GreenSquareAccord Limited (202011790)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011790

GreenSquareAccord

23 December 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:
   1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of a thinner smaller windowpane (glass).
   2. The information provided by the contractors to the resident about the type of windows which were to be installed.
   3. The length of time the repairs have been outstanding.
   4. The landlord’s handling of the reported leak, the damp patch and smell in the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord handling of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

3. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord living in a 2-bedroom house.
4. The landlord’s complaint policy states that at stage 1 and 2, a complaint must be acknowledged within 2 working days and a full investigation must be concluded within 10 working days unless there are justified delays.

Summary of events

5. On 13 January 2021 the resident contacted the landlord to advise she was having a new frame put into her windows which were rotten. The resident asked about having new windows put in. The resident also wanted to raise a complaint about her windows not being repaired and replaced after years of reporting them. She advised that they were creating damp and mould, and that either water or draft was coming through as the windows had only been fixed temporarily.
6. The landlord has provided an undated report indicating issues that were found at the property. It found that there was no evidence of the new gutter leaking and the facia boards had been replaced. There was concern that the gutter took water at a higher level and appeared to have been replaced with a standard round rather than a deep flow gutter which may result in overflowing. The external brickwork where water ran down had dried out however paint was delaminating from the stone door surround. There was a drip from the rear ground floor bay window and the bricks needed to be refixed and repointed. The landlord noted the bedroom window above the rear bay window required repointing. It also noted that the brickwork was spalling where water had entered the bricks and required a repair and coating. Internally, the landlord advised there were areas where the wallpaper had come away and the wall needed replastering. It noted that windows needed replacing for the landing window and the rear bedroom windows and confirmed that these jobs were on the 2021/2022 window replacement programme.
7. The report confirmed that the landing window was replaced from 16mm to 6mm glass to allow sufficient space to fit beading and sealant. The resident refused a new window unit being installed in her bedroom if it was the same quality as the one put in the landing window.
8. The landlord has provided an undated work schedule which confirmed the jobs to do were;
   1. Ease and adjust the back door.
   2. Strip one wall in lounge in order to replaster and repaint.
   3. Refix loose bricks above the ground floor window and repoint the area.
   4. Repoint the cracks below window above the rear bay window.
   5. Make good, spalled bricks and recoat on the side elevation wall.
   6. Repair the leaking cutter joint to the rear ground floor bay.
9. On 14 January 2021 the landlord noted that the resident’s window replacement had been put through for its 2021/2022 programme however planned works were currently on hold due to the pandemic.
10. The resident contacted the landlord to return its call on 20 January 2021. She was provided with the direct contact details of the representative who was dealing with the matter.
11. The landlord sent the resident an acknowledgment of her complaint on 11 February 2021 and confirmed she would receive a response by 25 February 2021.
12. On 25 February the landlord issued its first response to the resident. This covered the concerns the resident had about the repairs as well as the conduct of the contractors. The landlord apologised for the level of service received. It confirmed all the jobs that had been raised as per the work schedule.
13. The landlord confirmed that the gutter leak was repaired. It advised that whilst it was unclear why thinner glass was used, it allowed the contractor to better secure the beading than the thicker sealed glazed units. It advised that the outstanding repairs were on hold due to lockdown measures and due to backlogged repairs, it would take longer than normal to carry out the non-essential repairs. The landlord confirmed the replacement of the residents windows were on the planned programme for 2021/2022 and the resident would be contacted closer to the time for works to be scheduled. The landlord contacted the contactor’s supervisor about staff conduct issues and it was advised that the matter would be discussed with the member of staff. It confirmed arrangements would be made to ensure a different operative would attend the resident’s property however this may impact the repairs date and availability when the repairs could proceed.
14. On 10 March 2021 the Ombudsman sent correspondence to the landlord to advise that the resident wanted her complaint escalated to its second stage complaint process.
15. On 12 March 2021 the landlord acknowledged the residents request to escalate the complaint to stage two of its complaint process. It confirmed the outstanding issues were that the resident was unhappy with the new windows installed which were thinner and smaller than her previous ones, the information provided about the type of windows installed, the length of time the repairs had been outstanding and the landlord’s handling of the reported leak, the damp patch, and the smell in the property. The landlord advised the resident would receive a response by 26 March 2021.
16. A job was booked on 16 March 2021 however the resident called on 15 March 2021 to ask for another booking as she was unavailable.
17. On 25 March 2021 the landlord issued its second response. The landlord upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord noted that the thickness of the windows had been discussed in detail with the resident and its surveyor previously. It explained that the thickness of the glass in the new windows was dependant on the frames that the glass was going into and there was no other explanation as to why the glass was thinner than the resident’s previous windows. It explained that the windows at the property were due to be replaced during its 2021/2022 programme and it was in the process of securing a contractor to carry out the work. The resident was advised she would be contacted once a contractor had been allocated. The landlord explained that due to the pandemic, there was a longer wait than normal for repairs to be completed however it did note that the leak on the guttering was attended and identified by its surveyor that week and the jobs arranged would be attended as soon as possible after the repair team returned to a more normal process. The landlord confirmed the damp patch, and the smell were part of the outstanding repairs which would be booked as soon as possible. It confirmed its schedulers would be in contact to arrange the appointment soon.

Assessment and findings

18. The thickness of the glass in the new windows was dependant on the frames that the glass was going into and there was no other explanation as to why the glass was thinner than the resident’s previous windows. It is not clear if the landlord was aware of the dimensions of the replacement glass prior to the contractor fitting. The landlord has not provided any evidence to show that the windows have been replaced by double glazed windows that still offer the same insulation as the previous ones. As its unclear whether the landlord had stipulated the type of windows the contractor should use or whether this was left to the contractors skill and experience, I am unable to find service failure with the landlord directly with regards to the type of windows installed. This is as the contractor is suitably qualified to make such decisions in the absence of direction. However, the landlord should look into this and establish whether the windows are providing the resident with a reasonable level of insulation.
19. The landlord has confirmed that the resident’s windows will be replaced during its 2021/2022 window programme. Although the landlord has advised the windows will be replaced in the 2021/2022 programme, the landlord has not provided the resident any advice as to when she will get an update on the progress of arranging the works.
20. The resident said she was misadvised by the contractor about the windows which were to be installed. The landlord has only provided the Ombudsman with a record of the communication from the resident since 13 January 2021 when the thinner windows were installed. It has not provided any report from the contractor who fitted the window or record of any communication that the contractor had with the resident prior to the visit. The landlord should have contacted its contractor to obtain a record of the communications or notes that it had with the resident. There is no evidence that this aspect was looked into by the landlord during the complaint process.
21. The landlord has provided insufficient information for the Ombudsman to investigate what the resident was advised by the contractor. I have found service failure by the landlord for failure to provide sufficient information about the full sequence of events from when the resident initially raised concerns about her windows to when the new window was fitted. 
22. The landlord has provided the Ombudsman with an undated report and work schedule which show that a survey of the property was done to assess the problems the resident was having at the property. It mentions the gutters were replaced however we have no evidence to show when this work took place. The landlord should provide dated evidence in order for the Service to look at the sequence of events correctly.
23. There is insufficient information provided by the landlord to assess how it handled the reported leak such as when the resident first reported issues with the leak, when the repair was made and whether this was done within the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. Without understanding the full impact of the leak, how it affected the property and when the leak occurred, the Ombudsman is also unable to fully consider whether the damp and mould issue could have been avoided dependent on the time it took to action the repair.
24. The landlord has mentioned the outstanding works within the second stage response however it has not provided a clear timescale as to when the repairs will be actioned. The landlord should have managed the resident’s expectations by providing timescales to when it would expect the work completed by. As it is left, the landlord’s resolution is not clear as it has not given the resident an estimation on when her concerns will be fully resolved.
25. The resident requested to raise a complaint on 13 January 2021 however she received an acknowledgment on 11 February 2021, considerably out of the landlord’s 2 working day timescale detailed within its complaint handling policy. The landlord has not provided any explanation to justify its reason for the delay. I appreciate due to the delays, the resident contacted this Service for support in getting a response from the landlord..
26. I note the second response was provided within the landlord’s complaint handling policy however the outcome provided did not provide the resident with a clear resolution as there were no dates for updates and completion of the work. As such, the Ombudsman has found service failure with the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

Determination (decision)

27. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the installation of thinner smaller window glass.
28. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the information provided by the contractors about the type of windows which were to be installed.
29. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the length of time the repairs have been outstanding with the landlord.
30. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reported leak, the damp patch and smell in the property.
31. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

32. It is unclear if the landlord was aware of the specifications of the window that was installed by the contractor prior to the glass being replaced or whether this was left to the contractors skill and experience as explained above and therefore I am unable to find service failure with regards to this aspect.
33. As we have no evidence of what was said to the resident by the contractor, there is nothing on file to accept or refute the sequence of events that took place between the resident and the contractor, and whether the landlord was involved with this. As such, I am unable to find service failure by the landlord.
34. The landlord has not provided us with any information prior to 13 January 2021. The Ombudsman has not been provided with evidence of when the leak was first reported and the steps the landlord took to resolve this therefore the Service is unable to establish how long it took for the landlord to address the concerns about the leak and whether this was done in line with its repairs policy.
35. The Ombudsman is aware that the works remain outstanding, and its unclear when the repairs will be completed as this was left open-ended by the landlord without providing estimated timescales for repairs or updates to the resident.
36. The landlord does not appear to have done a thorough investigation into the resident’s concerns including obtaining further information and clarification from the contractor regarding appointments (whether attended or not) and any records of repairs. This is not evidenced in the submission and records that it provided to the Service.
37. Overall, the landlord’s submissions have been lacking in depth, with missing dates and lack of evidence.

Orders

38. In line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, the landlord should pay the resident:
    1. £200 for the time it has taken to complete the repairs.
    2. £100 for upset and inconvenience caused.
    3. £150 for its failure to investigate the complaint thoroughly and provide a clear resolution.
    4. £50 for failure to acknowledge the complaint in line with its complaint handling policy.
39. The landlord should provide an itemised schedule of works with approximate dates as to when they will be completed.

Recommendations

40. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord reviews its record-keeping practices to ensure that it holds adequate records of its repairs, inspections and contact with its residents, so that it can be provided to this Service upon request, in response to a complaint.
41. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its processes to ensure residents receive updated notification of works and when it is due to be started.