Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202006565)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006565

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

19 January 2021

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 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 decision not to replace the resident’s carpet.

Background and summary of events

Background

2. The resident has an assured weekly tenancy with the landlord. The property is a one-bedroom bungalow.
3. The resident’s carpet has been damaged, which the resident believes the landlord is responsible for replacing.

Relevant policies and procedures

4. Section 6.3 of the Standard Terms and Conditions of Tenancy states “…we will carry out repairs or other work necessary to put your home in a tenantable condition, wind and watertight and in all respects reasonably fit for human habitation.”
5. Section 6.4 requires the landlord to “keep in repair the structure and exterior of your home” and section 6.7 states “our general repair obligations contained in Conditions 6.2, 6.3 and 6.4 include a duty to carry out repairs relating to water penetration, rising dampness and condensation dampness.”
6. Section 6.21 requires the resident to take reasonable care of their home, including “carrying out minor repairs, internal decoration and maintenance.”
7. Section 6.23 states “you are responsible for insuring your personal possession against loss or damage caused by fire, flood, theft, accident etc.”
8. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling.
9. According to the landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy, on being reported repairs are classified as responsive or emergency and are then categorised as emergency or routine repairs. Routine P03 repairs require attendance within 20 working days, whilst routine P04 repairs require attendance within 30 working days.
10. Routine repairs include easing or re-fitting doors or window-sashes, repairs to floors or floor tiling and repairs to internal or external doors or frames.
11. The repairs and maintenance policy states the landlord is responsible for maintaining “the structure and outside of the home” whilst residents are responsible for “fixtures the customer has fitted (flooring, shelves etc.) and are expected to “take action to prevent and control condensation…”
12. The landlord has a compensation policy which states they will consider paying compensation for “loss or damage to personal property or decoration.”
13. The policy also states the landlord “will accept responsibility for avoidable damage to a customer’s decoration, or loss or damage to personal property, where this cannot reasonably be expected to be covered by the customer’s own insurance. This is irrespective as to whether the customer has chosen to take out insurance or not.”
14. If damage is due to “building failure and not covered by the customer’s own insurance, the [landlord’s] liability for damage to the customer’s possessions will depend upon whether it can be shown that the [landlord] has been at fault in some way. In these circumstances, a referral to [the landlord’s] insurers will be appropriate.”

Summary of events

15. The resident contacted the landlord on 25 October 2019 to report the lounge bay window skirting was coming away, which was causing a draught. He also reported the beading was coming away outside. The landlord raised a job with its contractor.
16. On 25 November 2019, the landlord’s contractor attended the property. The report provided to the landlord shows water pooling / condensation and mould on the windows and frames and the windows appear to be in disrepair. This is further supported by the works subsequently raised by the contractor to replace a panel and gaskets to the lounge window.
17. The resident called the landlord to chase up the repair on 3, 9, 12 and 16 December 2019 and on 7 January 2020. Internal emails between the landlord’s staff evidence confirms there was a delay in the follow-on works being raised due to “a back and forward of referrals”.
18. On 13 December 2019, the contractor confirmed to the landlord that the works were required due to the double-glazing units ‘having blown’.
19. The landlord’s surveyor spoke with the contractor on 23 December 2019 and subsequently approved the recommended works.
20. On 15 January 2020, the contractor attended the property and completed the approved works. This consisted of replacing the lower double-glazed unit with a UPVC thermal panel and replacing the gaskets in the upper double-glazed unit.
21. On 29 January 2020, the resident contacted the landlord regarding mould in the lounge and an inspection was raised.
22. On 5 February 2020, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to complete an inspection following the report of mould. The surveyor’s finding was “thermostat turned right down, and property was very cold. Wall temperatures were 9 degrees … advised the tenant to keep the heating to minimum of 14 degrees and ideally a temperature of 18 degrees to help resolve the mould issue.” Works were raised for mould treatment and to replace the membrane where the damp proof course had bridged.
23. On 3 March 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended to apply mould treatment to the “hallway around door, bathroom around toilet and lounge around rear door” and to replace the skirting below the window/door in the lounge. The report from the contractor states “when I pulled back the carpet to clean mould flooring was rotten…”
24. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the rotten floorboards and requested compensation. The evidence does not provide further details about the resident’s request for compensation on this day, but due to later emails it is reasonable to conclude the resident requested compensation for the damage to his carpet.
25. On 10 March 2020, the landlord’s contractor attended the property and installed a new membrane externally where the damp proof course (DPC) had bridged. ‘Bridging’ or ‘bridged’ is a surveying term which describes a DPC which has been bypassed by damp, damp can then rise up the wall even though a DPC is present. On the same day, the resident contacted the landlord regarding water appearing.
26. On 17 March 2020, the landlord attended the property regarding the floorboards and the report of water appearing. The inspection report states “the floorboards are wet due to condensation forming on the window and door. The large, glazed unit at the bottom of the window has been replaced for an insulated panel, which has reduced condensation… There is no source of leak as far as I can tell… Operative may see some other factors when lifting up the flooring.”
27. The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 March 2020 and replaced the floorboards. There are no notes regarding any evidence of a leak.
28. On 14 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to advise he had sought advice from Citizens Advice, and he considered the landlord was responsible for the damage to his carpet. He requested compensation to replace the carpet and a copy of the formal complaint procedure. The landlord responded advising the tenant to claim through his home insurance and providing the link to the complaints policy.
29. On 22 May 2020, the resident contacted the landlord again about the damage to his carpet. This contact was passed to the resolution team for a response. The resolution team responded on 26 May 2020 reiterating the advice to submit a claim with his own insurance and that his insurer could claim from the landlord’s insurer if they felt that was appropriate. The landlord provided the resident with its insurer’s details.
30. On 4 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord asking to escalate his complaint to stage 2. The landlord contacted the resident the same day advising the resident had not yet submitted a stage 1 complaint and explained how to raise a formal complaint.
31. On 7 August 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response. It explained the resident had been advised several times to contact his own insurance company and in line with its repairs policy the complaint was not upheld. It also advised that as the resident did not have home insurance, he should contact its insurance company directly to progress a liability claim. It provided the details of its insurance company.
32. On 14 August 2020, the landlord’s insurance company emailed the landlord to advise the resident had submitted a claim for a damaged carpet. The insurer requested confirmation from the landlord that it wished the insurer to deal with the matter. Evidence indicates the landlord’s staff exchanged emails internally regarding the insurance claim and whether they should settle. One email states “the window was not leaking as such, there was an issue with the seal and it was letting in condensation”. There is no evidence that the landlord responded to the insurer.
33. On 19 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord advising he was dissatisfied with their response. The resident explained he had emailed the landlord’s insurer and had been advised they were awaiting confirmation from the landlord to proceed. He also advised he had been told it could take several months and therefore requested the landlord to reconsider their position or to escalate his complaint to stage two.
34. The landlord responded to the resident’s stage two complaint on 21 August 2020. The landlord explained the surveyor who attended the property had concluded there was a condensation issue due to the heating not being turned on. The landlord noted advice was given and remedial work was completed which resulted in the condensation issue improving. Therefore, the landlord concluded there was no water ingress or leak that caused the issue and would therefore not be upholding the complaint.
35. On 18 September 2020, the resident submitted a complaint to the Housing Ombudsman Service via his designated person.

Assessment and findings

36. As per the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs to the exterior and structure of the building. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for the window frames and the DPC.
37. The initial repair was reported on 25 October 2019, where the tenant reported issues with the window resulting in a draught. The landlord completed the inspection within the timeframe detailed in its policy, however there was a slight delay in the works being completed. There is no evidence the resident reported issues with water ingress during this time, despite him contacting the landlord to chase the outstanding works.
38. The resident believes the property experienced water ingress due to a leak and this is what caused the damage. The evidence shows the double-glazed windows at the property were faulty, resulting in one window being replaced by a UPVC thermal panel and the other having the gaskets replaced. The surveyor noted this remedial work had improved the condensation issue. Therefore, it is evident that the condensation was affected to some degree by the faulty windows.
39. The evidence also shows that following an inspection the landlord arranged for the DPC at the resident’s property to be replaced due to it being bridged. ‘Bridging’ or ‘bridged’ is a surveying term which describes a DPC which has been bypassed by damp, damp can then rise up the wall even though a DPC is present.
40. In its final stage response, the landlord concluded the water ingress that had caused the damage to the carpet was a condensation issue and that, following advice and remedial works, the issue had improved. Whilst the Ombudsman accepts that a landlord is entitled to rely on the expert opinion of its qualified surveyor, in this instance, there is no evidence that the landlord also considered the impact of the blown double-glazed units and the bridged DPC in this final response. Having identified them during the process of its investigation of the case, it would have been reasonable to reference the impact of these repair issues in the context of the reported damage to the resident’s carpet. This would have provided reassurance in the thoroughness of the landlord’s investigation and therefore the reliability of its final decision.  
41. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider the evidence and confirm what it establishes. The evidence shows the landlord responded appropriately to the initial report of faulty windows causing a draught, though the Ombudsman acknowledges there was a slight delay in the works being completed. The landlord also responded appropriately to the report of mould and the further issues identified on inspection of the mould.
42. In relation to the rotten floorboards and the damaged carpet, the Ombudsman has been able to establish that there was a mould issue at the property and the resident’s carpet was damaged due to the affected floorboards. However, the mould and rotted floorboards could have been caused by the property not being adequately heated, the failure of the double-glazed units, the bridging of the DPC or a combination thereof. Therefore, the Ombudsman has not been able to establish with any certainty what caused the mould and rotten floorboards and therefore cannot conclude that the landlord is responsible for the resulting damage to the resident’s carpet. In the circumstances, it is recommended that the landlord clarifies to the resident what impact the DPC/double-glazing issues had on the property, including its reasoning for concluding that these issues did not result, or contribute to the damage to the resident’s carpet.  

Determination (decision)

43. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its decision not to replace the resident’s carpet.

Reasons

44. The evidence is inconclusive regarding the cause of the mould to the property and therefore the damage to the carpet. Therefore, the Ombudsman is unable to conclude with any certainty who is responsible for replacing the carpet.

Recommendations

45. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord confirms the resident’s current options with regards to submitting a claim through its insurer on this issue.
46. The Ombudsman also recommends the landlord confirms in writing why it believes that the breached DPC and the blown windows did not contribute to the damage.