Grand Union Housing Group Limited (201913972)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201913972

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

19 February 2021 (As amended 19 April 2021, following 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 response to the resident’s report of disrepair in the property, primarily:
1. The dormer windows not fitted correctly, allowing water ingress into his flat when open;
2. The water leak into his flat;
3. The front and back communal entry doors requiring replacing as they did not lock;
4. His flat always being cold due to inadequate insulation;
5. No light at the front or rear of the property; and
6. The communal letter boxes not being fit for purpose as post was getting wet.
This Service will also investigate the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies the flat in accordance with an assured shorthold tenancy.
The flat was built as part of a new development which was completed in 2016.

Policies and Procedures

In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises, including drains, gutters, walls, and the roof. It is also responsible for keeping in repair and working order any installations provided for heating, and for keeping the common parts in reasonable repair and fit for use. The repairs are required to be carried out within reasonable timescales.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that it is working towards completing all repairs that are not emergency repairs “within an average of 10 working days.” Its policy also refers to completing priority 3 repairs within 20 working days and priority 4 repairs within 30 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy sets out its two-stage approach, whereby complaints are dealt with at first stage by a Customer Service Officer before being escalated to a Director for resolution. The policy does not set out timescales for resolution but states that timeframes must be agreed with the customer. It states that “if a complaint is resolved and actions are promised, we must contact the customer to ensure the actions have been completed and the customer is happy with the outcome.”
Its compensation policy states that compensation will be considered where its service levels have fallen below what is expected; where the resident has had to make further contact because it has failed to do something in the agreed time frame; where a resident has had to live in below standard conditions for longer than is reasonable due to the landlord’s failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs; or where exceptional worry, distress or inconvenience has been caused by events.

Summary of Events

The resident had, since before the end of the defects period in early 2017, been reporting various issues within his flat. By the date of his complaint on 10 December 2019, he complained that the issues remained unresolved. There were also additional complaints, all of which he set out in his complaint (defined above). He requested £1,500 in compensation (equivalent to £10 per week of his tenancy) as well as £500 by way of a charitable donation.
The landlord visited the resident on 18 February 2020 to discuss the complaint. No records of this visit have been provided.

Dormer Windows

The landlord’s repair log refers to an inspection having taken place on 12 September 2019 and to recommendations for improvement works being made. The records refer to another appointment on 17 December 2019 for completion of guttering works to the two dormer windows.

Water leak

The landlord’s records show that a leak to the property was recorded on 26 October 2019. An appointment was made for an inspection on 6 November 2019 but the landlord could not gain access on that date. An inspection was completed on 17 December 2019 and scaffolding was erected on 28 January 2020. Repairs were completed to the felting on 5 February 2020. The resident reported further water ingress into his flat on 16 February 2020. A contractor attended to carry out remedial works and to remove and re-lay 10 metres of insulation. It is not clear when this was completed but the landlord’s records indicate that substantial works had been completed by 11 March 2020 and that there was no further water ingress at this time. However, the resident continues to report an ongoing leak.

Communal entry doors

The resident first complained that the communal entry doors did not lock properly in September 2017. The landlord arranged for contractors to inspect them and they were found to be working well. The resident continued to complain that they did not close properly; each time the landlord raised a repair job and completed any required repairs and no further repair works were found to be required.

Heating of the flat

The landlord’s repair logs confirm that a repair job was logged with the developer in 2017 for a “cold flat due to trickle vents.” The developers confirmed at the time that the vents had been fitted to specification.
The resident continued to report that his flat was cold. As a result, an insulation survey report was carried out across two visits in January and February 2020. It did not note any inherent defects in the property and noted that “numerous windows were open, and the temperature displayed on the room stat was also set low.”
As part of the resident’s disrepair claim, a maintenance surveyor came to inspect his flat and noted that “it does seem there is an increased air flow coming from behind the plaster….” but that it can “not be established whether the blockwork is insufficiently pointed without the use of an infrared.” The landlord has stated that it intends to obtain reports from the developer and engage with contractors regarding thermal imaging, but that this has been delayed due to current pandemic restrictions.

Lighting

The resident first complained that there was insufficient lighting in September 2017. The landlord responded confirming that the lighting the resident was requesting was not included in the property specification. The resident raised a complaint again on 10 December 2019, after which the landlord agreed to install lighting. This was completed in January 2020.

Letterboxes

The landlord states that the resident reported that the letterboxes were getting wet in December 2019, though the resident states it was prior to this (the 4 available evidence does not confirm this). The landlord raised a repair job in June 2019, but this was not actioned until January 2020.
On 24 February 2020, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in what it stated was both its stage one and two response. It confirmed to this Service that “it was clear” that the resident was not going to be satisfied with the landlord’s stage one response, therefore it took the liberty of escalating straight to stage two so that a senior member of staff could review the complaint. It stated “our position will remain the same” at stage two and responded as follows:
1. Dormer windows – the windows were inspected and found to have been fitted to specification and were without issue. In spite of this the landlord approved works to improve the issues experienced. It gave a 30-day target timescale for completion of work, being 9 March 2020;
2. Communal entry doors – a number of repair jobs were raised for the communal doors and, each time, repair work was completed. On the last inspection, both doors were in working order and therefore no further work is required;
3. Heating of the flat – work had been carried out to the trickle vents, which the resident complained were letting in draughts. It was waiting on a report from a contractor regarding the insulation of the flat and would update the resident once this was received;
4. Lack of light outside the property – although external lights were not in the original property specification, the landlord agreed to install them. They were fitted on 24 January 2020, after a three-week delay;
5. Letter boxes – a job was raised for letter boxes to be replaced in June 2019; however, this job was missed. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that they were replaced on 15 January 2020.
6. The landlord had paid £200 in compensation to the resident in 2019 in recompense for additional heating costs. It stated it would not be offering any additional compensation on this basis.
7. The response made no reference to the leak.
The landlord stated on 25 February 2020 that the resident had “submitted a disrepair claim” the previous day via a solicitor. The resident has confirmed that this claim has since been discontinued.
A legal survey was also carried out at the property on 3 March 2020 as part of the disrepair claim. The survey found that:
1. Works to the roof had been completed following surveyor recommendation. There were found to be “no further areas of water ingress”; and
2. Design defects had been identified with the windows prior to the disrepair claim, but gutters and down pipes which had been installed had “resolved the issue.”
The resident reports that the leak is continuing and that the communal entry doors remain faulty. He reports that a contractor has contacted him regarding the communal entry doors. He remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation, which he says has not taken into account the three years of distress and inconvenience that he has experienced, nor is adequate to recompense him for his energy bills over the previous three years.
The landlord states that it is continuing to investigate the issues that the resident is reporting.

Assessment and findings

The landlord does not dispute its repair obligations in relation to the following issues, though it is not clear from the evidence provided which priority categorisation was given to each of the repairs, except the dormer windows.

Dormer windows

Although the dormer windows were stated to have been fitted to specification, the landlord agreed to carry out works to improve the cascade of water in line with its priority repair timescale of 30 days. It is not clear when these works were completed – the repair logs cite the 17 December 2019 for these works whereas the landlord’s final response states that they would be completed on 9 March 2020. In any event, this Service will not make a finding of service failure, as the landlord was acting on advice indicating that the windows had been fitted to specification when it refused to complete works to the windows prior to September 2019 and it later agreed to carry out these additional works to put things right for the resident.

Water leak

The landlord investigated and completed some works to prevent further water penetration following the report of a leak in October 2019. The landlord experienced issues gaining access in November 2019 and works were raised as a result of the inspection carried out on 17 December 2019. These were completed on 5 February 2020. The Ombudsman considers that this was not unreasonable in the circumstances, given the need to erect scaffolding to determine the extent of the issue and to carry out a repair. Following the reoccurrence of the leak in February 2020, works to the roof were completed following a surveyor’s recommendation within one month. There were found to be “no further areas of water ingress.” However, the resident continues to report a leak. As such, the repair works carried out to date do not therefore appear to have satisfactorily resolved the leak. While the landlord initially responded to the resident’s concerns, it does not seem to have taken on board the further reports he has made, therefore service failure is found on this basis and the landlord will be ordered to investigate and carry out necessary recommended repair works.

Communal entry doors

Each time a repair job has been raised; it has been attended to. The last time the doors were inspected there was found to be no further work required. The 6 resident has subsequently reported another fault with the doors and the landlord has arranged for a contractor to investigate. On the basis that the landlord has responded to the resident’s reports each time, no service failure has been found.

Heating of the flat

The landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of its contractors in deciding whether or not to carry out repair works to the flat. Works were carried out to the trickle vents as recommended by contractors. The subsequent insulation survey did not find that repairs were required.
It does, however, appear from the most recent inspection that there is increased air flow behind the walls which could be leading to the cool temperatures reported in the resident’s flat, which requires further investigation. The landlord has stated that it intends to obtain reports from the developer and engage with contractors regarding thermal imaging, but that this has been delayed due to current pandemic restrictions.
Whilst there was a delay in the completion of the works to the trickle vents, the landlord offered compensation to the resident for this. This is considered reasonable redress for the delay. It is appreciated that the resident continued to report that his flat was cold, but contractors did not find that there were any defects requiring repair. The Ombudsman will not, therefore, make a finding of service failure on the basis that the landlord relied on the professional opinion of its contractors in deciding not to carry out further works. Neither will it find service failure on the basis of the delay in carrying out further investigation in light of the current pandemic restrictions. The landlord, will, however, be expected to follow up on the most recent inspection when restrictions allow. It will also be recommended that the landlord consider any future claim for compensation for additional heating costs which the resident may bring, in the event that further remedial works are found to be required as a result of the thermal imaging and other necessary investigations.

Lighting

The landlord agreed to install lighting which was additional to that included in the property specification. On this basis there was no service failure in the landlord’s actions.

Letterboxes

The repair to the communal letterboxes took over a year to complete. This is well in excess of the landlord’s policy timescale. It apologised for the delay in completing these works. The landlord’s failure to comply with its own repair timescales demonstrates service failure, however as the landlord apologised for this and completed the repairs, and as the resident did not suffer significant 7 detriment as a result of this, this Service finds that the landlord resolved the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint handling

Whilst there is no provision in the landlord’s complaints policy for amalgamating a stage one and two complaint response, the landlord used its discretion appropriately in escalating the complaint straight to stage two so that it could be dealt with at senior level.
The landlord’s complaint response was provided 52 working days after the resident submitted his formal complaint. The landlord only visited the resident to discuss the complaint on 18 February 2020. Whilst the landlord’s policy states that a response will be provided within a timeframe agreed with the resident (no such evidence of an agreed timescale has been seen), this is an excessive delay, both in the landlord visiting the resident to discuss the complaint and in providing a complaint response. It is therefore considered unreasonable. It is also noted that the response was only provided after the landlord received the resident’s disrepair claim.
The formal complaint response does not refer to the leak, which was (and continues to be) one of the main issues. This was also inappropriate. It is for these reasons together that service failure is found.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report regarding the dormer windows.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the report regarding the leak.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report regarding the communal entry doors.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report regarding the heating in the resident’s flat.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the report regarding the external lighting.
In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the letter boxes, but it made reasonable redress for this.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling

Reasons

The dormer windows had been fitted to specification and the landlord agreed to carry out additional works though it was not obliged to do so.
The resident continues to report a leak in his flat, indicating that the attempted repairs have not been completed satisfactorily.
The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s reports of issues to the communal entry doors.
The landlord has thus far responded appropriately to the complaint about the heating in the resident’s flat in relying upon the professional opinion of its contractors. Further investigation is required, and the landlord will be expected to adhere to any future suggestion for remedial work once pandemic restrictions allow for further investigation.
The landlord agreed to install lighting which was additional to that included in the property specification.
The repairs to the letter boxes took an excessive time to complete, but they were completed, and the resident did not suffer significant detriment as a result of this failing.
There was an excessive delay in the landlord providing its complaint response and once provided, it did not address the complaints sufficiently in omitting to refer to the resident’s complaint about the leak.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to arrange for an inspection of the leak and to act on any recommendations made for remedial works.
The landlord is to make payment of the following compensation to the resident:
1. £100 for the delays to the repair of the leak; and
2. £100 to reflect the service failures in the complaint handling.

The landlord is to confirm compliance with these orders within four weeks.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord carry out the further investigations regarding the heating of the flat which it has stated it will do, within a reasonable timescale in light of pandemic restrictions, and act on any recommendations that arise from those investigations.
It is recommended that the landlord consider any future claim for compensation for additional heating costs which the resident may bring, in the event that further remedial works are found to be required as a result of the thermal imaging and other necessary investigations.