ForHousing Limited (202116637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116637

ForHousing Limited

25 April 2022

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 complaint is about the landlord’s response to the repairs the resident reported at the property, including damp.

Background

2. The resident and her partner and child live in a two-bedroom house under an assured tenancy since 2013. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the family.
3. Jobs were raised by the landlord in respect of reported flooding in the garden and a leak in the kitchen of the property in November and December 2020 respectively. The landlord log shows the leak as being contained on 18 March 2021. The landlord inspected the property in April 2021 and said there was no fault with the underground drainage, and drains had been fitted to prevent flooding into the property. The kitchen units were removed on 15 June 2021 and the resident complained the next day that the house was like a building site with the work taking place, and that the family were not decanted while this was ongoing. Further calls from the resident discussed that the floor was wet, but on inspection, the landlord deemed that this should quickly dry out.
4. The resident stated there had been discussion about emergency accommodation, but the couple were unable to accept this as they had two dogs, (later increasing to seven when one had puppies). The Housing Officer visited and said that the repairs did not meet the criteria for a temporary decant.
5. It was deemed that only one kitchen unit needed replacing but the resident refused to accept this, as they wanted a new kitchen. The resident said that they would throw the kitchen outside, so the landlord arranged for it to be removed and stored where it was examined further. On removal of the kitchen units the repairs team noted that one unit required replacing and that “rest of units are falling to bits”.
6. On 8 July 2021, a job was raised to renew a sink base unit, plinth, and new worktop, and to refix the old kitchen units. The complaint response said that a decant was not possible given the dogs, the repair had been raised and a tiler would attend to inspect the floor tiles and raise any further jobs that were required. The landlord inspected; a temporary sink had been installed and the resident had access to facilities. A landlord report on 19 July 2021 said that the repair needed attention from the asbestos team, and that the tenant had been advised to stay out of the kitchen ahead of an emergency “24 hour” job being raised. The landlord later decided that the asbestos was “low-grade”; however, the evidence is not clear on when it reached that decision or when that decision was communicated to the resident.
7. The resident escalated their complaint as they felt the flooding was coming from the garden and they wanted to move out. A complaint panel was convened on 14 September 2021 and a final response issued on 6 October 2021 when the landlord said that a further inspection on 28 September 2021 had found no issue with the drains in the garden, and that there was no damp in the kitchen. It offered compensation of £50 due to the failure of the contractors to cover the resident’s sofas when replastering. The panel said that once the final inspection of the kitchen had been completed, an additional response would be sent in respect of any rent reduction/compensation for unusable rooms.
8. The landlord maintains that it was always advised that the kitchen units would be refitted once the works had been completed; its internal surveyor had said only one unit needed replacing and deemed the other units to be fit to be returned to the kitchen. It says the tenant refused for the units to be refitted which led to the delay. The tenant wanted the issue of the garden drainage resolved prior to the kitchen being refitted, but the landlord had confirmed previously by the use of CCTV that the drains were not faulty. Initial discussions had taken place to assess emergency accommodation, but this was not possible as the tenant had two dogs. The landlord had then confirmed that the repairs did not meet the criteria for a temporary decant.
9. The resident disagreed that the kitchen units could be refitted, as they were damp and rotten. She states that damp has returned in the kitchen. She believes the family should have been decanted from the property. The resident said she had used all her annual leave facilitating repairs, as the landlord could not attend on a Saturday. She wants the landlord to refund half of the rent she has paid for the period that she was without a kitchen.

Assessment and findings

10. Whilst not raised as part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, it is noted that the resident has since stated that there have been problems with repairs at the property for nine years. These historic concerns have not been included in assessment as the Ombudsman would expect residents to raise a formal complaint within six months of an issue occurring.
11. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance service standards says that urgent repairs are to be completed within three working days and routine repairs within ten working days. Information on the landlord’s website says reports of damp and mould will be inspected within ten working days and the landlord aims to complete 90% of all damp repairs within 40 days. However, the landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance Procedure which was in place at the time, confirms that damp repairs will be completed with 100 days.
12. The landlord’s records indicate that it responded to the reported leak in the kitchen and inspected the garden flooding. There is no disagreement from the resident that the leak in the kitchen was fixed, but the resident felt that problems in the garden would cause the issue to return, and they did not want the kitchen refitted because of this. The landlord has said on several occasions that there was no fault in the garden, and no evidence has been provided to indicate that that is not the case. As such, the Ombudsman considers the landlord acted appropriately in response to the report of the leak in the kitchen and the flooding from the garden.
13. There is no obligation on a landlord to provide a certain kitchen; however, it must make sure the home is fit for human habitation. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 states that a landlord must maintain the exterior and structure of its properties, including pipes and drains. It must also deal with damp and mould problems that are caused by disrepair.
14. In this instance, there appears to have been a significant delay in taking action to put things right in the kitchen after the washing machine leak. The landlord’s records indicate that the leak was reported prior to 24 December 2020 but it was not until June 2021 that the kitchen units were removed. There is no evidence in the repairs log to suggest any reason for the delay in these units being removed.
15. There is conflicting information in the evidence about whether all the kitchen units needed replacing. The repair log noted the “rest of units are falling to bits”, but the surveyor had said only one unit needed replacing. Given this conflicting information, it would deliver some reassurance to the resident for the landlord to obtain a further, expert view on the kitchen units. It appears that the kitchen was removed in July 2021 and as of at least February 2022, possibly to date, the refit was outstanding.
16. It is understood that initially the resident did not wish to go to emergency accommodation, and once the landlord inspected the works, it felt this was not believed to be necessary. The Ombudsman has not been shown the landlord’s decant policy which might cover instances where a decant would be necessary. However, it would seem that due to the presence of asbestos in the kitchen floor, the family were told to stay out of the kitchen on 19 July 2021. The bulk of the asbestos was not removed until 28 September 2021, and not until 14 October 2021 from underneath the washing machine.
17. It is not clear if the decant was considered in particular respect of the asbestos issue. Although the landlord stated that the kitchen was usable, this would seem at odds with the information about the presence of asbestos. The family have a child and dogs and have explained the difficulty of ensuring that the area of flooring would be left undisturbed in such a situation. There is no evidence that the landlord considered the risk to the family, and properly assessed the delay. As such the Ombudsman cannot deem that the landlord took appropriate action to respond to the resident’s concerns.
18. In terms of the kitchen flooring in general, the landlord’s report indicated that the floor was taken up in June 2021. It is not clear from the landlord’s reports why the floor was removed but it would appear to be linked to the leak. On 28 September 2021 the landlord’s repairs log noted that the floor needed screeding before the kitchen could be re-fitted; in November 2021 the repairs log noted the floor should again be inspected for damp. The screeding was still outstanding in February 2022. Whilst it is evident that the resident has not been able to allow access and this may have contributed to these delays, there is no evidence to support that the landlord reasonably considered further action to gain access (including any legal options).
19. This has clearly been a distressing matter for the resident’s family, over a protracted period of time. The presence of asbestos in the property may have been considered professionally by landlord staff not to be a concern, but it is not unreasonable that the resident would be alarmed on hearing that it was in the kitchen. Whilst the resident could have mitigated some of the inconvenience caused by having the kitchen units re-installed, the evidence around the asbestos and flooring suggests that the re-screeding would not allow for that.
20.  In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to provide fair and proportionate remedies where maladministration or service failure has been identified. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account our Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
21. It is fair in all the circumstances that the resident be compensated for the distress, inconvenience and frustration of being without a kitchen for a significant period of time. In calculating an award for compensation, mitigating circumstances have been considered in that the resident did not always allow access, by their own admission, and this would impact on the time that the landlord could have taken to resolve the issues. It also considers aggravating circumstances which would increase the inconvenience of the delay, namely a child living in the household.
22. In this case, had the landlord acted in line with its repair policies it is reasonable to assume that, had the resident allowed access, the works to the kitchen and the floor (completed on 14 October 2021) works to replace the floor and kitchen should have been completed by 14 November 2021. That is a delay of some 225 days – taking into account the landlord’s aim to resolve all damp cases within 40 days. The complaint panel said that the landlord should give an additional response in respect of any rent reduction/compensation for unusable rooms; the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that that has been calculated. Therefore, an order has been made below for financial compensation of £969.97. This is on the basis of losing the use of the kitchen and the rent being in the region of £120 a week.
23. This sum reflects the impact on the resident who was evidently caused some inconvenience, distress and frustration by not having use of the kitchen as a result of the leak and subsequent asbestos finding. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been delays in carrying out repairs.
24.  In addition, the landlord should take prompt action to screed the kitchen floor and arrange a further inspection of the kitchen units. It should also write to the resident to apologise and explain if there has been any learning from the complaint.

Determination

25. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the repairs the resident reported at the property, including damp.

Orders

26. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should take the following action and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
    1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident the compensation of £1,230 as well as the £50 previously offered for the damage to the sofa (if this has not been paid already).
    3. Work with the resident to find a suitable date for the kitchen floor to be screed (if this has not already been done).
    4. Arrange for a new, independent view on whether the kitchen units are in a suitable condition and depending on the result of that expert view, work with the resident to find a suitable date to re-fit the kitchen or make arrangements for a new kitchen to be fitted.

Recommendations

27. It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
    1. Review the publication of its policies, for example the link provided by the landlord for its decant procedure was not accessible. The link provided for the redress policy is for the landlord’s complaints webpage which does not refer to redress. A link on the page leads to the landlord’s complaints policy which refers to a compensation procedure but does not include it. An online search for the compensation procedure finds a redress policy which does not give guidance as to sums payable, and again refers to a “compensation procedure”.
    2. Attempt a further inspection of the damp in the hall and stairs reported in February 2022, if this has not already been resolved.