The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202205396)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205396

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

29 February 2024

 

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 resident’s repairs reports about:
    1. Leaks to gutters that led to a damp wall in the living room.
    2. Damp in the kitchen and bathroom and a bathroom extractor fan.
  2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record-keeping.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is understood to be a detached bungalow. The resident is blind.

Leaks to gutters that led to a damp wall in the living room

  1. The resident says there have been issues with gutter leaks for almost 10 years. More recently, some external and internal work was completed around Summer or Autumn 2021 to resolve issues that affected the ability to decorate. In December 2021, an inspection found there was still damp on the wall and some external and internal works were completed in February 2022. In April 2022, some further works were completed to clear, inspect and seal gutters. In June 2022, after a May inspection noted the guttering was dry and the resident wanted decoration done, a plaster repair was completed. The resident also complained about the landlord’s handling of gutter and living room works, and wanted it to communicate effectively and restore the living room.
  2. In July 2022, a property manager inspected, and noted that gutters needed relining front and back, and the lounge window top reveal required rubbing down, filling and painting. They noted that they would discuss these internally and get required works raised. The resident subsequently updated the Ombudsman that the landlord had agreed to reline the front and back gutter. After the inspection, a repair was raised on 27 July 2022 to reline the front gutter. The following day, some works were done to the front gutter and some tiles were removed and refixed. The same day as the repair raised to reline the front gutter, a repair was also raised to prepare and wallpaper the lounge top window reveal following leak repairs.
  3. In July 2022, the landlord provideda stage 1 response. It apologised for the inconvenience caused by some repairs being ongoing for some time. It noted that a property manager had attended and raised repairs to reline the front gutter and decorate the lounge window reveal.The residentrequested escalation after being told the window reveal would only be partially painted.
  4. In August 2022, the landlord provided a stage 2 response. It apologised that the repairs had taken longer to complete than they should, and that communication had been unsatisfactory. It said it would agree works the resident requested to reline the full length of the gutter at the front of his home, and wallpaper the top of the window reveal in the living room, and noted some may have been completed by its response. It detailed repairs references and contractors for works to reline the front gutter and prepare and wallpaper the lounge window reveal. The same month, a repair was also raised for some missing tiles, which was recorded completed 4 days later.
  5. In September 2022 a works order was raised for planned roof works, and in October 2022, a contractor attended for the repair raised in July to prepare and wallpaper the lounge top window reveal, and referred the repair back to the landlord. It was noted that nothing had been permanently fixed as far as could be seen, and the gutter was still leaking externally, render had not been repaired professionally, and plastering was required along the ceiling line on the window.
  6. In December 2022, a repair was raised for gutter repair and internal patch render repair, which was then recorded abandoned in early January 2023. In mid January 2023, a further works order was raised for repairs that included renewal of front and back gutter lining, and mould wash, patch repair and painting in the living room. This was recorded completed in April 2023, which the resident says resolved issues with water ingress. The same month, a repair was raised for planned works to overhaul the roof and reline the guttering.
  7. In May 2023, the landlord post inspected the April works, found the water ingress issue to be resolved, and raised repairs for the living room that included wallpaper removal, stain block of the ceiling and patch plastering. Separately, in June 2023 a repair was raised to finish detail on gutter lining; fit eaves tray; repoint; and replace some tiles, which was recorded complete the following day.
  8. In September 2023, the landlord’s records note that the living room works were abandoned due to issues with the resident. The resident recently says that after there were 6 missed appointments for the decoration works and the contractor lost his wallpaper and paste, the landlord agreed to decorate the whole living room at his convenience. However, after this was discussed around 5 months ago, he had not heard anything.
  9. In December 2023, the planned works to overhaul the roof and reline the guttering were completed, which the information provided advises was after inspection in November. The resident says that these works were done without any notice and led to water ingress issues occurring again.

Damp in the kitchen and bathroom and a bathroom extractor fan

  1. In July 2021, damp was reported to a wall shared by the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord’s records note that the same month, a works order was raised to change the wetroom layout. These works, completed in October, are understood to include works for the damp as the resident says the landlord rejected a contractor’s concern about rising damp, and decided to create a false wall between the bathroom and kitchen. In March 2022, the landlord also raised a works order to install a new extractor system. The resident says this was installed in June 2022, after which he requested an additional extractor fan in the bathroom.
  2. In June 2022, the resident complained about the landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the kitchen and bathroom, and a request for a bathroom extractor. The landlord subsequently inspected in July and noted issues including mould on bathroom flooring, and historical water damage to a kitchen wall that required repair.
  3. The landlord responded to the complaint in July and August 2022. It noted it had discussed the bathroom with a surveyor, and a contractor had assessed the damp. It confirmed the damp contractor would carry out works in August, after which works to reinstate the bathroom would be done. It initially said that a bathroom fan was not needed as the extractor system had been fitted, but it later agreed that the works would include installation of an extractor fan.
  4. The resident confirms that a contractor attended in August, cut off kitchen plaster, injected a damp course, replastered and repainted. He confirms a bathroom extractor fan was installed but it initially went on for longer periods than expected, so manual switch was installed. He says this was initially installed too high but was later lowered. He confirms there is no sign of damp anymore, but explains he had wanted a humidistat fan as a further safeguard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

  1. It is noted that there have been other works at the property including a passive ventilation system and roof insulation. The Ombudsman’s main focus is the complaint that the resident made and brought to the Ombudsman, which exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure 28 August 2022 when it provided a stage 2 response. This related to the gutters; living room decorations; kitchen and bathroom damp; and the bathroom extractor fan.
  2. It is also noted that the resident says that he has experienced gutter leaks for almost 10 years, however the Ombudsman expects complaints to be about issues that occurred within a reasonable timeframe. The Ombudsman’s main focus is therefore the most recent events from 2021.

Leaks to gutters that led to a damp wall in the living room

  1. The landlord clearly took action in respect to gutter issues that have resulted in damp to the living room wall, as the evidence shows that it has done works around Autumn 2021; February 2022; April 2022; July 2022; April 2023; June 2023; and December 2023. The Ombudsman understands that leaks can be challenging to resolve, and it is not uncommon for such issues to require repeat inspections and various attempts at identifying and addressing the problem before a fully effective solution is found. However, the number of repairs between 2021 and 2023 does not seem reasonable, and other aspects of the handling of matters does not seem satisfactory.
  2. The landlord comes across as lacking a proactive approach which may have contributed to the delay in effective resolution of the ongoing leaks. The landlord completed works in April 2022, and the resident says it only inspected in May 2022 at his request. The landlord carried out works in July and August, but there is no evidence it monitored these, and a contractor reported that the gutter was still leaking when they attended for internal works in October. The landlord took 2 to 3 months to raise a further repair after this. It was not until contact from the Ombudsman that a January 2023 repair was raised, which was then completed in April. The landlord should have more clearly monitored works to confirm these resolved matters, particularly as the resident is blind and may not detect the signs that a repair has not been effective as easily as someone who is not.
  3. The landlord comes across as unclear in its decision making for the gutter works at points. In July 2022, a property manager inspected and noted that both the front and back gutters needed relining, which the resident was verbally informed would be done. However, a repair was raised to only repair the front gutter. It was not until January 2023 that a repair was raised to reline both front and back gutters, and the resident says it was completion of this in April 2023 that resolved the leaks. It is unclear why only repairs for the front gutters were raised in July 2022 when it was noted that back gutter repairs were also needed, which indicates that the April 2023 works were delayed by 9 months. The landlord is entitled to change its mind about required works, however when doing so it is beneficial for it to be clear why; to communicate this to residents; and, as noted earlier, to monitor works to ensure they achieve their aim.
  4. The landlord comes across as disorganised in its approach and lacking in effective communication for the gutter and roof works at points. In September 2022, a repair was raised for planned roof renewal and gutter works, which were completed in December 2023 after a survey in November 2023. The resident indicates that these works were unexpected and he was not effectively communicated with about them, and there seemed to be limited communication with the resident and lack of consideration of other repairs done to the roof and gutter. The Ombudsman understands that planned works such as roof renewals may often be done separately to responsive repairs, but the landlord would be expected to have awareness of works scheduled at its properties. The lack of leaks after the works in April 2023 gives some cause to question why the December 2023 works were done, and it is not entirely satisfactory that these works seemed to do more harm than good, given the leaks reportedly recurred after them.
  5. The landlord was positive to agree to do some decoration works in the lounge, as works beyond plastering the wall went beyond its obligations, however the landlord comes across as lacking in effective communication for these and meeting this commitment has been delayed. The resident complained works were not being done in line with this agreement. The contractor later attended in October 2022 to do works involving wallpapering the window reveal, but as noted above it was identified that there were still issues with the guttering. The Ombudsman understands that the landlord agreed to redecorate the whole lounge and that the resident expected the works to be progressed after discussions several months ago, but they remain outstanding.
  6. The landlord seemed to acknowledge that the gutter leaks were ongoing for some time, and its agreement to decorate the living room shows it was seeking to provide some remedy for this, however this seems undermined by how long the redecoration has been outstanding for. It also does not seem to go far enough to acknowledge the unreasonable amount of gutter works that have been required; the length of time gutter issues have been ongoing; the lack of effective monitoring of works, particularly in light of the resident’s vulnerability; the unclear approach; and the ineffective communication the resident seems to have experienced. The gutter disrepair seems to have been limited in its impact on the living room and the wider property, however the landlord’s handling and the ongoing nature of the issues will have clearly caused frustration to the resident and undermined his confidence in the landlord.

Damp in the kitchen and bathroom and a bathroom extractor fan

  1. The landlord seems to have taken timely action in respect to damp, based on the evidence and the resident’s account. The landlord investigated and took action for reports of damp in 2021, and did works in a timely manner when it identified further works in 2022. The resident complained that the landlord rejected a subcontractor’s report about rising damp, however the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of such a report, and the resident’s confirmation that the damp issue reduced after a false wall was installed shows the landlord’s actions were effective. The landlord’s handling seems overall satisfactory, as it is reasonably evident it took timely and effective action for the kitchen and bathroom damp.
  2. The resident requested for a separate extractor fan in the bathroom to help with the damp issue, and the landlord seemed reasonable to initially reject this. The landlord had installed a passive ventilation system which may have negated the need for this. The landlord’s subsequent agreement to install one appears customer and resolution focused. The later issues with the duration that the fan went on for and the height of the switch occurred after the complaint, and so are not a main focus of our investigation, however the landlord took action to respond to the resident’s concerns about these.

Record–keeping

  1. The assessment of the landlord’s handling has not been helped by its record-keeping and approach in respect to its records. The landlord noted that its repairs logs are not accurate for when initial 2021 works are recorded completed, which gives cause to question accuracy of other records. It was asked to supply inspection reports to supplement repairs logs, but information provided is photograph heavy and lacks clear insight about inspection findings. It was asked to clarify why repairs raised for gutters vary from property manager inspection notes it supplied, but was not able to do so. It was asked to provide records for actions about damp, but did not provide information about the works for a false wall or works in August 2022, and this investigation has had to rely on the resident’s account. It was asked to supply a contractor’s report which reportedly raised concerns about rising damp, but it was not able to do so. The last repair for the living room decoration does not seem to reflect the resident’s experience of where this was left, which seems to have impacted the completion of these works.
  2. An improvement in the landlord’s record-keeping would result in significant benefits for both it and residents. It would enable accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents, which would improve the landlord’s responses. It would also help with our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time. More broadly, it would allow the landlord to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to the repairs completed so that it could consider the most appropriate response.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports about leaks to gutters that led to a damp wall in the living room.
    2. no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s repairs reports about damp in the kitchen and bathroom and a bathroom extractor fan.
    3. service failure in the landlord’s record-keeping.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord to, within 4 weeks, pay the resident £600. This comprises £500 for the gutter leaks and £100 for the record-keeping issues.
  2. The landlord to, within 4 weeks:
    1. liaise with the resident to assess if there are still ongoing leaks at the property. It should then write to the resident within 2 weeks of the inspection and confirm the outcome, including any actions it intends to take and the estimated timeframes for these. The landlord should then put in place measures to effectively monitor works.
    2. liaise with the resident to inspect in order to ensure it is satisfied there is no rising damp at the property. It should then write to the resident within 2 weeks of the inspection and confirm the outcome, including any actions it intends to take and the estimated timeframes for these. The landlord should then put in place measures to effectively monitor works, if applicable.
    3. liaise with the resident to agree dates to decorate the living room. The landlord should then write to the resident confirming what has been agreed, and put in place measures to effectively monitor the works.
  3. The landlord to, within 6 weeks, review the repairs handling and consider any lessons learned. These could include implementing:
    1. effective internal processes to monitor and post inspect similar works.
    2. processes which identifies repairs of a repeated and ongoing nature and enables them to be reviewed in order to consider
    3. effective customer communication processes for repairs and planned works.
  4. The landlord to, within 6 weeks:
    1. review its record-keeping and our spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
    2. consider improvements to its record-keeping, particularly its repair records, so that it is clear what works are identified and why; what works are done and when; and where applicable, what further works are required.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to liaise with the resident to check his preferred forms of communication, in order for these to be recorded and followed by it and its contractors.