GreenSquareAccord Limited (202229698)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202229698

GreenSquareAccord Limited

17 November 2023

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

This is about the landlord’s handing of:
1. Remedial works at the property.
2. The landlord’s communication about the resident’s proposed temporary and permanent moves.
3. The associated complaint.

Background

The landlord has a home loss, disturbance and decant policy which has the stated aim of establishing a basis of financial and practical support for residents affected by loss or temporary loss of their home. It also states it allows for the landlord to deliver its strategic asset and regeneration plans to include disposal.
Within the policy it states that:
1. A decant is where a household moves from their property to another on a temporary basis.
2. Disposal means that the property will be advertised for sale on the open market or sold to an occupying resident with either a right to buy or right to acquire.
3. A home loss payment is a statutory payment made to a tenant who has lived at a property for more than 12 months and who is required by the landlord to move home to enable disposal of the property.
In relation to property disposal, the home loss, disturbance and decant policy says that in some circumstances it may be necessary to consider disposal of a property when a resident is still in occupation in such circumstances the landlord says it will assess the resident’s circumstances:
1. If the tenancy was assured it would offer a management move and compensation, including arranging and paying for removals and a disturbance payment equivalent of the statutory payment which is listed as £7800 as of 1 October 2022.
2. In exceptional circumstances the landlord’s head of localities may agree a higher disturbance payment to obtain best value of money although no exceeding the estimated cost of remedial work.
The landlord has a 3 step complaint process:
1. Step 1 ‘resolve’ where the landlord does its best to resolve the issue immediately.
2. Step 2 is an investigation undertaken by the customer team which gives 10 working days for the complaint to be resolved.
3. Step 3 is an executive review, to be completed within 10 working days to consider an escalation request to decide whether the case has been handled fairly and reasonably.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend to non-emergency repairs within 28 days.
The resident is the assured tenant of a 3 bedroom mid terraced house. The property has a water pump fitted externally as it has a history of poor drainage. The pump was installed 6 years before the landlord acquired the property in 2013.
In February 2021 the resident complained to the landlord as the pump had stopped working resulting in excess water pooling at the front of the property. This complaint was about how the landlord had handled drainage issues at the property which had then caused the damp proof course to be breached by the pooling water. This Service investigated the landlord’s delays in resolving the drainage issue and in October 2022 a maladministration finding was made due to the delay in replacing the pump.
However, the damp affecting the property, had not been resolved and remedial work in the property remained outstanding. The resident stated that this outstanding work prevented the house from being properly heated, prevented him from replacing furniture and carpets as well as prevented him completing redecoration. In this Service’s October 2022 determination, the landlord was recommended to ‘make contact with the resident to discuss whether a new complaint was required in relation to ongoing works’.
The resident explained in his complaint to the Ombudsman that he has sought medical advice and has been concerned about exposure to damp and mould due to outstanding remedial work. The Ombudsman cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more usually dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts as the courts can call on medical experts and make legally binding judgements. Nonetheless, while this investigation will not make determinations on any damage to the resident’s health, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the substance of his complaints may have caused him.

Summary of events

On 2 December 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord with a complaint. It said:
1. Nobody had contacted him about progressing work at the property.
2. His understanding was that 2 separate contractors would be attending the property: .
  1. First a contractor to strip the skirting boards, doors, and frames.
  2. Then an asbestos contractor to undertake asbestos removal.
  3. The original contractor would then return to work on the floor, remove the kitchen, damp proof, and then reinstate and decorate.
3. He had been told by the contractor that this would start on 22 December 2022. He had declined this start date as he wanted to be out of the property first. The work had then been rebooked for 13 January 2022, however no arrangements had been made regarding a decant.
On 5 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm a complaint had been raised at stage 2.
On 8 December 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that his complaint had been escalated to the customer care team. It explained that due to the Christmas holidays the response would take longer than the usual 10 working days. The resident was informed to expect a response by 3 January 2022.
On 3 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it would be unable to provide a response as planned because the assigned member of staff had been ‘out of the office for an extended period of time’. A new target was provided of 17 January 2023.
The landlord arranged to call the resident on 10 January 2023. There are no records of this call.
On 17 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that it was unable to provide a written response on this date as it had intended. It gave the reason that there had been resource issues resulting in a backlog of work. It apologised for the impact this would have on the resident. A new response target of 25 January 2023 was provided.
On 25 January 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a meeting was booked with the locality manager who would be overseeing a temporary move when work would be carried out to alleviate damp and mould in the property. Due to this the complaint response time was extended until 30 January 2023.
The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 30 January 2023 extending the response time to 9 February 2023.
On 9 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a meeting had taken place about the complaint that day and therefore with this information a response could be expected on 10 February 2023.
On 10 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that a meeting had been booked with the surveying team as the complaint handler had decided further information was required from them. The landlord also said that the housing team would be in contact to discuss the case and any concerns.
On 14 February 2023 the landlord emailed the resident and extended the complaint target to 20 February 2023 while apologising for the further delay.
On 14 February 2023 the housing officer met with the resident at the property and afterwards sent an internal email. It said that the resident:
1. Was not happy that the landlord was thinking of selling the property due to the cost of the works.
2. Had commitments in the local area and wanted to remain locally.
3. Complained that he had dealt with 6 surveyors over the years.
4. Had been to his GP about his health and was concerned about the mould in the property.
5. Was under the impression he could be moved into a hotel whilst the work was done.
On 24 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint. The response said the complaint was about the resident’s:
1. Dissatisfaction about repairs needed in the home that were still outstanding.
2. Lack of a single point of contact.
3. View that the work should have been coordinated by the landlord, rather than contractors making appointments direct with him.
4. Request for information on the decant process and when work would begin.
The response said that:
1. On 27 September 2022 the resident had been called by the landlord’s contractor who advised it would not complete work in the property without a report confirming the floor was asbestos free.
2. The floor was reported as having asbestos present and the resident was advised of this on 14 October 2022.
3. The landlord’s principal surveyor had visited and advised that the new area maintenance surveyor would be the new point of contact until repairs had been completed and that an action plan would be set up to ensure repairs were completed in the new year.
4. A visit to remove asbestos did not go ahead on 22 December 2022 as the resident had declined the appointment due to the lack of arranged temporary move. The appointment was rearranged for the 13 January 2023. The resident asked for a call from the landlord but did not receive one resulting in the resident escalating a complaint.
5. The resident’s request for work to be completed during the summer holidays was also agreed.
The letter went on to say that following this it had come to light that the level of work required in the property ‘was in excess of what the landlord can do.’ The housing officer had visited on 14 February 2023 to discuss moving to another home permanently. The letter concluded that the complaint was upheld. The landlord:
1. Apologised that repairs were needed in the property from 2021 and remained outstanding.
2. Agreed that the contractors should have liaised with the landlord to book appointments due to the complexity of the situation.
3. Said that it was sorry that it might not be able to complete the repairs needed and that a move might be required.
As a resolution the landlord said:
1. The housing officer would be on hand to support with questions about moving.
2. It recognised the resident’s poor experience and offered a goodwill gesture of £250.
On 28 February 2023 the resident escalated his complaint to stage 3 in the landlord’s process. This was because:
1. He was unhappy with the compensation amount.
2. He had not received any information about why the property was to be sold or the cost of any repairs.
3. He did not know where he was moving or what was happening next.
The outcome the resident sought was that:
1. A recent £80 per month rent increase be put on hold until the future of the property was decided.
2. An increased compensation amount for the failings identified in stage 2.
3. He should be provided with written information explaining the cost of any repairs and why the house was being sold.
4. He wanted an update on what was happening and where he might move.
On 13 March 2023 the landlord sent a stage 3 complaint response which it said was about the lack of information the resident had received about the disposal of his home. It said:
1. The housing officer had visited and offered support for any potential move.
2. Following a costing of the repairs the landlord’s disposal panel had met and decided the landlord would be unable to meet the costs to complete the work on the property.
3. A separate letter confirming support arrangements for any move was ‘being issued today’ and an apology was made for the delay.
4. The landlord agreed that no £80 rent increase would be applied to the resident’s rent.
5. The £250 payment was considered fair and in line with the landlord’s compensation procedure.
In a separate letter about the disposal of the property sent to the resident on 13 March 2022 the landlord said:
1. The property would be sold .
2. It would work together with the resident to support him move to alternative suitable accommodation based on his needs.
3. It did not have any stock within the locality of the resident’s choice.
4. The resident would need to approach the local authority to be registered on their choice based lettings system.
5. When alternative accommodation was found 4 weeks’ notice would be required.
6. The housing officer would remain to help and offer support where she could.

After the final response letter

On 9 May 2023 the housing officer and resident exchanged emails about a meeting due on 11 May 2023 at the property to discuss the £70,000 estimated cost for the repair work. The housing officer advised she had ‘only this morning’ been told of the cost and this could be discussed at the meeting.
On 1 June 2023, the landlord wrote to the tenant following the meeting on 11 May 2023. It said it was writing to summarise the visit and confirm the next steps as had been agreed in the landlord’s stage 3 executive complaint review. The summary was:
1. There was some mould and a damp patch on the lounge wall.
2. There was a pattern of high damp readings to the concrete floor running from the hallway and left side of the lounge through to the kitchen. The evidence suggested there was likely a minor leak on the water main running through to the kitchen.
3. No other defects had been identified across the property.
4. In the view of the surveyor, there was no reason why once the repair had been completed the resident could not stay at the property.
About the disposal decision the resident was advised that the landlord had changed its view and would instead retain and repair the property. The following reasons were provided:
1. Repair work to the water leak and the work to the ground floor hall, lounge and dining room were estimated to have a lower cost on further inspection.
2. There was a lack of alternative accommodation in the local area for the resident.
3. The resident had lived at the property for a considerable time and did not wish to leave.
The letter went on to explain that further assessments and reversals of decisions could happen and that it hoped this decision provided the resident with comfort after a period of stress and worry. The next steps were listed as:
1. Complete the process of detecting the leak.
2. Complete the remedial works.
3. A new surveyor had been assigned the repair as a single point of contact for the resident.
4. This surveyor would liaise with the housing officer about a temporary decant.
On 25 September 2023 the landlord contacted the resident to advise that there was no leak on the water main and that it proposed to carry out remedial damp work and redecoration, some of the work would require the resident to be decanted. The resident asked for the landlord to visit and discuss the proposals with him.
An update from the landlord at the start of this investigation in November 2023 states that further consideration of the repair resulted in the conclusion that at the front of the property ground water was that a lack of damp proof membrane was resulting in water being absorbed into the property through the property’s concrete slab. The proposed work is that a damp proof membrane will be installed, and the resident will need to be decanted.

Assessment and findings

Remedial work at the property.

The landlord has failed to address remedial work at the resident’s property to rectify damage caused by water ingress in an appropriate timeframe. When the landlord completed the work to replace the pump and therefore resolved the cause of the water ingress, it failed to progress the remedial work in an appropriate timeframe resulting in the work remaining outstanding for more than 2 years.
Within this timeframe, the resident pursued the landlord for a resolution, and did not receive any response or communication on how the landlord would progress the repairs. It is reasonable for the resident to have expected the landlord to provide thorough, effective communication on its plans and intentions to resolve the work. This is a failing for the landlord to provide customer care, resulting in further time, trouble, and distress for the resident.
In addition to the above communication from the landlord, the resident complained that the landlord did not coordinate contractor visits and instead left this to the resident. Considering the complexity of this work, including the initially agreed need for the resident to be decanted for works to take place, the landlord failed to have proactive involvement in the coordination of the work and the resident’s decant so progress could be made to resolve the remedial repair issues. This is a failing by the landlord to appropriately oversee and progress the coordination of the required work.
The resident has explained that mould growth has affected his home and that the landlord has not provided any assistance in managing this mould for the duration of the outstanding remedial work. It is noted that the landlord’s damp and mould policy is dated 27 July 2023 which is after the landlord sent its final response letter on 13 March 2023. Therefore, this investigation has not assessed the landlord’s actions using this policy. However, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have ensured it had risk assessed the resident, undertaken a thorough damp survey and progressed with any temporary mitigating solution whilst any longer term plans were made to resolve the remedial repairs causing the issue.
The landlord in its complaint handling identified communication issues and reasonably provided a single point of contact for the repair work at stage 2 in its process. However, no reason was provided to the resident about the delays he had experienced. The landlord provided £250 in compensation as a ‘goodwill gesture’. Considering the 2 year wait for the work to be carried out this amount is not considered proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident. An appropriate order will be made below.
The landlord did reasonably provide a single point of contact regarding the repair. However, beyond this there was no further learning identified about how the landlord would manage complex disrepair cases in the future.
In summary, the landlord:
1. Failed to progress the remedial repairs within a reasonable timeframe leaving the resident with damp and mould in his living room and hallway. This caused a loss of enjoyment of the property for the resident who had to live with this disrepair for a prolonged amount of time.
2. Failed to coordinate its contractors and the resident’s decant in a competent and proactive manner.
3. Failed to provide the resident with an explanation for the delay.
4. Failed to demonstrate adequate learning about the circumstances of the case and what would prevent such occurrences happening again.
Due to the above this service finds maladministration in how the landlord handled remedial repairs at the property. A compensation award will be made in consideration of the time, trouble and distress incurred by the resident about this protracted repair, alongside a calculation based on the resident’s weekly rent due to loss of enjoyment of the property for this same period.

The landlord’s communication about the resident’s temporary and permanent move.

Whilst communication was not to a high standard about progressing the remedial works generally, as set out above, this investigation has also considered the landlord’s communication about whether a decant or indeed a permanent move would be required.
It is noted that the landlord changed its mind about the need for the resident to permanently move during the investigation period, and it was reasonable for the landlord to review its decision and make changes to its approach. However, this was not known to the resident between February and May 2023 and this investigation has considered the communication from the landlord during this 4 month period.
In December 2022 the resident was under the impression that a decant would be required. The landlord made no attempt to progress arranging the decant in coordination with the remedial repair work.
Later, around the 14 February 2023 the resident was informed that he would likely need to move permanently as it was no longer financially viable for the landlord to undertake work at the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to change its view on being able to undertake repairs, however its communication lacked any detail for the resident such as what repairs were required, the approximate cost and its decision making process. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to have provided the resident with a full and detailed reasoning behind its decision to dispose of the property.
Between February and May 2023, the resident was repeatedly advised that the property was to be disposed and that the landlord would offer support in moving home. No formal record has been provided of the landlord setting out the detail of what this support could include. Neither is there any record of the landlord making offers of financial compensation and removal costs, despite its home loss, disposal and decant policy makes provision for such payments.
For more than 3 months the resident had the uncertainty of the landlord’s expectation that he had to move. This uncertainty was not mitigated by effective communication from the landlord about why he had to move and how it could fully support him in that process.
After the final response letter, on 1 June 2023 the landlord sent a letter to the resident to update him of the plan of action and it’s now changed decision to retain the property and undertake the repairs. This letter clearly sets out the landlord’s intentions and the reasons behind its decision to no longer sell the property and instead to temporarily decant the resident to allow for the work to proceed. However, the letter failed to outline how the decant process would work and what reimbursement or offer the landlord would make to facilitate this process. Considering the length of time this issue had been outstanding, and the 2 separate reversals in decisions in the 6 months previous, the letter could have made a more comprehensive statement on the landlord’s temporary move offer, to ensure the resident received all of the relevant information at the earliest possible moment and also to progress the repair case.
The landlord failed to identify its communications failings in its complaint process. Both stage 2 and 3 responses continued to be light in detail in terms of what support it could offer for a permanent move with no written offer being made to advise of financial reparations. It also failed to fully outline the reasons for its disposal decision by setting out the work required and the approximate cost. Whilst it is understood that some commercially sensitive information is privy to the landlord and its decision making, the circumstances of this case and the compulsory move were such that sharing this information with the resident would have been a more reasonable and transparent approach for the landlord to take.
In summary the landlord:
1. Failed to communicate with the resident about a decant for the property to allow for works in January 2023.
2. Failed to effectively communicate its decision to dispose of the property.
3. Failed to effectively communicate what support options were available from the landlord regarding the compulsory move.
It is reasonable to conclude the resident would have been distressed by the thought of having to move and the landlord failed to offer suitable reassurance about everything that it could do to assist. Therefore, a finding of maladministration is made, and an appropriate order will be made below.

The associated complaint

The landlord extended its stage 2 response time 8 times between its receipt on 5 December 2022 and response on 24 February 2023. The response was sent 85 working days after the 10 working days timescale. This is a considerable failing by the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint in accordance with its publicised policy.
It is noted that the landlord did keep the resident updated of its expected complaint response times, however in 1 instance, the reason given was that a meeting was being held about the issue. No notes have been provided to this investigation from that meeting, which took place at least 48 days after the complaint had been received. Whilst this meeting may have been required in order for the landlord to respond to the complaint, the delay in it being organised was unreasonable.
The 75 working days delay identified within this investigation was not identified within the stage 2 or 3 responses and the resident received no apology or acknowledgement of the length of time it had taken to progress his complaint.
The landlord’s executive review step was completed 13 days after the resident’s escalation request, 3 days outside of the landlord’s timeframe. The resident received no apology from the landlord for this.
For the reasons above, this investigation finds maladministration and an appropriate Order will be made below.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of remedial works at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s communication about the resident’s temporary and permanent move.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the housing ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration with how the landlord managed the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not progress the remedial repair in an appropriate timescale. The landlord did not reasonably coordinate the contractors and the residents decant to allow for work to take place.
The landlord failed to communicate effectively about the need for a decant and the decision to dispose of the property.
The landlord did not handle the associated complaint in accordance with its published policy timescales.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to pay £2573.92 direct to the resident within 4 weeks of receipt of this report. This is made up of:
1. £1473.92 for the loss of enjoyment of the home. This is calculated as 15% of the rent payable between 21 November 2021 when the pump repair was completed and 13 March 2023 when the final response letter was sent.
2. £700 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the remedial repair work.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of how the landlord communicated about the proposed temporary and permanent move.
4. £200 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling.
Within 4 weeks of receipt of this report, the landlord is ordered to inspect the property and identify what remedial works are required. Within 2 weeks of the inspection the landlord is to:
1. send the resident and this Service a schedule of works including a timetable for the completion of the remedial works.
2. Update the resident about whether and for how long he will need to be decanted from the property.
If the resident is decanted the landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of him being decanted to make him a payment equivalent to 15% of the weekly rent payable between 13 March 2023 and the date he is decanted.
If the resident is not decanted the landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of the completion of the remedial works to make him a payment equivalent to 15% of the weekly rent payable between 13 March 2023 and the date the remedial works are completed.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to review the specifics of this repair case to ascertain learning from the delays in resolving the remedial repair and how it could act to prevent such delays occurring again. Evidence should be sent to the Ombudsman to demonstrate its findings and proposed actions.