Futures Homeway Limited (202118370)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118370

Futures Homeway Limited

7 February 2024 (amended at review)

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 repairs, including a major leak to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the behaviour of staff towards her.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Legal and Landlord Policy Context.

The landlord has a two stage complaints process, which commits to

acknowledge all complaints either over the phone or in writing, it will indicate how long the investigation will take, and keep the customer informed of progress throughout.

where a complaint has not been resolved satisfactorily, a single stage appeal process may be invoked. The appeal process can only be instigated where the complainant has supplementary evidence they wish to be considered.

It will not take a complaint if it is a first request for service, e.g. a request for a repair, the issue raised meets agreed service standards and policies, where it can assist but the underlying issue is not within its control.

Under the terms of the tenancy, the landlord’s repairing obligations include that it is responsible for:

the structure and outside of your home, the roof, walls, ceilings, floors, window frames, external doors, drains, gutters and outside pipes.

the basins, sinks, baths and toilets in your home and keep them in good working order.

repair water pipes, gas pipes and electrical wiring inside your home and keep them in good working order. Supply pipes and cables outside your home are generally the responsibility of the supply company.

Under the terms of the tenancy, other landlord obligations include that:

It will clear up after a repair, but will not guarantee that it will restore any decoration to its previous condition. lf, it carries out major repairs to a home and damages decorations, it will pay limited compensation rather than redecorate.

It will offer a suitable alternative home if it needs to carry out major repairs to a home, and we ask the resident to move out. This may be temporarily or permanently.

If it offers a temporary home during repair works, the resident must move back into their original home after it has finished the repairs, unless it agrees otherwise.

Under the terms of the tenancy, resident’s’ obligations include:

Resident’s must allow the landlord, or any person with the landlord’s permission in writing, to enter their home to look at the state of repair, the condition or to inspect any improvements the resident has made. The landlord will give at least 24 hours’ notice of the visit. It will also make the appointment during ordinary working hours.

The resident must allow the landlord to enter the home to carry out any work for as long as it is necessary to do the work.

The landlord has a compensation policy, this policy enables the landlord to consider three types of payment, mandatory, quantifiable loss, and discretionary payments.

Quantifiable losses are considered for losses incurred by service failure that can be assessed and have a financial value. Examples include:

Payment for cleaning required following a repair issue which has caused damage.
Exceptionally high-water bills as a result of an internal leak from the day the leak was reported.
Where severe damage has been caused to internal décor due to a repair.
Costs claimed must have been reasonably incurred and evidence of losses must be provided before a request is investigated.

Discretionary payments and goodwill gestures are considered where a payment would be fair, reasonable or proportionate if the landlord feels the resident has not received the service it would have liked to have provided; These payments may be gift vouchers, flowers or something relevant to the individual customer. They are considered on a case-by-case basis.

Its list of compensation it will not consider includes:

If it is not responsible for the inconvenience or financial loss.
The incident or service failure is due to circumstances beyond its control e.g. severe weather, pandemic.
The customer is covered by their own home contents insurance.
There is an active disrepair claim being pursued.

The landlord’s’ repairs policy categorises faults, repairs and maintenance into five categories; customer repairs which must be taken care of by the resident, priority repairs which will be carried out on the same working day that it is reported to the landlord, fast repairs are completed within four working days, standard repairs are normally resolved within 10 to 25 days. Planned works, things will be fixed in the interim and scheduled into planned maintenance programmes, this covers things like kitchens, new bathrooms, heating upgrades and roof replacement.
There is a standard process that the landlord follows when a repair is reported, which includes allocating an officer, sending a text message to confirm an appointment. Sending a reminder message each week in the run-up to an appointment as well as a final reminder 48 hours before, and notification a member of the team is on their way.
The landlord’s repairs policy enables it to deal with issues more quickly than normal, if someone in the household is vulnerable for example, the very young or old and people with serious or long-term health conditions.

Background

The resident has held an assured tenancy with the landlord for a ground floor three bed maisonette, since 6 August 2007. She resides in the property with her son who was a teenager at the time of the complaint.
The resident has vulnerabilities, she reports to suffer from mental health problems which cause anxiety, and she suffers with asthma. The landlord has advised this service that it only became aware of the resident’s health problems from 16 March 2021.

Summary

On 25 March 2021, the resident emailed the landlord to complain about some work that had been carried out to her bathroom which she felt was of a poor standard, she attached photographs for the landlord of a bath panel with a gap above, and that did not appear to fit at one end. Untidy silicon around the panel and the shower screen, exposed plaster and water escaping through the bath screen. She told the landlord that this was making her anxious and stressed.
On the same day, the resident called and advised the carpenter was unable to complete the repairs to the window, as the walls were so damp. The surveyor had previously attended but did not test the walls with a damp meter. Also an operative attended, the resident reported he had damaged the waste pipe, the resident when asked said she was not prepared to isolate the valve as she needed to use the sink.
The landlord reported on 26 March 2021, that the resident had called about ongoing repairs and to make a complaint, it noted the resident had rung 13 times in the last three days about these issues.
On 29 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that she was not happy with the attitude of the operatives that attended that morning for the bathroom, they were arguing amongst themselves, and when she went up one of the workmen shouted at her. The landlord said its repairs manager attended the property, he witnessed that relations between the operatives and the resident were good, he spoke to the operatives who denied there had been any raised voices.
The landlord responded 6 April 2021 and said it wanted to make an appointment for 15 April 2021, to inspect the repairs needed.
On 6 April 2021, two operatives attended the resident’s property unannounced to measure the doors for door replacement programme. The resident had previously asked that the landlord gave advance notice of attendance, in a text message and had been assured they would, as this caused the resident stress.
On 14 April 2021, the landlord inspected the property for several repairs that had been reported by the resident. The landlord has provided its follow up notes from the inspection which included:

Brick layers

remove Aqua panel from walls (ideally start this on a Tuesday) – Two days.
plaster damaged walls ready for tiling two days (walls to dry over the weekend)
tile walls – two days

Plumber

remove mixer shower and first fix for new mixer shower.
second fix mixer shower after tiles fitted.
replace kitchen sink waste and overflow (landlord to source part)

Joiner

replace bath side and end panels, carry this out after all tiling work has been completed.
seal around front bedroom window (to be confirmed by surveyor)

On 21 April 2021, the landlord contacted the resident and arranged several appointments (seven) across just over a week, for the various trades to attend and works to be completed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 May 2021, and said the dates were not convenient, as it was her son’s birthday that week, so could the appointments be moved.
On 19 May 2021, the work commenced, the landlord said that it visited the site at the start of the day for two days in a row to ensure work was progressing and to the resident’s satisfaction. A technical inspector was pre-arranged to take a damp meter reading around the bedroom window the following week, so that the window could be sealed.
On 15 July 2021, the resident reported to the landlord that the toilet was leaking severely, and that water was coming through the electrics. The job was raised as a priority and attended to the same day. The resident was decanted to temporary accommodation until 19 July 2021.
The landlord has said that the leak was not due to a failure of the landlord, but due to fluctuations in pressure following works to the supply by the local water company.
The landlord said cleaners attended to clean the property on 16 July 2021, it was noted at that appointment, the resident’s carpet had been removed.
On 19 July 2021, one of the landlord’s operatives attended and confirmed the property was fit for habitation. Later that day the landlord said its surveyor and neighbourhood officer visited the property and confirmed it to be fit for habitation. Notes recorded by the surveyor on the repairs log stated: there was no water in the property, moisture on the walls would take a few days to disappear, but the property was not damp.
The same day the resident was advised to move back into the property, which she did. The resident complained to the landlord that the property had not dried out properly and had damp and mould; she felt she should be decanted again into temporary accommodation. In response the landlord said it was satisfied it was fit for her to live in, as it had been confirmed by its surveyor.
On 20 July 2021, the landlord said remedial works were ordered to repair or replace the damaged boxing in, to the incoming water main, and to check the skirting boards, kickboards, and kitchen floor, all had a three-month planned completion date. An urgent repair was raised to reattach or renew the earth cable in the downstairs toilet, which was not considered by the landlord to be dangerous.
The same day the landlord said the resident attended the landlord’s’ offices just prior to closing to further express her dissatisfaction with the property and refused to leave. Following this meeting the landlord completed a treatment for damp and mould growing on the concrete floor and a further clean the following day.
On 21 July 2021, the landlord said it called the resident, it agreed as a gesture of goodwill to clear her damaged carpet. It also offered to cover the cost of new carpet and advised the resident to obtain quotes for replacement.
The landlord said it sent its operatives 23 July 2021, but could not gain access to complete the remedial works.
On 26 July 2021, the landlord’s neighbourhood officer (NO), a cleaning operative and a plumber visited to complete remedial works. A disagreement occurred between the resident and the landlord’s NO, as the resident was frustrated the NO could not see there was anything wrong with the water damaged lino. They left without completing any work because, the resident’s behaviour was deemed to be unacceptable by the landlord. The NO asked if the resident would like a referral to adult social care, which she declined, the NO then asked the resident’s son, if he would like a referral to adult social care, which the resident later complained about.
The resident was advised if she felt she could not remain in the property she should contact the council’s homelessness team. A further attempt to carry out work was made on 28 July 2021, but access could not be gained.
The landlord arranged a visit for 30 July 2021, at the resident’s property. In attendance where the NO, surveyor, repairs supervisor and the resident’s law centre representative. Damp tests were completed, and it was noted that other than a minute area of spores on a skirting board, which was sprayed, no other mould was identified, treatment was working well. Humidity tests were noted to be slightly high but not high enough to raise concerns, possible reasons were damp clothes drying on a radiator, the windows and vents shut and more people in the property than usual. Advice was given to open windows and or vents, but the resident did not want to take this advice “as she does not like spiders”.
The resident’s law centre representative wrote to the landlord on 5 August 2021. In the letter it said that it understood that the landlord had agreed to replace the carpet in the property and make good any damage as a result of the water leak. Their client had concerns about whether the property had fully dried out, but it noted that moisture readings taken, suggest there is no excess moisture in the fabric of the building. It asked for a proposed schedule of works with target dates for completion. As the leak only occurred on 15 July 2021, it had advised its client there had been no unreasonable delay in effecting repairs. He had also advised his client, that the landlord should contact her through the law centre to avoid excessive correspondence.
On 3 August 2021, the resident reported a leak from the downstairs toilet this was raised as a priority and attended to the same day. Follow up work was raised on 5 August 2021, when the operatives attended to carry out the work, four days later, the landlord said the resident refused access, because she was not told that plumbers would attend the same time as joiners.
On 9 August 2021, the resident emailed to complain about the plumbers turning up on the same day the carpenters were working on her doors, without being given prior warning. The resident complained about the communication from the landlord generally, messages were passed on, but no call backs received. She also reported that she had been advised by the carpet fitter that the lino needed to be taken up as it was saturated, and she had not been contacted about compensation for the furniture that was damaged, lower sofa and bathroom cabinet.
In response the landlord provided a full response which in summary said:

It was satisfied the resident was advised operatives would attend her property that day, but apologised if there was any misunderstanding regarding multiple trades attending and that she had been upset by this.

It was satisfied that following excessive contact from the resident all necessary information in respect of both outstanding repairs and repeated requests to be decanted had been clearly communicated to the resident on several occasions, and no further assistance could be provided. Several attempts to complete repairs had been made and the resident had failed to provide access, causing un-necessary delays.

As the leak occurred as a fault of the pressure changes by the water company, it was not at fault, and was not required to pay compensation. The landlord’s complaint summary also stated that the resident had been advised that, as per her tenancy agreement, the landlord did not cover personal belongings in events such as burst pipes and that this should be claimed via her home contents insurance.

Any customer contact considered unreasonably persistent, or any behaviour deemed unacceptable, may require management through the Unreasonable and Vexatious Behaviour Procedure where the outcome might be to restrict customer access to the landlord’s services. Should this be a consideration in the resident’s case, she would be notified in writing.

On the same day both the resident and the operatives reported that a Sky Dish Cable was snapped when they were removing a door to replace it. The resident was advised that the landlord would likely reimburse the cost if it were provided with a receipt/invoice. The landlord said it was contacted shortly after and advised that Sky were not going to charge for the repair, so there was no further action following this by the landlord.
On 11 August 2021 the landlord offered the resident a same day appointment, but the landlord said this was declined as the resident said she felt unwell due to damp affecting her asthma. The work was completed on 1 September 2021.
On 12 August 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to complain that she was waiting for several callbacks and emails about her damp living conditions to be responded to. She attached a quote as requested for carpet replacement.
The landlord completed the boxing in on 9 September 2021, but determined the kickboards and the kitchen flooring did not need replacing.
The resident’s legal representative, wrote again to the landlord, on 13 September 2021 having not received the requested schedule of work previously asked for on 5 and 18 August 2021. The letter highlighted that the resident was experiencing stress and anxiety with the lack of progress, which might be reduced if she could see proof of what works were planned and expected completion times. It noted a letter before action had been attached. The landlord’s solicitor responded agreeing to send a schedule of works by 1 October 2021. If it did not or if the works could not be agreed the resident’s legal advisor wanted to instruct a (named) chartered surveyor as a single joint expert.
The landlord said it attempted to attend on 17 September 2021, to paint the new boxing in, but the resident refused access, stating she was not happy with the works done, the boxing in around the soil pipe had not been replaced. It said photographs had been taken and reviewed by the landlord’s’ repairs team leader and the work was to a satisfactory standard.
On 21 September 2021, at 08.56 the resident contacted the landlord to say that an engineer messaged that morning to say he was on the way, she has had no prior contact about this and had to leave then as she had an appointment. She telephoned later to advise that she had cancelled the operative today because she is setting up a bank account online for her son. The landlord tried to arrange another appointment, but the resident did not have time they would have to call her back.
On 5 October 2021, the landlord contacted the resident about completing the painting of the boxing in, she said she was not happy for them to attend they had nailed through a pipe causing a leak and some of the pre-existing boxing in, is still damaged. The landlord asked if they could make appointments for the other works to be completed, but the resident declined, said it was too early for her to think about it.
On 10 November 2021, this service contacted the landlord and set out the resident’s formal complaint, which was that the landlord had not attended to damp, mould and other repairs in the property, contractors who have attended previously have caused damage, she had had difficulties submitting and progressing complaints with the landlord and that the situation was causing her distress and making her health problems worse.
On the same day the landlord completed decorations to the boxing in, it has not been confirmed whether the piece of boxing under the soil stack the resident said was missing was replaced by the landlord.
On 15 November 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint, agreed to investigate and asked her to provide details on “other repairs”.
On 24 November 2021, the resident was chased for the information on the “other repairs” if she did not respond within 14 days the complaint would be closed.
On 25 November 2021, this service wrote to the landlord and advised that the landlord’s’ email to the resident was not an appropriate response, as this service had already set out the complaint details in an earlier letter, and it should have investigated that. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and went through the full details of her complaint with her in a conversation that took in excess of two hours.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 November to arrange a plumber and joiner for 9 December 2021 and grouting for 20 December 2021. The resident said she did not want two trades on the same day, so the landlord changed the joiner for 10 December 2021.
It was agreed, between the landlord and the law centre, (although it is not clear when) to proceed with jointly commissioning an independent structural engineer’s report on the resident’s property, following the damage caused by the leak.
An email to the landlord 7 December 2021 referred to the structural engineer’s report being complete, this service has not been provided with a copy of the report. The landlord said its findings included:

The issues surrounding the leak had been rectified and no dampness remained.

Work required now was mainly cosmetic, to the flooring and boxing in, the boxing in already replaced, required filling and redecorating.

The flooring needed to be replaced (lino), residual dampness to the carpet that may dry out.

The alleged mould patches were not mould, they were a combination of underlay and pet hair.

The landlord accepted it had a responsibility to complete all the necessary work above.
On 13 December the landlord provided its stage one response, in summary it said:

Regarding it not attending to damp and mould, it did not uphold the complaint. The first report followed the leak of 15 July 2021, whereby it fixed the leak and decanted the resident whilst property dried out. An inspection was carried out four days later by an operative and then a surveyor who determined the property was fit to return to. On 30 July 2021 damp tests were completed with the resident’s legal representative present, no damp was present. It provided additional cleaning for the resident, and when staff and operatives attended for remedial work on 26 July, they had to leave due to the resident’s behaviour causing delay. A further four attempts had been made to complete works, which were carried out 9 September 2021 and decorating the boxing in was delayed as access was refused.

Regarding damage to property by contractors, it only had details of the sky dish cable, which was being fixed free of charge by the company.

The complaints resolution officer had reviewed all requests for complaints and if deemed a genuine complaint it would be put through the procedure, these were denied as the landlord deemed there were no grounds for the formal process. Where they have been denied the resident has been contacted to explain why.

The landlord would never intend to cause distress to customers or make their health problems worse.

Regarding the resident’s recent request for £7-8000 compensation it acknowledged it was for a list of items damaged, which included the flooring, cleaning of her late mother’s sofa, two units and a bookcase from her aunt. The resident had also requested re-imbursement of the cost of taxis from the decanted property to the dentist. It asked the resident to explain why she believed the amount to be proportionate to the issues raised, it would review on receipt of her response.

The resident contacted the landlord in response, stating that many of the issues she had raised (32 recorded by the landlord) had not been addressed.
On 7 January the landlord wrote to the resident advising that it had responded to the issue raised in this service’s letters. It had not provided a response to the other 32 points raised as it did not consider them to be complaints which should be raised formally, as they were “expressions of dissatisfaction, comments and expressions of personal opinion”. To bring the matter to a conclusion it responded to all thirty-two points. Key issues summarised from the response were:

Staff and contractor conduct:

in response to a request for compensation for a customer services agent’s rudeness in January 2021, it said the resident was satisfied with the outcome at the time.
Having expressed her concern that the surveyor on 25 March 2021, was not taking damp meter readings and recommended sealant, as it was condensation, she felt he was rude to her saying “ Fine we’ll do whatever you want then” the landlord said her son had confirmed it was mouldy because he does not open the windows, the resident would not let the surveyor answer her questions, she was argumentative and he left and has refused to attend again.
Its response to her complaint of the operative shouting at her, was that the repairs team leader attended and found everything to be fine, and the operatives knew nothing about raised voices.
In response to the resident’s complaint the NO’s concern for her well-being for repeated contact was patronising and dismissive, it said they had a duty of care to customers, and will do what was felt necessary.
For not returning calls when requested, it said that call backs would be made when deemed necessary not when the resident called them requesting calls from colleagues who were no longer involved.

Poor workmanship, having to have work re-done had caused the resident distress. It noted the resident’s 13 calls in three days, and provided a table of outstanding work at the time.

It did not provide the resident de-humidifiers because it was 30 ͦ C, it was not deemed necessary, windows and doors just needed to be opened when the resident was home.

In response to the resident’s claim that lino was damaged and saturated, it said the lino was deemed on inspection not to be damaged and it is designed to get wet which is why it is used in kitchens and bathrooms.

On 18 January 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident and advised that it intended to remove the kitchen flooring and fit new flooring once dry. The report had suggested that there would be surface moisture between the lino and the kitchen floor, and it was expected to take a couple of days to dry. The landlord said it felt the resident wanted to be decanted, as she mentioned her asthma and not being able to walk on the floor when wet. The landlord explained the amount of moisture in the air would only be about the same as drying clothes on a radiator, it was not damp.
On 21 January 2022 the resident rang the landlord via a friend who confirmed the resident would be happy for the floor work to progress and remain in the property whilst it dried out. The works were ordered that day.
The resident advised this service on 16 February 2022, that she had escalated her complaint to stage two.
The landlord issued its final response letter on 17 March 2022, in summary it said it was not upholding the resident’s request to escalate her complaint to stage two because:

There was no new evidence.

A review showed all policies and procedures had been followed.

Satisfactory explanations had been provided in the two responses previously sent.

The resident had adequate support for the complaint from internal staff, the law centre and her local Councillor.

In response to her complaint it had jointly commissioned an inspection and report from an independent chartered surveyor, and had adhered to the recommendations made in the report.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident’s has referred to concerns about her reports of Anti-Social Behaviour, and counter allegations made against her. The resident did not raise these matters as part of the complaint that this service contacted the landlord about. This service can only investigate matters that have completed the landlord’s complaints procedure, so this part of the resident’s complaint is outside of the scope of this investigation and has not been included in the Ombudsman’s report. The resident may wish to raise a separate complaint to the landlord about this.
Furthermore, the resident has advised that part of her complaint is about her son injuring his foot following repairs to the bath panel. Personal injury claims are a matter for the courts as they require a determination of liability. This service cannot determine whether the landlord is liable for her son’s injury and therefore this part of the complaint cannot be included in the Ombudsman’s investigation. The resident may wish to take independent legal advice on this matter.

Findings

Repairs including a significant leak to the property.

From 25 March 2021, the resident called the landlord thirteen times in three days to report that the work completed to her bathroom was substandard (this included water leaking through the shower screen), and that a repair to the window could not be completed because the walls were too damp. The amount of calls from the resident around the issue was excessive, however the resident is vulnerable, she suffers from anxiety and depression, which at this point the landlord was aware. Whilst thirteen contacts over this issue in this short space of time was not reasonable, it indicated this was causing the resident some distress, therefore clear communication with the resident would have been key, in managing this situation. A two-week delay in making the resident an appointment, was not reasonable and did not follow the landlord’s guidelines on the process once a repairs issue was reported.
Three weeks to inspect was within the repairs guidelines as the leak was contained, and other issues were regarding standard repairs. Once the landlord had inspected, on 14 April 2021, it drafted a specification of works required to rectify the work and complete all repairs, which was appropriate. Within a week of inspecting, the landlord had contacted the resident and pre-booked in, all the relevant appointments for the works to take place which was reasonable and adhered to policy guidelines.
Three weeks later the resident advised the landlord it was not convenient for the works booked in to be done, because it was her son’s birthday that week. This service would expect the landlord to be flexible in an unavoidable or emergency situation, however the resident would have known it was her son’s birthday at the time the work was booked in. Her request to re-arrange meant the landlord had to re-organise all the different trades to attend again and would have caused un-necessary delays that were not due to any failing of the landlord.
The works commenced on 19 May 2021, the landlord had its repairs manager attend at the start of the first few days to ensure the work was going to plan and the resident was happy with the quality of work, which was very reasonable.
When an uncontained leak occurred at the resident’s property on the 15 July 2021, the landlord provided an emergency response in accordance with its repairs policy. It contained the leak on the day and follow-up works were to be arranged, which was appropriate.
The resident was decanted to emergency accommodation for a few days to allow the property to dry out, which was reasonable.
Both the landlord’s operative and surveyor inspected the property on 19 July 2021, and determined it had dried out enough for the resident to return. The resident was understandably cautious about returning to the property as she had asthma. Damp occurs when moisture builds up and cannot escape, a longer term build up can result in mould growth which people with asthma can be more sensitive to. The landlord determined this was a flood, the source of which had been repaired and which typically takes hours to days to dry out as opposed to other causes of damp. The landlord was entitled to rely on the opinions of its appropriately qualified staff to determine if the property was habitable, which it did, and this was reasonable.
There was some minor mould growth in the property on the resident’s return, and it would have been appropriate considering the resident’s’ vulnerabilities for the landlord to have ensured this was treated and cleaned away thoroughly prior to the resident moving back in. However the landlord had sent cleaners to the property and promptly took action for the cleaners to return when it was reported by the resident, which was reasonable.
The remedial works were ordered within five days of the leak occurring which was reasonable. They were logged as planned and had a three-month completion date, as these were not planned maintenance improvement works according to its guidelines, these should have been standard repairs with a 10-to-25-day completion date. The landlord, however, did attempt to commence work from the 23 July 2021, so the prolonged proposed completion date was not of detriment to the resident.
The landlord arranged a further joint inspection for damp and mould on 30 July 2021, (the resident’s legal representative was present), in response to the resident’s ongoing concerns, which was fair. It was determined from readings for damp and humidity that the property was dry and safe to reside in which was appropriate and should have provided some reassurance to the resident, as her legal representative acknowledged the landlord had responded in a timely manner and there was no damp in the fabric of the building.
The resident complained that the landlord did not supply her with dehumidifiers, the landlord appropriately assessed the situation and determined that with the external temperature as it was at the time at 30 ͦ c, these were not necessary. The landlord was entitled to rely on the advice of its qualified staff and contractors.
There were approximately five occasions noted between July and October 2021, where the resident did not give the landlord access to her property to complete her repairs. It is reasonable for a landlord to expect a resident to provide access if the repairs are pre-arranged and notice given, this is a condition of a resident’s tenancy. If access is prevented by the resident, this causes delays which the landlord cannot be held accountable for.
On at least one occasion access was denied because the operatives arrived without an appointment, whilst it is not unreasonable for landlords to send more than one trade at a time to speed up completion of repairs, the resident had made it clear that with her vulnerabilities and responsibilities she needed prior notice, so it was not appropriate to do this. The landlord did however apologise to the resident and advised its contractors not to attend without an appointment which was reasonable. There is evidence of further appointments being arranged with the resident for 9 and 10 December 2021, where it is noted, these reasonable adjustments were put in place and dates were changed for trades to attend on different dates.
The resident’s legal representative asked the landlord three times for a schedule of works to reassure the resident that the appropriate remedial works were to be undertaken. On the third it instigated the pre-action protocol for litigation for disrepair, as it had received no response. It was not appropriate for the landlord to repeatedly fail to respond to the resident’s legal advisor, a schedule of works was a reasonable request, and the resident should not have had to resort to threats of legal action to initiate a response.
The landlord agreed to a jointly commissioned inspection by an independent chartered surveyor, which was very reasonable. The outcome of the inspection confirmed that the property was dry and free from mould, cosmetic work to the bathroom and replacement of the ground floor flooring, so the kitchen flooring needed to be removed and replaced. This was a completely independent assessment of the property and works required, which the landlord appropriately agreed to do.
It was noted that the resident refused access for the lino to be taken up, over concern there would be damp underneath even though the landlord tried to explain it was only surface moisture, again this delayed resolution to the works, which was outside of the landlord’s control.

Handling of the resident’s reports about the behaviour of staff towards her.

The resident reported to the landlord in March 2021, that a contractor had shouted at her in her home which upset her and made her anxious. The landlord’s stage one response refers to a member of the repairs staff attending the property, witnessing that everything between the resident and the contractor “was fine” and the contractor not knowing what the allegation of raised voices was about. The landlord’s’ complaints policy did not contain any guidance on complaints about staff and contractors. Landlords are expected to set a level of expectation around the conduct of contractors who represent and work for them, as part of any contract. It would not be appropriate for a contractor, to shout at a resident whilst working in her home; once reported there was a level of expectation, that this would be investigated and any outcome fed back to the resident, when this did not materialise, the resident continued to complain.
The landlord did attend the site, to ensure relations between the resident and the contractor were satisfactory, which was reasonable, but the officer did not take any details from the resident and only spoke to the contractor who, denied all knowledge. The landlord could have investigated more thoroughly as to what happened and if anyone was at fault, as this was not determined, and nothing was communicated back to the resident. The failure to do this, led the resident to believe the incident had been ignored, which was not reasonable. The landlord did however attend and ensure the incident, had not progressed further, ensuring any detriment to the resident was contained.
On 26 July 2021, a disagreement occurred over the condition of the resident’s lino, the landlord’s staff perceived the resident to be agitated and unreasonable and took the decision to leave. The landlord has a duty of care to its staff and contractors; it is commonplace for landlords to give their staff the autonomy for health and safety reasons, to remove themselves and others from a situation whilst at work, if they feel uncomfortable or threatened. It was not unreasonable of the landlord’s staff and contractors to remove themselves from the resident’s property when they felt her behaviour was unreasonable. A consequence of this however, was further delay to completion of the work, that was not down to the landlord.

Handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.

In July 2020 the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code by 31 December 2020. The landlord’s complaint handling policy (2019 – 2022) in operation at the time of the complaint did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. The landlord however has since self-assessed against the code, and this service has seen its updated complaint handling policy dated March 2023, which does now align with the code.
The resident tried several times from March 2021 to make a formal complaint about the workmanship in her home, and the conduct of the contractor. The landlord’s’ complaints policy stated that it will not accept a complaint if it is a first request for service, the issue meets the agreed service standards or the underlying issue is not within its control. The resident’s complaint was not excluded under the landlord’s exempt policy criteria, so it was not appropriate that the landlord did not take her complaint, this was a service failure.
In its complaint investigation and response the landlord did not recognise its failure to take the resident’s formal complaint as a service failing, as such it also failed to consider redress.
It was noted that that the resident’s contact with the landlord can at times be excessive, but the landlord is also aware that the resident is vulnerable. It was noted that there were several occasions between March and August 2021, that the landlord’s customer services (front facing staff), took calls from the resident, and referred them to the back office, but there was no response from or notes not to refer to back-office staff. This was unreasonable and only served to instigate further calls from the resident. The resident was not advised that her access was restricted; the landlord does have an Unreasonable and Vexatious Behaviour Procedure where restrictions can be put in place, whilst it advised the resident it was considering using it, it was not instigated by the landlord, so staff should not have been refusing to speak to her. The evidence also suggests that times of excessive contact, were often when things had not been made clear to the resident eg, the delayed response to providing a date for inspecting the poor workmanship, or no feedback to her complaint about shouting from the contractor. Better communication over some issues with the resident could have improved the situation and reduced some contact with the landlord contact.
This service instructed the landlord twice in November 2021, to take the resident’s complaint, because it had failed to do so, which was not acceptable. The resident’s ability to get her complaint investigated had been unduly delayed, this did not adhere to its own policy or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
On receipt of the complaint via this service, the landlord acknowledged the complaint but did not start the investigation, instead it requested further information. When the resident did not provide it, the landlord threatened to close the complaint if it was not provided in a set time period. This was not appropriate, and this service had to advise the landlord as such, instruct it to proceed with the investigation and issue a response.
When the landlord did start its investigation, it contacted the resident to discuss her complaint, and took down more detail which was reasonable. However when it came to the response the landlord had not demonstrated that it had considered, the matters the resident raised in the conversation and responded only to the issues set out in the letter sent by this service. As it had spoken with the resident, this was not reasonable, it resulted in the resident making a further complaint because she felt that she had not been listened to. The landlord was then compelled to provide a response to a combination of 32 different comments, issues and observations on her complaint. The response in itself was not unreasonable, but it further prolonged the complaint process and could have been avoided.
The landlord’s stage one response did not meet the complaint handling Code’s recommended response time of 10 working days, this service sent the complaint to the landlord 10 November 2021, and it responded on 7 December 2021. It also failed to explain how to escalate a complaint or invoke the landlord’s single stage appeal process, (which was also, not set out in its policy) as recommended in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code.
When the resident escalated her complaint to stage two, the landlord reviewed the information and determined that the request was denied. The landlord said this was because, amongst other things, there was no new evidence, and all policies and procedures had been followed. This was reasonable as this was in accordance with its complaints policy.
The landlord did not accept the resident’s request for compensation, for damage caused to her belongings, it referred her to the advice in her tenancy agreement that stated that the landlord did not cover personal belongings in events such as burst pipes and that this should be claimed via her home contents insurance. This was not reasonable, the resident’s tenancy commenced in 2008, whilst the landlord’s current tenancy agreement (‘V4 2016’), contains a clause on liability for personal belongings and contents insurance, the resident’s 2008 tenancy agreement does not.
The landlord also denied the resident’s claim for compensation on the grounds that the fault with the plumbing occurred as a result of pressure changes initiated by the water company and was not a fault of the landlord. This was not reasonable; regardless of the fact there was no evidence provided of this, the landlord’s tenancy agreement sets out that it is responsible for the maintenance and repair of basins, sinks, baths, toilets, and water pipes in the resident’s property. It would be reasonable to expect well maintained plumbing to withstand changes in water pressure and if it does not, the responsibility for maintenance and repair remains with the landlord.
The landlord did offer as a gesture of good will, to replace the resident’s carpet, which was fair. The resident was not covered by household insurance, which was the only other applicable exemption in the landlord’s compensation policy, so the request to have her sofa cleaned and replacement of two damaged units and her aunt’s bookcase was not unreasonable.
The resident’s claim for £7,000 – £8,000 compensation was not clear or supported with evidence of receipts as set out in its policy for quantifiable loss, and the landlord was not liable for the cost of the resident’s travel to the dentist from her temporary address, so it was reasonable for the landlord not to consider either.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s repairs, including a major leak to the property.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the behaviour of staff towards her.

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

Whilst some of the landlord’s communication could have been a bit better at times, it acted in accordance with its policies and procedures in its handling of the resident’s’ repairs. It addressed the poor workmanship, repair response times were adhered to, and the landlord took the advice of qualified staff and contractors in its decisions, which it was entitled to do. Within two weeks of the leak, the resident’s legal representative accepted the response times and associated work was appropriate and the fabric of the building was not damp. The resident was responsible for some of the delays and there is evidence the landlord worked to try and address this. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s’ vulnerabilities, and made appropriate adjustments to accommodate her, by restricting trades on site, re-arranging appointments when necessary. It contributed to the cost of a specialist independent opinion, and complied with all the recommendations in it.
Regarding the handling of the behaviour of staff towards the resident, again the communication with the resident in some instances might have been better, but the landlord acted on the report about the contractor, by attending the site, ensuring no escalation of the incident had taken place. A member of the landlord’s staff attended at further appointments to ensure relations between the contractor and the resident were agreeable. The landlord’s staff were within their rights to stop work and remove themselves from the resident’s property when they felt the resident’s behaviour was unreasonable.
Regarding the complaint handling, the landlord’s complaint handling policy did not adhere to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time of the resident’s complaint, as it was required to do. The Ombudsman acknowledges that has since been addressed with the implementation of its new complaints policy of March 2023, but compliance was expected by December 2020. In accordance with the landlord’s policy it should have taken the resident’s complaint much earlier, potentially from March 2021. It did eventually take the complaint, but only on the instruction of this service, delaying an investigation and response for the resident until December 2021. The response did not contain any escalation information, which further delayed the complaints process and the resident’s ability to have her case investigated by the Ombudsman. The landlord did not recognise any service failings in its complaint handling or the assessment of compensation and as such did not consider any redress.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident within four weeks the total of £600.00 compensation made up as follows:

£200.00 for not having a complaints policy that adhered to the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code at the time of the complaint.

£200.00 for failing to take the resident’s complaint until this service instructed it to do so.

£200.00 for failing to recognise any service failings though its complaint handling process and offering the resident any redress.

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord pays the resident within four weeks:

Pays the cost to have her sofa cleaned, or re-imbursement if she has already had it done.
Pay the cost of replacing two damaged units and the bookcase from her aunt, or re-imbursement if it has already been replaced. If the resident cannot provide receipts the landlord can base the amount on its own reasonable estimated cost of similar replacement.

provide the resident with details of its insurance provider, to enable the resident to submit a claim for the damage to her possessions.

Recommendations

The landlord to consider what steps if any, it can take to prevent further damage to the floor