Curo Places Limited (202208607)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208607

Curo Places Limited

29 November 2023

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:
1. the repairs to the guttering
2. the subsequent complaint.

Background

The resident occupies a property under an assured shorthold tenancy that commenced on 13 November 2013. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow. The resident has told this service that she is disabled and autistic and the landlord has confirmed that its records note that the resident has a ‘functional neurology disorder’ and she has had additional support from a local scheme to help her communicate with it.
The resident told this service that she first reported issues with her guttering and associated water leaks in 2017. The landlord told this service the resident’s early reports were about debris blocking the pipe which they frequently attended to clear. However, the scope of this investigation will begin with the more recent reports from 9 December 2020 onwards.
Between 9 December 2020 and 24 May 2023, the resident reported on at least 16 occasions that her gutter was backflowing and causing damage to her property, was a slip hazard and remained unfixed. During this time, the landlord visited the property on at least 15 occasions.
In or around January 2022, the landlord fitted fibreglass gullies as a permanent fix to the resident’s defective guttering. This was because it found from its assessment on 17 December 2021, that the gradient was defective causing a backflow.
On 8 December 2021, the resident raised a formal complaint to the Housing Ombudsman about her defective guttering. We asked the landlord to respond through its internal complaints process. In response to this, the landlord provided three written responses to the resident, as follows:
1. a stage 1 response on 6 January 2022
2. a stage 2 response on 27 January 2022
3. a stage 3 response on 23 September 2022
These responses were brief. Within them, the landlord confirmed the installation of the fibreglass gullies. It said the post-inspection deemed the work satisfactory. It went on to explain that it would not be installing a downpipe as requested because it would cause a slip hazard.
The landlord also wrote to the resident on 28 September 2023 after reviewing its complaint handling. In its letter, it apologised to the resident for its delay in responding to her and its unclear complaint policy; and offered her £100 compensation.
The resident told this service that she is still experiencing water leaking from the guttering which is impacting her garden.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction and scope of investigation

The Housing Ombudsman Scheme (‘the Scheme’), details the scope of complaints that this service can investigate. In paragraph 42(c) the Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
Although it is noted that there is a long history of reports about the guttering, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 8 December 2020. This is because this is what was considered as part of the landlord’s complaint responses. Any issues occurring before this time, ought to have been raised with the landlord as a formal complaint much sooner.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the guttering

The resident told this service that there were 3 main issues with the way the landlord had handled the repairs:
1. The handling of appointments. Namely, the resident states that the contractors had attended without notice and missed appointments that were scheduled. The landlord attended the property and climbed onto her roof without prior notice to assess the guttering.
2. The installation of the fibreglass gullies. Specifically, the resident states she was informed the installation would take place on 17 December 2021. When the contractors attended they told her that the work required specialist knowledge. However, the same contractor attended three days later to install the gullies.
3. That the landlord would not install a downpipe to the back of her property to even the water load and prevent her front garden from being flooded.

Appointments

The evidence shows that there was a dispute as to the following appointments:
1. There was an appointment scheduled for 14 January 2021, but the resident reported the appointment had been missed.
2. There was an appointment planned to visit the resident on 12 February 2021 to consider any further repairs required but the resident cancelled this because her support worker was unavailable.
3. An appointment went ahead on 7 December 2021. However, the resident asked the contractors to leave because they were assessing a different gutter.
4. There was an appointment planned for 10 December 2021, but this was rescheduled by the landlord to 17 December 2021.
The landlord’s records do not show whether an appointment was scheduled for 14 January 2021. This means that the Ombudsman is unable to conclude whether the landlord failed to attend or notify the resident accordingly.
The appointment scheduled to visit the resident on 12 February 2021 was cancelled at the request of the resident. This was outside of the control of the landlord and therefore this service cannot find fault with the alteration of this appointment.
The landlord’s records show that when the resident called it to explain that the contractor was assessing a different gutter, it called the contractor and asked it to return the same day to look at the gutter the resident requested. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord acted reasonably in these circumstances to engage with both the resident and the contractor to ensure the correct gutter was assessed.
On or around 7 December 2021, the landlord rescheduled its appointment on 10 December 2021 to assess the gutter. It said this appointment had to be rescheduled because of the resident’s behaviour towards the contractor. The Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the resident’s behaviour was abusive, however, it is reasonable and fair to the landlord to have considered the contractor’s concerns. The landlord was not at fault for arranging an alternative appointment with alternative contractors for 17 December 2021.
On 22 December 2021, the landlord advised the resident by email that it would be installing fibreglass gullies to rectify the guttering issue. However, the resident had reported that an operative had already attended the property to progress the works. The landlord told the resident it would investigate this. There is no evidence that it provided the resident with its findings. That was a failure.

The installation

Although the resident told the landlord on 15 December 2021 that she would be refusing access to the property on 17 December 2021, the landlord attended to assess the work required . It was decided at this inspection that fibreglass gullies would be installed. A further appointment occurred, which the resident states was 2 days later, to complete the works. These works were confirmed as complete to the landlord by the contractors. The landlord has not provided this service with sufficient evidence of the appointment details, and this is a failure to provide/maintain records.
The resident told this service that the contractor informed her that a specialist contractor was required to install the fibreglass gullies. However, she was concerned when the same contractor returned to carry out the work.
The Ombudsman cannot determine what was said to the resident by the contractors during the first appointment. Nor are we able to say that a different specialist contractor was required.
The resident reported on 23 December 2021, that the contractor had left ‘raw fibreglass’ in her garden and requested it be removed. Although the resident told this service it was removed by a contractor, she was concerned they did not fully remove the material. She told us that the material being left behind created a hazard for her cat. There is no evidence that any material was left behind following the landlord’s cleanup.

Post-Installation

The resident requested a downpipe to the rear of her property and the landlord declined her request. On 17 December 2021, and on various other occasions via email and in meetings, the landlord explained that, following an assessment by its contractors, a downpipe was not an appropriate resolution. It said this is because there is not an appropriate soakaway for the runoff, and this would cause a slip hazard. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has considered the resident’s request. It has made a decision it was permitted to make based on the advice from its contractors.
On 10 March 2021, the resident declined an offer from the landlord of concreting the area to help with any excess water. The landlord also advised her to utilise her water butt to collect the water. It is not clear if the resident has chosen to follow this advice. The Ombudsman considers it would be reasonable for the landlord to assess the causes and preventative measures of water pooling in the garden on receipt of further reports from the resident. The landlord should be minded that the water may affect her ability to fully enjoy her garden and home, for which she is paying rent.
The resident told this service that she is still experiencing water leaking from the guttering. The landlord’s records show it assessed the guttering on 19 May 2023 and said it required lining. It is unclear whether this work has been completed by the landlord to date. This is a failure of the landlord to show it has completed full and effective work within a reasonable time.
Overall, the landlord was made aware of the problems with guttering on 9 December 2020. Some repairs were completed by 17 December 2021, a year later, but some remained outstanding until at least 24 May 2023. Overall, that amounts to maladministration in the handling of the repairs to the guttering.

Complaint handling

At the time the resident raised her complaint, its complaint handling policy was not in compliance with the Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) in many areas. This means that the requirements for the complaint were not met including:
1. Progressing the complaint formally
2. Responding to the complaint in writing within the timescales set for stage 1 and stage 2 complaints.
3. Clarification about the relevant response stages.

The landlord has subsequently self-assessed itself against the Code and in December 2022 updated its complaints policy. It also wrote to the resident on 28 September 2023 to apologise and offered her £100 for its complaint handling failures.

The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord has attempted to address the complaint handling failures through its apology, its offer of compensation as well as its review of the complaint policy and self-assessment. However, it has failed to address the content of the complaint responses. Both its stage 1 and stage 2 responses were close duplicates of each other and only stated the chronological events relating to the gutter inspections.
The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have been clear in its written responses about the finite points of the resident’s concerns and to respond to each of them clearly. Therefore, the landlord is responsible for service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the landlord was responsible for maladministration in its handling of the repairs to the guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of this determination:
1. use all best endeavours to apply the lining to the guttering
2. use its best endeavours to inspect the water pooling in the garden and consider a course of action on how the matter can be resolved
3. use its best endeavours to inspect and determine if the gutters are still leaking
4. pay the resident £450, made up as follows:
  1. £100 in recognition of its complaint handling failures
  2. £350 for the impact of its handling of the repairs to the gutters
  3. This is in addition to any compensation award already offered to the resident to date in connection with this complaint.
5. provide evidence of its compliance to this service.
If the landlord does not complete the inspections within 28 days, it must provide evidence to demonstrate it used its best endeavours to ensure the inspections were completed within 28 days. This includes any reasons (and supporting evidence) of why the inspections could not be completed in that time and when the inspections will be completed. The landlord must then provide evidence to this service once the inspections are completed.