Honeycomb Group Limited (202304852)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304852

Honeycomb Group Limited

23 July 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord which is a housing association. The tenancy commenced on 19 June 2016. The landlord’s records show that the resident’s daughter is diagnosed with autism. The resident has told this Service that her husband is disabled and has irritable bowel syndrome. The resident has confirmed to us that, contrary to the landlord’s records, she does not use a wheelchair outside of the home.
The property is a 2 bedroom semi-detached house with an external path to the side, comprising of steps, leading to a rear garden. Both the path and steps are referred to as ‘the path’ for the purposes of this report.
The landlord named on the tenancy agreement is a subsidiary company which delivers housing services for its parent company which is named above. For the purposes of this investigation, the subsidiary company is referred to as ‘the landlord.’
In July 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to report that the toilet had an ongoing leak. She also chased the landlord for an update on a structural survey that was due to be carried out at the property. The issues were related because the soil stack was cemented into the path which was moving away from the property. The resident informed the landlord that the leaks and subsequent repairs had damaged the floor and kitchen ceiling.
In March 2023 the resident contacted the landlord to follow up on a structural survey, carried out in December 2022, which confirmed that the path was starting to “fall away” from the house. Having reviewed the formal report from the survey the landlord agreed to move the resident to a new property on a permanent basis. This was because the structural works were of an “extensive nature.” The resident accepted a new property on 12 June 2023.
On 23 March 2023 the resident made a stage 1 complaint that:
1. She first contacted the landlord in June 2022 to report that the path at the side of the house was starting to fall away.
2. During the structural survey the resident was advised that the path was moving and the garden collapsing.
3. The landlord had failed to communicate effectively with her.
4. The repeated leaks from the toilet and associated repairs had damaged the floor and ceiling.
5. Operatives had attended the property without notice despite the resident requesting that it do so to allow her to support her daughter who had autism.
6. The landlord had not exercised its duty of care to her, particularly given that 2 members of her family were disabled.
On 31 March 2023 the landlord provided it stage 1 complaint response, as follows:
1. It had contacted the resident at regular intervals.
2. Having carried out an initial survey it was obtaining a more detailed appraisal of area, including recommended works. It was experiencing delays due to the availability of a specialist surveyor but was chasing regularly. It said it would provide a further update once it received the report.
3. It apologised that its contractor did not communicate with the resident regarding appointments. It said it was working with them regarding “communication methods.”
4. It said it would carry out further inspection of the windows and would contact the resident to make an appointment.
On 18 April 2023 the landlord logged that the resident remained dissatisfied with its response to the condition of the property.
The landlord provided it stage 2 complaint response on 2 May 2023 in which it confirmed that it had agreed to move the resident and would work with her to find a suitable property. It said it would assist with some of the financial costs and would provide further information in due course.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations, policies and procedures

The landlord’s decant policy states that:
1. It will interview all residents affected by making an appointment with them to meet them at their own home to discuss the process.
2. Disturbance payments are intended to compensate occupiers for the actual cost of moving from their homes. This can include costs of removals, new curtains and carpets, disconnection and reconnection of cookers.
Its maintenance policy says it aims to ensure all properties are safe and fit for use. It also sets out that it responds to routine repairs within 10 working days of being reported.
Its complaints policy says it aims to ensure its residents feel they are listened to, taken seriously and are kept informed when making a complaint. It aims to respond to stage 1 and stage 2 complaints within 10 working days.
Its compensation policy says discretionary compensation may be considered where, for example, it has failed to meet its own service targets or standards and/or has not acted reasonably.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it attended the property on 27 June 2022 to resolve a leaking toilet. The surveyor noted that the leak may be to do with the path pulling the soil pipe away from the wall and that further investigation was required. On 1 July it appropriately raised an order to refix the soil bracket back to the wall.
The landlord’s repair logs show that on 11 July 2022 the resident reported that her toilet was still leaking. She contacted the landlord the following day, 12 July, to chase the job. The logs show that the landlord followed up accordingly with its contractor on the same day. The contractor advised the job had been booked in for the following day. The landlord appropriately reminded it to make appointments as per the instructions it had given.
A month after it was put on notice that the path required further investigation, the landlord had not carried out a survey. This caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble when she had to chase the landlord for an update on 25 July 2022. She said that the soil stack was “cemented” to the path which was moving. The movement was affecting the stack which was causing the toilet to leak. The landlord’s internal email dated the same day requested that a works order be raised for its contractor to “free the stack as per the original order.” It also confirmed it would arrange an inspection of the path. The landlord updated the resident, also on the same day.
On 10 August 2022, 32 working days after it was put on notice, the landlord carried out a structural inspection. The repair records show a job was logged for a ‘structural check’ but there are no further details. The landlord’s timeline of events confirms that the surveyor noted that the external wall was moving away from the house and pulling appliances. It also noted that the outside ground was moving and that a structural engineer would need to attend. There is no evidence that a risk assessment was carried out which was inappropriate.
On 8 September 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to say that the slabs on the path were loose and moved when stood on. She was concerned that the path was causing further issues. There is no evidence that the landlord replied which was a failure, particularly because it would have been appropriate to assess any potential risk to the resident and her household. It would have also provided an opportunity to assess whether any interim repairs were required.
The landlord arranged to carry out a trial holes investigation on 15 December 2022. While this was a positive step it is unclear why the landlord did not carry out a detailed survey until 4 months after it had committed to doing so. The delay was therefore unreasonable, particularly given the resident’s concerns about the movement of the path and its impact on the property.
Furthermore, in her stage 1 complaint of 23 March 2023 the resident said that she had been told during one of the earlier surveys that the path was starting to fall away from the house and that the garden was collapsing. This caused distress to the resident because she could not be satisfied that the property was safe. However, there is no evidence that the landlord contacted her to discuss any concerns she may have following either of the surveys. This suggested to the landlord that it did not take her concerns, and/or the distress caused to her, seriously.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 31 March 2023 the landlord had not received the full report from the survey carried out on 15 December 2022. It said this was due to the availability of the specialist surveyor and that it was chasing “regularly.” This investigation has not seen any evidence of correspondence between the landlord and the surveyor. It is concerning that three and a half months after the survey was carried out, the landlord did not know the outcome. Furthermore, it continued to fail to contact the resident to discuss any concerns she may have and/or considered any potential risk which was inappropriate.
This failure caused further damage to the landlord/resident relationship which was evident in the resident’s stage 1 complaint of 23 March 2023 when she said “we feel we are been treated unfairly by being left with a house in this condition especially with 2 disabled people in this house.”
In her stage 1 complaint the resident said that she had asked that she be notified of any contractor appointments so that her daughter was not caused any unnecessary distress. However, the landlord was not adhering to this which had caused distress and inconvenience. The landlord’s file note of 12 July 2022 and stage 1 complaint response of 31 March 2023 evidence that it took appropriate action to ensure this did not happen again. It provided feed back to its contractor and reminded it of its obligations. However, it did not consider providing redress to the resident, as a means of putting things right, which was inappropriate.
During her complaint the resident also reported concerns about the condition of the windows. She said the window handles had fallen off and had been replaced by mismatched handles because the original style was no longer being manufactured. She also said that she had used masking tape to block gaps in the frames which caused a draught. The landlord said it would make an appointment to inspect. However, there is no evidence that it did so which was inappropriate, causing distress to the resident. The landlord also failed to adhere to its repairs policy to respond within 10 working days.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 April 2023 to say that it had received the survey report following the trial holes investigation. The report outlined its recommendations in terms of remedial works. The work included access through a neighbouring garden and removal of their trees. The landlord advised it may need to instruct solicitors to make the necessary arrangements and it could therefore not offer a timescale for this. It said it would take 6 to 8 weeks to obtain design plans and quotes from contractors.
The landlord’s response was ‘matter of fact’ and lacked empathy. There was no recognition of the distress and inconvenience already caused to the resident and her family. Furthermore, it failed to demonstrate any understanding that the ongoing timescales (some of which were open ended) would compound this distress and cause significant inconvenience. In the circumstances it would have been reasonable to offer to discuss the situation with the resident to allay any fears and/or answer any questions she may have. That it did not do so was inappropriate. Furthermore, it failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 May 2023 confirmed its decision to move the resident on a permanent basis. This decision was made during a telephone call with the resident earlier that day. This investigation has not seen a file note setting out the detail of that call. This is inappropriate because it is relevant to the assessment in this case.
The landlord sent an internal email on 4 May 2023 requesting that a home visit be carried out in line with its decant policy. The landlord called the resident that day and confirmed the outcome of their discussion in an email, also sent that same day. During the call the resident expressed her disappointment at the lack of support, for which the landlord apologised. She confirmed she did not wish to have a home visit so the landlord provided further information about the allocations process during the call.
The resident requested compensation for inconvenience and distress. The landlord said this should have been offered during the complaints process and that if it had not, it would rectify this. In the meantime, it confirmed that it would pay the costs of:
1. Removals.
2. Any new flooring.
3. Decoration.
4. Disconnection and reconnection of the cooker and washing machine.
5. Postal redirection.
It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a number of disturbance payments.
On this occasion the tone of the landlord’s response was more appropriate. It offered a number of alternatives to the home visit, such as paying for a taxi so the resident could meet at its offices or arranging a teams call. It apologised that the resident had been distressed by having to deal with different teams and staff and advised that all contact should go through her ‘neighbourhood officer.’ While this was a positive step it came late in the process by which time the resident felt unsupported by the landlord, causing distress and further eroding the landlord/resident relationship.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. On 9 May 2023 the landlord offered the resident £150 compensation as a ‘gesture of goodwill’ for inconvenience. The offer was made 7 days after the landlord issued its final response and only after the resident’s request. It was made outside of any formal communication therefore was not set in any context by way of acknowledgement of failings, learning from outcomes or formal apology. Therefore, it was not a meaningful offer by the landlord to put things right, in line with dispute resolution principles.

Events post internal complaints process

On 10 July 2023 the landlord agreed to:
1. Provide 2 weeks rent free, amounting to £285.16, at the new property to allow the resident time to move.
2. Clear the arrear, amounting to £215.27, from the account for the current property.
3. Pay for a replacement garden shed, amounting to £595.35.
There were failures in the landlord’s response, including:
1. It took just over a month to raise the initial survey, only doing so when the resident chased on 25 July 2022.
2. It took 4 months to carry out the trial hole investigation survey and did not receive the report until 4 months later. Therefore it took 8 months to provide feedback to the resident.
3. There is no evidence that it carried out risk assessments, particularly in relation to the moving slabs. Therefore, it did not comply with its maintenance policy to ensure its properties were safe and fit for use.
4. It failed to provide redress for the contractor’s attending appointments without notice.
5. Up to the point where it decided to decant the resident, it failed to engage in meaningful communication with the resident. There is also no evidence that it contacted her to provide general reassurance, provide updates and/or answer any queries she may have. Given the circumstances it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have considered providing a specific point of contact.
6. It generally failed to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused. It therefore failed to provide appropriate redress.
7. It failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
8. There is no evidence that it contacted the resident to arrange to inspect the windows.
These failures amount to maladministration because they adversely affected the resident. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £1000 for distress and inconvenience. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.

Complaint Handling

The landlord appropriately issued its complaint responses within time.
However, its responses did not achieve its aim that residents feel listened to, taken seriously and are kept informed when making a complaint. This is because they lacked investigation and curiosity, particularly in relation to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and her family. They failed to put things right and to demonstrate that the landlord had learnt from the complaint.
The Code says that landlords must confirm in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 details of now to escalate the matter to stage 2 of the resident remains dissatisfied. This should be done using in clear, plain language. The landlord enclosed a complaints procedure ‘for information’ with its stage 1 complaint response of 31 March 2023 but failed to set out the escalation process clearly and plainly in the response itself as required by the Code.
The Code (October 2022) said that if the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was the final stage of the process, it should provide details of how to escalate the matter to our Service if the resident remains dissatisfied. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 2 May 2023 signposted the resident to ‘designated person’ or the Ombudsman. Therefore, its response was inaccurate and not in line with the Code in place at that time.
The landlord’s complaint handling failures amount to maladministration. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was no permanent impact.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident £1100 compensation comprised of:
  1. £1000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its failures in its response to the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property. The landlord may deduct the £150 it has offered if this has already been paid.
  2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the complaint handling failures.
2. Arrange for a member of the senior executive team to write to the resident to apologise for the failures identified in this report. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.