GreenSquare Group Limited (201909593)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201909593

GreenSquare Group Limited

28 May 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 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 resident complains about the landlord’s offer of compensation in response to concerns about damp and a leak at the property.

Background

2. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out guidelines for compensating residents who: Lose the use of part of their home or need to move home through permanent or temporary relocation through no fault of their own; experience loss or inconvenience due to a service failure, and/or; incur additional costs or charges due to its actions or inaction.
3. It states that as far as possible compensation payments will be decided and offered with the aim of returning a resident to the same position they would have been in if the failure had not taken place, and any compensation offered will be appropriate and proportionate to the failure of the service.
4. Discretionary compensation and goodwill gestures can be considered when the landlord does not meet its service standards, for example when a resident suffers loss due to failure to deal satisfactorily with repairs.
5. The policy states ‘We expect all customers to take out their own contents insurance and for damaged belongings within their home to be claimed for under their policy. Compensation for damage to belongings will only be paid by GreenSquare where it is a clear consequence of service failure…It will be paid on a ‘like for like’ rather than ‘new for old’ basis, taking into account the age and condition of items.’
6. The landlord’s compensation procedure states ‘A claim should normally be made within six months of the failure, fault or event…’
7. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to non-emergency repairs within 28 days.

Summary of events

8. A leak occurred at the resident’s property in January 2019, which she reported to the landlord, and the landlord carried out several attendances to resolve. The leak was stopped on 29 April 2019 and follow up remedial works completed on 23 August 2019.
9. During this period the resident was in touch with her MP as she experienced problems progressing the matter with the landlord. She also made a claim for compensation to the landlord. In her communications with the landlord during May 2019 the resident said that it should take the following into consideration when assessing her compensation claim:

a.     Both the bathroom and kitchen were impacted by the January 2019 leak.

b.     She had seven weeks with no cooker as she was unable to use the electrics in the kitchen.

c.      There had been sewage dripping down the walls from the leak and living with the smell was dreadful.

d.     She reported the drip in January 2019 but no appointment was made until March 2019.

e.     She had to make constant calls to chase up the matter.

f.        She made several trips to her parents’ home ‘to eat a proper meal’.

g.     She had to leave work several times to accommodate repair appointments.

h.     The issue caused her stress.

i.        Her reports of damp in the living room and bedroom from 2017 were dismissed as condensation.

10. She asked for a ‘considerable payment’ of several thousand pounds to cover the issues over the previous two years. The landlord acknowledged this email the following day and confirmed that the matter would be decided once all works were completed.
11. On 27 September 2019 the landlord provided a response to the resident’s compensation claim. It stated, ‘I would like to say again how sorry we are for how long it’s taken us to resolve these issues for you and for the impact it has had.’ The landlord set out the following timeline:

a.     18 March 2019 – leak reported.

b.     April – leak stopped.

c.      29 April – surveyor attended to assess the damage.

d.     30 April – electrician confirmed the electrics were safe.

e.     17 June – completed kitchen works.

f.        2 July – completed works to the bathroom and other areas.

g.     5 July – surveyor attended to inspect the works carried out and found that these were not to the standard specified.

h.     23 August – works completed to the agreed specification.

12. Using this timeline, the landlord based its compensation calculation on the use of the resident’s kitchen being impacted for 13 weeks (18 March – 17 June) and the use of the bathroom impacted for 23 weeks (18 March – 23 August). The rent was £92.24 per week, so the loss of a room would represent £18.45 per week (there were five rooms in the property). It calculated this as £664.20 (£18.45 x 36).
13. In light of the impact the resident had described the matter having on her, such as having to miss work to attend appointments and having to travel to her parents’ home for meals as she could not use her kitchen, the landlord increased the £664 to a total of £725 ‘In recognition of the impact this has had on you and your family, as well as the additional costs you’ve reported…’ It said that it would be highlighting the issues and working with the teams involved to ensure the errors did not recur.
14. Regarding the complaint about damp and mould at the property, the landlord explained that its records showed that the resident had reported this in June 2017. A surveyor visited to inspect, and after a number of appointments that were rearranged for a variety of reasons, the landlord attended to treat the mould in the second bedroom in December 2017. The resident reported the issues again in February 2018, and a surveyor and an energy assessor attended and made recommendations to reduce mould formation, which included the installation of an extractor fan.
15. In addition, mould treatment was carried out to treat mould in several rooms at the same time as the works were carried out following the leak. It concluded ‘I’m sorry the works weren’t completed sooner, and I hope the most recent treatment is successful in combating the mould issues you’ve experienced.’ It said that, taking into consideration the level of damp and mould at the property and the actions it had taken it would offer a further £50 to reflect the inconvenience experienced, taking the total to £775 unless the resident had any further proof of expenditure for it to consider.
16. In response to contact made by the resident expressing her dissatisfaction with the amount, the landlord advised on 1 October 2019 that it would not be increasing this and should the resident wish to take the matter further she could make a formal complaint.
17. The resident contacted the Ombudsman on 16 October 2019 and in her letter stated that the response from the landlord contained a number of errors, for example stating that the leak was first reported in March 2019 whereas it was January 2019. She set out the delays in the landlord attending to check the electric sockets in the kitchen, meaning that she was unable to use the kitchen for seven weeks, resulting in additional costs incurred. She said that the landlord had told her during a telephone conversation that she would be awarded a 40% rent rebate for the two rooms affected (which would equate to £36.89 per week, or £1,300 for the period), but then was only offered £18.45 per week. The resident also set out other costs that she had incurred due to the leak, such as damage to cooking implements and annual leave days taken. She referenced how bad the smell was due to the leak being from the soil stack.
18. The resident said that in addition to this issue, she had reported damp in the property in June 2017, this was not treated until six months later in December 2017, with the landlord putting the issue down to condensation. The resident calculated that she should be compensated over £4000 for two rooms in the property affected by damp, at 40% of rent, for 112 weeks until it was treated in August 2019.
19. This Service forwarded the matter on to the landlord, who met with the resident on 30 October 2019 and emailed her the following day confirming their discussions and addressing the claims for compensation that the resident had made, setting out a new compensation offer of £1500. Regarding the damp and mould issue dating from 2017, the landlord found that ‘…whilst the condition of the rooms may have been unpleasant, I don’t consider you to have lost the use of them. This means I won’t be offering any additional compensation for this.’ It advised that the matter could be looked at as a formal complaint should the resident wish to pursue this.
20. The resident emailed the landlord on 14 November 2019 to say that she had considered the offer and had decided to decline. She said ‘This is mainly due to two reasons. It does not realistically reflect the added stress of living in this flat due to the stench we had to put up with for so many weeks. The leak plus the damp made it simply an unliveable environment. I should have gone straight to the environmental health department but I honestly did not think it would take so long for you to fix. I know you say you do not pay compensation for damp but that doesn’t make it any easier to live with as the knock on effect is tremendous. We couldn’t even decorate, there was no point.’
21. The landlord provided a formal stage one complaint response on 15 November 2019, which repeated the information and compensation offer provided in its      31 October 2019 email. It explained that the matter could be escalated if the resident remained dissatisfied.
22. The resident did so and the matter was considered by the landlord’s review panel, and a final response was sent on 10 December 2019. In this the landlord noted that the resident had escalated her complaint as she believed that the property was uninhabitable for a period, and because she did not feel that the compensation offered reflected the stress experienced.
23. The landlord acknowledged that its communication could have been better, and that this had meant that the resident had to chase up works. It agreed that the length of time taken to carry out the electrical check following the leak was unacceptable, and this had been discussed with the relevant members of staff and would be followed up with the Property Services team.
24. The landlord went on to explain that the compensation offered was in recognition of the delay to the electric check being carried out following the leak, along with the overall time to complete remedial works. The £1,500 was to cover the loss of the bathroom and kitchen from when the leak was first reported on 22 January 2019, return travel costs for seven weeks, loss of earnings, ruined pans, unusable kitchen tiles and general inconvenience. The landlord said that it had reviewed this and believed the figure to be fair and would not be increasing it.

Assessment and findings

January 2019 leak

 

25. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord has accepted that there was a long delay in repairs being completed following on from the January 2019 leak. Therefore, this is not in dispute and it is clear that the landlord failed to carry out the repair in good time. What is in dispute is the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to this, which the resident believes should be higher than the £1,500 offered.
26. In her complaint to the Ombudsman the resident set out her claim for 40% rent rebate for 36 weeks, at a total of £1,328, plus £40 for damage to kitchen items, and £50 for tiles. She also listed the following issues to take into consideration, though did not specify the amount sought for these:

a.     Travel costs.

b.     Stress.

c.      Not having visitors.

d.     Cost of microwave meals for two people x 21.

e.     Cost of calls.

f.        The smell.

g.     Having to get her MP involved.

27. The Ombudsman understands that this breakdown was discussed with the landlord during its meeting with the resident on 30 October 2019, and it was agreed what would be considered. This demonstrates that the landlord was willing to consider the claims raised by the resident.
28. The landlord’s follow up letter of 15 November 2019 then set out its offer. It agreed that the calculation should start from the date the leak was first reported in January 2019 and offered an additional eight weeks’ compensation at £18.45. This took the total for the impact to the use of the kitchen and bathroom to £960. The Ombudsman considers this adjustment to the date to have been appropriate given this was the date that the leak was first reported, and it is in agreement with the resident’s own timeframe calculations. However, there is no reference to the resident’s concern that she was initially told that the calculation would be made at 40% rent.
29. The Ombudsman has seen evidence that supports the resident’s contention here: A telephone note dated 23 May 2019 records that the landlord discussed the matter with the resident, and shows that the landlord made a compensation offer of 40% rent for a 7 week period, and would be reviewing the ongoing impact once the repair works were completed.
30. The records then show that the resident spoke with the landlord again on 28 May 2019 and rejected this offer, agreeing to send in details of the costs that she had incurred. It was agreed that a full compensation offer would be made once all works were completed.
31. In light of this it is understandable that the resident was expecting the calculation to be made at 40%. However, this offer was rejected and it was agreed that a revised offer would be made once the resident provided further details. It seems the landlord did revise its calculations once this further information was available.
32. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s compensation policy does not set out specific amounts/percentages for calculating compensation in relation to the use of use of rooms. However, the Ombudsman holds details of a number of landlord compensation policies that do, and can be used as comparators. These policies range in the amounts of compensation provided for loss of the use of a kitchen or bathroom from 25% of rent to 40% of rent.
33. While this Service understands that the bathroom was affected by the leak and can appreciate that this would have impacted on the resident, there is no reference to or indication that it was unusable for the period. Taking this into account the 20% rent rebate offered by the landlord was higher than this Service might have expected.
34. The information available to this Service shows that there was a greater impact on the resident’s use of the kitchen, and the repairs record demonstrates that it required replacement following the leak. The resident has described how she was unable to make meals for an extended period due to the delays in repairs and had to travel to have meals elsewhere. In light of this impact the Ombudsman might have considered that a higher percentage calculation than the 20% offered would have been reasonable. However, the landlord also offered £126 in compensation for travel costs, as well as £210 for loss of earnings despite the resident being unable to evidence this, which was outside of its policy. It also offered £90 for damage to pans and unused tiles.
35. Taking into all of this into account, the Ombudsman finds that the offer of £960 for the impact on the use of the kitchen and bathroom was appropriate, as was the full total of £1500 taking into account the costs that the resident incurred. The Ombudsman finds that the landlord followed its compensation policy and made a reasonable offer. Therefore further compensation, for example for not being able to have visitors, is not warranted.
36. In coming to this conclusion the Ombudsman has referred to its own remedies guidance, which sets out that in cases where there has been considerable service failure or maladministration, but no permanent impact on the complainant, awards of £250 to £700 are appropriate. The Ombudsman would usually only consider awards of over £700 in cases whether there was a significant and/or long-term impact on a resident, such as a long stay in temp accommodation due to mishandling of repair.

2017/2018 damp issue

37. The resident has calculated that she should be compensated over £4000 rent for loss of rooms in the property due to damp.
38. From the accounts of both the resident and the landlord, this matter was first reported in 2017 and then once again in 2018. There is no indication that the resident raised concerns about the rooms being unusable during that time or other concerns about damp. By her own account, the resident has stated that the landlord found the property to be affected by condensation (rather than damp which would indicate a repair issue).
39. The landlord has provided a copy of the sign-up documentation, and this included a note about windowpane condensation and paint bubbling. There is no mention of mould or damp specifically.
40. The repairs records show that in early July 2017 the resident contacted the landlord to ask it to investigate paint bubbling and mould in the bedroom at the property. However, she was only available for appointments on 17 and 27 July 2017 in the afternoons. The records show that the landlord attended on 2 August 2017 to inspect and raised a works order to repaint, but following this the resident was unable to commit to an appointment date and said that she would call back when she could. The landlord closed the job on this basis with a note to raise a new job when the resident made contact.
41. The repair records show that the resident made contact at the end of October 2017 and an appointment was booked for the work to be carried out, but the resident contacted the landlord to reschedule as she was no longer able to make the date. The resident has stated that the works were then carried out in December 2017.
42. From this information, there is no indication of a failing on the part of the landlord or that there was a repair issue causing damp or mould. It attended to inspect in response to the resident’s reports of mould just outside of the 28 days set out in its repairs policy, with the mitigating factor that the resident was limited in the times she was able to provide access. This also impacted on the time taken to carry out the follow up works. There is no indication here that the rooms were unusable.
43. The landlord has also provided evidence of an order being raised for an inspection or mould at the property in March 2018 following on from further reports from the resident. The landlord has not been able to supply a copy of the inspection report, but has evidenced that following this an extractor fan was fitted, presumably to help with condensation. Again, there is no indication in the information available to this Service that the rooms were unusable or that there was a repair issue outstanding.
44. In lieu of any evidence of a failing on the part of the landlord here, the Ombudsman finds that the landlord’s decision not to pay the resident the compensation requested was reasonable.

Determination (decision)

45. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord.

 

Reasons

46. In relation to the leak, the landlord accepted that it had failed to carry out the repairs in good time, took into consideration the resident’s claim, and made a reasonable offer of compensation in line with its policy.
47. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence of a failing on the part of the landlord in relation to the reported damp and mould issue from 2017 and 2018, and so its decision not to pay the compensation requested was reasonable.