, the resident reported not being able to heat his property due to draughts and heat escaping. As the property was not being adequately heated, this could have contributed to the damp and mould in the property. Therefore, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explore this further and whether it could have done anything more to address his concerns.
The landlord’s records show it raised a repair to replace the extractor fan in the bathroom which was completed in March 2023. This may have helped reduce condensation by clearing the air in the bathroom, however, the Ombudsman has not seen that the landlord took further steps to address the cause of the damp in other rooms.
The Ombudsman expects a landlord to consider whether the household has any circumstances or vulnerabilities that may make them more susceptible to health risks associated with damp and mould, or whether there were circumstances contributing to the damp and mould. There is no evidence the landlord considered this.
The resident contacted the landlord to report further damp and mould in the property on 17 March 2023 and 31 March 2023. While it delivered another damp and mould kit on 4 April 2023, this service has not seen evidence to show the landlord contacted the resident to arrange an inspection of the property to investigate the issue further in line with the second stage of its policy. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have inspected the property to establish whether other factors could be contributing to damp and mould. The mould treatment was a reactive measure and would have been unlikely to address the underlying cause.
The resident confirmed that the landlord offered to carry out a damp and mould treatment. However, he declined this as he would have to incur the cost of redecorating the property. The landlord emailed the resident on 27 April 2023 and said it had agreed to some redecoration cost. In this email the landlord asked the resident to provide further information for it to consider a formal claim for compensation. This was reasonable for the landlord to do. This service has not seen evidence that the resident provided the requested information to the landlord.
Communication between the parties following the stage 2 complaint response indicates there was a re-occurrence of damp and mould in the property. The resident has informed this service the damp and mould issue has not been resolved. Therefore, a further inspection of the property is required to determine whether further works are needed.
The Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. While it sent the resident mould kits so that he could address mould growth himself, it failed to communicate effectively with him, in line with its damp and mould policy. There was also a delay in arranging a damp survey to assess the cause of the issue. The Ombudsman determines the resident should be awarded compensation of £200 for the landlord’s handling of his reports of damp and mould in the property.

Landlord’s handling of the request for evidence of service charge expenditure

On 5 January 2023, the resident reported that he had previously requested invoices of the service charge expenditure towards his property. He advised he had paid a service charge but had seen no work in the communal areas. Further, he paid a service charge during the lockdown restrictions in place during COVID-19 but disputed that works took place during this time.
In his complaint on 9 January 2023, the resident stated he had requested invoices from the landlord of the service charge expenditure but had not received a copy. The landlord has not demonstrated it responded to the resident’s request for service change expenditure sought by him in his communication dated 5 January 2023 until March 2023. While the restrictions in place during Covid-19 may have prevented the landlord from carrying out works to the property and communal area, the landlord failed to respond to the resident regarding this issue. Given the time that had passed since the lockdown restrictions, the landlord may not have been able to provide information related to services that were, or were not, delivered during that time. However, it should have confirmed its position to the resident to address his concern.
However, on 21 February 2023, 9 March 2023 and 16 March 2023 the resident and landlord discussed his issues with the service charges. He felt that it was not completing work to the property and communal areas. While the landlord advised it could not provide the requested information, it did act reasonably in advising the resident it would raise and investigate the issues he reported regarding the property and communal areas. On 17 March 2023, the landlord explained to the resident it did not have individual invoices for the resident’s as it worked with payment certificates which covered a number of schemes, and due to commercial confidentiality, it would not disclose this information. This is 2 months after the resident told the landlord he had requested this information. The landlord could have considered explaining what information it could provide to alleviate the resident’s concerns. This could have prevented the resident repeatedly requesting the information and raising complaints. However, this service has not seen evidence the landlord communicated this until its stage 2 complaint response.
On 28 June 2023, in its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord advised it had provided feedback regarding the resident feeling it had not been helpful in providing invoices. The landlord advised it did not have copies of individual invoices for the property as he paid a fixed charge, but it would contact him to share the information it could provide. This was fair of the landlord.
The resident has advised this service that he received a breakdown of expenditure showing where the service charges were spent. However, he requested proof and evidence of where his expenditure was spent but has not received a copy. It is reasonable for the landlord to explain it could not provide the requested information as it did not have individual invoices for the resident. Additionally due to commercial contracts it would not provide this information. It has attempted to provide information to ease his concerns.
However, there were delays by the landlord in clarifying why it could not provide the requested information. The landlord did not address the resident’s concerns that no works were completing during the lockdown in COVID-19. The Ombudsman finds there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for evidence of the service charge expenditure. In line with our remedies guidance for service failure, the Ombudsman orders that the resident should be awarded £50 in compensation.

Complaint handling

On 9 January 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response on 8 February 2023. This was 22 working days after the resident made his complaint and outside of the landlord’s and the Ombudsman’s timescales. While the landlord informed the resident that it was still investigating the complaint and was waiting for a response from its surveyor on 16 January 2023, it said it would provide him with an update within 5 working days and there is a lack of evidence to show it did so. The landlord failed to acknowledge or address the delay within its subsequent stage 1 complaint response which amounts to a failing.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response failed to address all of the points raised in the resident’s complaint. The resident’s complaint concerned his request for the service charge expenditure, but the landlord’s stage 1 response did not address this point. Additionally, it failed to address the resident’s claim that a surveyor failed to attend the previous year and there was no follow up visit. The landlord’s failure to adequately address his concerns meant that he needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a resolution.
The landlord’s records show the resident expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord’s complaint handling and made further complaints. On 30 March 2023, he disagreed that the complaint should have been closed and maintained that the issues reported had not been resolved. This should have prompted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. The landlord did not escalate the resident’s complaint until 28 April 2023 and did not issue a complaint acknowledgement until 22 May 2023. Following the landlord’s acknowledgment, it did not issue its stage 2 complaint response until 28 June 2023. This is more than 40 working days after the landlord’s record show it escalated the resident’s complaint. This was a considerable time following the complaint escalation and unreasonably extended the overall time of the complaint. It also meant that the resident needed to spend additional time and trouble pursuing a formal response.
This service expects landlords to issue a stage 2 response within 20 working days. If there was a delay or if an extension was required, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to contact and notify the resident. The landlord has not demonstrated it took this action. As per the Code, an extension will not exceed more than 10 working days without good reason. The landlord has not provided a reason as to why it took 40 working days to issue a stage 2 complaint response.
In its complaint responses, the landlord acknowledged any inconvenience the resident experienced and the delay in the service provided. The landlord should have considered awarding compensation in its complaint responses to reflect the delay and inconvenience.
There were delays by the landlord issuing its stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses. The landlord did not provide a good reason for the extension to the stage 2 complaint response. The landlord’s stage 1 response did not address the issues raised in the resident’s complaint. Therefore, the Ombudsman determines there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman determines £150 should be awarded to the resident for the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of draughts and the property not retaining heat.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for evidence of its service charge expenditure.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Pay the resident a total of £550, composed of:
  1. £150 for its handling of the resident’s reports of draughts and the property not retaining heat.
  2. £200 for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  3. £50 for its handling of the resident’s request for evidence of its service charge expenditure.
  4. £150 for its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord must pay this directly to the resident and the landlord must provide this service with evidence of the above payment within six weeks of the date of this determination.
Within 6 weeks of this report, the landlord is to contact the resident to arrange an inspection the property. Within 15 working days of this visit, the landlord is to write to the resident with outcome and advise if further repairs to the windows are needed. The landlord is also to confirm with the resident whether damp and mould in the property has been resolved. Further, the landlord should confirm when it intends to complete the window renewals. The landlord is to provide a copy of the letter to this service.