Longhurst Group Limited (202335462)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335462

Longhurst Group Limited

19 August 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:
1. Handling of reports of leaks into the property and the associated repairs.
2. Handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident was an assured tenant of a 2-bedroom house. She lived there with her daughter.
The resident advised that she had been reporting issues with a leak in her roof since 2020. On 3 March 2022, the landlord noted that the resident’s electrics had tripped due to water coming through the light in the bathroom and into the bathroom shaver socket.
The resident raised a complaint on 15 November 2022. She advised that the shaver socket had been taped over, which had stopped the electrics from tripping, however she still had water leaking into the property. She also advised there was persistent mould.
The landlord inspected the roof on 22 November 2022 and identified an issue with the roof which was affecting 1 bedroom and the bathroom. It noted that the shaver socket needed to be fixed and that insulation to the bathroom ceiling was needed. The landlord raised an appointment to complete a mould wash and fix the shaver socket for 12 January 2023, however the resident advised there would be no point to this appointment, as the leak had not been repaired. The landlord agreed to reschedule the appointment once the roof leak repairs had been completed.
On 22 May 2023, the resident advised the leak was now worse and was now affecting both sides of the roof. She advised her daughters room now also had a leak. The landlord advised it was waiting on the contractor to complete works.
On 1 August 2023, the contractor advised that roof works had been unable to go ahead due to a wasp’s nest being found in the roof. The resident was informed, and she re-iterated that both the front and the rear of the roof needed fixing.
The wasp’s nest was removed the week of 8 August 2023. The contractor stated on 21 August 2023 that the order to repair the roof was only for the rear and it was unable to look at the front of the roof.
The resident advised on 5 September 2023 that the roof had not been fixed but that the scaffolding had been taken down. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 10 October 2023. It stated that there was an appointment for 14 October 2023 for both sides of the roof to be reviewed. It offered £50 for the delay in responding to the complaint, and £250 for the delay in responding to the roof repair, which the resident accepted.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2023 as no works had been completed. She also advised there was mould in all 3 affected rooms. On 13 December 2023, the resident’s bathroom ceiling collapsed. The landlord noted that it had made it safe on the same day.
The resident continued to chase the roof repairs. The landlord responded at stage 2 on 4 March 2024. It advised a further visit had been scheduled for 11 March 2024 to look at repairs. It offered £150 for complaint handling failures and £500 for delays to the repairs.
The resident contacted the landlord and advised no one attended on 11 March 2024. The landlord noted that it had been advised by the contractor that the repairs had been completed on 26 April 2024, however the resident disputed this, and a new surveyor was requested. On 6 June 2024, the resident’s ceiling in the bathroom collapsed again and the landlord has since acknowledged that the collapse would suggest repairs had not been done correctly.
The resident was offered another property due to the ongoing roof issues. She moved into this home on 10 August 2024. She would like the Ombudsman to investigate the complaint and to consider increasing the compensation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has advised that she has been reporting leaks since 2020 and the landlord acknowledged this in its stage 1 complaint response. Although the Ombudsman accepts the issue has been going on since this time, the first evidence of the reported leaks submitted to us, is 10 February 2021.
The Ombudsman would not usually consider matters which have not been brought to the landlord within 12 months of the matter arising as per paragraph 42.c of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, as the landlord has acknowledged that the issues have been ongoing since 2020, the Ombudsman will extend the scope of the investigation to the 10 February 2021, when the first report of leaks to the roof has been evidenced.

The landlord’s handling of reports of leaks into the property and the associated repairs.

The landlord’s repairs policy states that leaks which are caused by rainwater penetration should be treated as urgent. This means they should be attended within 7 calendar days of being reported. The landlord’s records indicate that the landlord did not pass the repair, reported on 10 February 2021, to the contractor until 9 April 2021. On 18 April 2021 it was noted that scaffolding was needed. There is no evidence that the landlord took any action to complete repairs or erect scaffolding. The landlord has failed to treat the repair with any urgency, as per its complaints policy.
On becoming aware that the resident’s electrics had tripped due to water coming through her bathroom light, and entering the shaving socket the landlord should have responded as a priority. This is due to the leaks potentially being hazardous. The landlord has not evidenced a repair, although in the resident’s stage 1 complaint she noted that the socket had since been taped over. While it was positive that the landlord made the repair safe, we are unable to conclude if this was done in a reasonable timescale, due to the lack of records from the landlord.
When the roof was inspected on 22 November 2022, and the landlord discovered that there were issues with the roof it should have formed an immediate plan for completing repairs. Although the landlord noted that it would fix the interior repairs, such as the shaver socket, it has failed to note how it would deal with the substantive issue of the leaks. This is of particular concern, given that this matter had been ongoing for over a year at this time.
The landlord was informed on 13 May 2023 that the leak had gotten worse and was affecting a new location in the property. The Ombudsman has seen an internal email from the landlord, stating that it was concerned that the quote it had got for repairs so far would be insufficient. The landlord should have conducted an urgent investigation into the new leak and considered what action it needed to take to ensure full repairs were completed for the resident. There is no evidence it took this action.
The landlord noted on 14 July 2023 that scaffolding would be put up soon. The Ombudsman considers that given the delays to date, the landlord should have known the exact date for scaffolding to be put up. If this date was not known, it should have been communicating with the contractors until this was obtained.
The contractor advised that works on 18 July 2023 could not go ahead due to a wasp’s nest being discovered. The landlord communicated this to the resident. The Ombudsman considers that a short delay while the wasp’s nest was removed, would be considered reasonable.
The landlord made the contractor aware on 2 August 2023 that both the front and rear of the roof needed reviewing and repairing. On 21 August 2023, the contractor stated that it did not know the front needed reviewing. It suggested that the rear would be repaired and if there were still issues, the landlord would need to raise a new job. There is no evidence that the landlord challenged this stance, despite it being aware since May 2023 that both sides of the roof needed an inspection. The landlord appears not to have taken ownership of the repair and has instead relied on the contractor advising the landlord what it would do. Given the extent of the leaks reported, the landlord should have ensured it was taking ownership of the repairs and taking action to ensure they were completed in full.
The landlord noted that it recalled the work from the contractors on 5 September 2023, although it is unclear why. The contractors stated the work was done, however the resident advised there were still holes in the roof. The landlord also suggested that it did not know the front of the roof needed to be investigated, however this had been known to be an issue since May 2023. On receiving a report that there were still holes in the resident’s roof, the landlord should have conducted an urgent survey to check if the repairs had been completed. It took the landlord until 14 October 2023 to attend the property, and a works order was not raised until 13 November 2023. The landlord again, failed to demonstrate that it was treating the repair with any urgency.
The resident’s bathroom ceiling collapsed on 13 December 2023. The landlord attended the same day to make this safe. It noted that more work was needed. The resident advised that the person who made her roof safe had informed her that replastering would not be beneficial as the roof may collapse again. On 19 December 2023, the landlord advised that the contractors were closed until the new year and no action could be taken. Although the landlord made the roof safe, it has provided no specific notes of what the temporary repair was or how long it would hold for. It failed to consider the repair as urgent, which is concerning given a ceiling collapse which had the potential to be dangerous, and which could happen again. The resident subsequently advised that her daughter was now bathing at her grandparents, as she no longer felt able to use the bathroom in the condition it was in.
The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s decant policy, however given the damage noted and the delays in repairs, coupled with the daughter feeling unable to use the bathroom, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have demonstrated that it considered the resident for a decant. There is no evidence this took place, until the landlord eventually agreed to permanently rehome the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 response stated that someone would attend the property on 11 March 2024 to consider this repair. This appointment was not attended. The landlord noted on 15 April 2024 that the contractor had told it they had repaired the roof. However, the landlord also noted later, following a further ceiling collapse that it was unlikely the contractor had repaired the roof.
The delays to the repairs were unreasonable. The landlord failed to treat them with any urgency and left ownership of the repairs to a contractor, who was not providing regular updates, or completing recommended work. The landlord did not conduct post inspection repairs, it did not consider the impact on the resident’s living with a persistent leak in 3 rooms of the property, and it failed to evidence any health and safety checks following a ceiling collapse. The resident subsequently had a second ceiling collapse in June 2024.
The resident advised on several occasions that the lack of communication from the landlord was frustrating. She was also unhappy that appointments and promises to repair the leaks were not being kept. The Ombudsman notes that there are gaps of months at a time, where we cannot see evidence that the landlord was taking any proactive action to repair the roof. Given the impact that this was having on the resident, and the fact that the landlord’s own repairs policy stated that this kind of repair should be handled in 7 days, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s handling of the repair is of great concern.
The landlord has apologised for the delays in its stage 2 response. However, the Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord has not fully acknowledged its lack of actions and the impact this has had on the resident. It is unclear from the landlord’s complaint responses whether the amount of £500 offered in the stage 2 response was inclusive of the £250 offer made in the stage 1 response. However, we consider that due to the significant impact of the leaks on the resident, neither amount was sufficient compensation.
Due to the extensive delays, the landlord’s inaction and the significant impact on the resident, the Ombudsman considers there to be severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of leaks in the property and the associated repairs with these leaks.
As the resident has now moved out, the Ombudsman will not consider any orders in relation to repairs. However, the Ombudsman would recommend that the landlord review the property and its condition before letting the property out again.
In relation to compensation, the Ombudsman has considered the loss of enjoyment and use of the rooms affected in the property. The Ombudsman recognises that there was not always full loss of a room, but that over the time period, due to the repairs remaining outstanding, conditions in each room deteriorated. We have considered the landlord’s policy that states that for loss of a bedroom it will award 10% of the rent and for loss of the bathroom it will award 30% of the rent. The Ombudsman has taken the following approach to calculating compensation, based on the rent:
1. From 10 February 2021, which is the first date in this investigation, until 22 May 2023 when the resident reported the second bedroom being affected by the leak, the Ombudsman has awarded 20% of rent in compensation. This is 5% for one bedroom, and 15% for the bathroom.
2. From 22 May 2023 until the 13 December 2023, the Ombudsman has increased the award to 25%. The additional 5% is for the leaks in the second bedroom.
3. On 13 December 2023 when the bathroom ceiling collapsed, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable that the resident would have been uncomfortable using the room as it remained in a state of disrepair. As such the Ombudsman has increased the bathroom compensation to 30%, meaning that we have awarded 40% in total of the rent in compensation, until the resident moved home on 10 August 2024.
4. The Ombudsman has based this on rent rates provided and has awarded £3,800 in compensation.
In addition to the above, the Ombudsman recognises that the resident has had to report the matter on several occasions and that the living conditions caused as the result of this leak would have had a significant impact on her. As such, in line with our remedy’s guidance, the Ombudsman has awarded a further £1,000 for distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.

The resident reported damp and mould throughout the time the leaks were outstanding. The Ombudsman has also seen pictures which demonstrate that there was substantial mould in the 3 rooms affected by the leaks. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord attempted to send someone to complete a mould wash on 12 January 2023. The resident advised there was no point to this as the leaks were still in place.
Mould is considered a risk under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident did not accept the appointment for the mould wash as she wanted the underlying issue resolved first. Although the landlord had attempted to complete the wash, it should have been working closely with the resident to ensure that the resident understood that there was a potential risk in leaving the mould untreated in the interim. The landlord as the professional body is considered the expert and as such it should have been monitoring the mould situation and ensuring it was keeping the resident informed on what actions it was taking.
The Ombudsman has seen a document in the landlord’s policy which demonstrates it has been assessing itself yearly on the Ombudsman’s spotlight report into damp and mould and taking actions to improve its processes in relation to damp and mould. The Ombudsman is encouraged to see this. However, in this case, it appears that the landlord treated the issue as a secondary issue, and took its lead from the resident, rather than following its own guidance and adopting a zero-tolerance approach to the damp and mould.
It is concerning that despite damp and mould being mentioned in the stage 1 and stage 2 complaints, the landlord failed to fully address this in its responses. It did however, under a separate complaint, award compensation for damage. The Ombudsman is not assessing this part of the complaint, although we are encouraged that the landlord revisited this with the resident.
The Ombudsman will not investigate the landlord twice for the delays in handling the underlying causes, although we consider that the significant delays are likely to have led to worsening mould in the property. The Ombudsman’s finding is based on the landlord not following its own policy and not responding to the mould concerns each time the resident raised it. We also consider that the landlord as the expert, should have been more proactive in encouraging the resident to engage with mould treatment. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
As with the repairs to the leaks, due to the resident moving home, the Ombudsman will not consider any repairs orders in relation to this finding. We have however reviewed the remedies guidance and considered a compensation amount of £250 is appropriate. This is due to the landlord offering a mould wash but failing to fully address the detriment to the resident and take actions to put this right.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint policy states that it will respond to a stage 1 complaint within 20 working days. The landlord took 329 working days which is unreasonable. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord did speak with the resident at times to extend the complaint, as it was awaiting updates from the contractors. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code states that the response should be issued once the answer is known, not once all actions are taken. The landlord should consider this when extending response times, and in any case, the Ombudsman would consider 329 working days to be excessive.
The landlord’s complaints policy states it will respond to complaints at stage 2 within 10 working days. It took 90 working days to issue its response. While this is less excessive than the stage 1 response, the Ombudsman considers this is still a significant delay.
In failing to respond to the resident sooner, the landlord has not given the resident the chance to approach a third party, such as the Ombudsman, to get a resolution. The Ombudsman notes that throughout this time, the resident’s repairs remained outstanding, and her living conditions deteriorated. As such there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.
The landlord offered £50 at stage 1 and £150 at stage 2 for complaint delays. It is unclear if the second offer was a total offer which included the original £50. The Ombudsman has considered our remedies guidance, and due to the significant delay and impact of this delay, we consider £250 to be a more appropriate award.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of leaks into the property and the associated repairs.
2. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

A senior member of staff should issue an apology to the resident, recognising the impact that the landlord’s failures have had on her
The landlord is ordered to pay a total of £5,300 to the resident within 4 weeks of this report. The landlord may deduct any money it has paid in relation to this complaint; however, it may not deduct any money in relation to the resident’s secondary complaint regarding mould damage. The amount is made up of:
1. £3,800 for loss and enjoyment of 3 rooms within the property.
2. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience the delay in the repairs had on the resident.
3. £250 for the failure to respond to the resident’s concerns regarding damp and mould.
4. £250 for complaint handling failures.
Evidence of compliance with the orders in paragraph 46 and 47 should be provided within 3 weeks of this report.
In accordance with paragraph 54.g of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a senior management review of its handling of the reported leaks in this case. As part of this, it should identify any training necessary to ensure that repairs relating to roof leaks are considered urgent and that repairs are managed correctly. It should consider what actions should be taken when repairs are not being managed correctly by its contractors and ensure that it has the necessary process in place to demonstrate that the landlord has ownership of its repairs. The landlord should ensure it has clear processes in place to prevent a re-occurrence of the issues experienced in this case. The landlord should present the findings to its senior leadership team and share the outcome of its review with the Ombudsman, within 8 weeks of this report.

Recommendations.

45. It is recommended that the landlord does not let out the property the complaint is regarding until the roof leaks have been repaired, and the damp and mould concerns have been addressed.

46. It is recommended that the landlord revisit its assessment against the damp and mould spotlight report and consider what actions it will take when mould is occurring due to a protracted repairs issue. This may include offering regular mould washes and ensuring the resident understands the risks of not having the mould treated.