Ocean Housing Limited (202015720)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202015720

Ocean Housing Limited

9 November 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

The complaint is regarding the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and chimney.
2. Response to the resident’s concerns about the works it carried out, in relation to asbestos and building and safety regulation.
3. Response to the resident’s concerns over damage caused to her personal belongings.
4. Handling of the resident’s complaint and its complaint procedures.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a Housing Association. She has resided at the property, a one-bed bungalow, since 2015.
The landlord’s Compensation Policy states that, where it has accepted full responsibility for a service failure, it will pay up to £200 for issues that have had a ‘medium impact’ on a customer and up to £500 for issues that have had a ‘major impact’. It describes a major impact as causing a resident ‘a considerable degree of inconvenience or distress’ and could relate to ‘persistent failure over a protracted time’.

Scope of Investigation

On 11 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to request that a complaint she made in 2016 be escalated to Stage Two of its complaint procedure. In her original complaint, the resident had raised concerns regarding a water leak from her front door and a leaking shower, which the landlord responded to at Stage One of its complaint procedures in January 2016. The landlord acknowledged it had not been able to identify the cause of the leak by the front door and it would send an ‘experienced’ surveyor to carry out a further inspection of the front door and a shower panel. It apologised for damage caused to two doormats and offered £100 in compensation.
As this Service has not seen any evidence that the resident asked for her complaint to be escalated until her contact on 11 December 2020, this investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to the concerns she raised in this more recent complaint.
Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that ‘the Ombudsman will generally not investigate complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising’. From the information available to this Service, the landlord’s repair records indicate it did not receive reports regarding the issues raised in the resident’s December 2020 complaint within the period following its Stage One response sent in January 2016 and January 2020. For this reason, this investigation will focus on how the landlord responded to repair reports it received from January 2020 onwards and will not consider issues prior to that date which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the landlord’s attention within a reasonable period.

Summary of Events

As noted above, the resident emailed a complaint to the landlord on 11 December 2020 and requested that it escalate her previous Stage One complaint from 2016 to Stage Two of its complaint procedure.
The landlord declined to escalate the complaint to Stage Two, advising that due to the length of time that had passed, it would open a new complaint instead. It subsequently provided the resident with a response at Stage One of its complaint procedures on 7 January 2021. It noted her new complaint raised concerns regarding her bathroom being in a ‘poor state of repair’, that she had needed to carry out various repairs to the property and wished to be reimbursed for this, that there were ongoing issues with damp and water pooling at the front of the property, there was a lack of ventilation within her chimney following repair work carried out by the landlord, and that a chimney leak had damaged flooring in her living room for which she also wanted to be compensated.
In its response, the landlord:
1. Agreed to install a new bathroom during the financial year 2021/2022 as it accepted that a previous tenant had made alterations which meant it would no longer expect the bathroom suite to last its anticipated 30-year lifecycle.
2. Expressed regret that the resident felt it necessary to carry out works at her own expense but advised that it could find no records of receiving any request to assist with or carry out any related repair work.
3. Acknowledged the reported dampness around the porch wall and confirmed its records showed the resident had been granted permission to fit a patio door ‘to help resolve the issues with water flooding’ in 2015 but that ‘an unheated external space has now become an internal…which…is more prone to damp’. It added that it had ‘installed an extra channel to the steps’ in December 2020 which it hoped would alleviate water ingress. It also noted that, as an inspection had found that ‘moisture had entered the (wall) cavity’, it was willing to ‘extract the insulation to all cavity walls and re-blow new insulation throughout’. It advised it would attend on 14 January 2021 with a contractor who would provide a quotation to undertake the work.
4. Advised it would also inspect the resident’s report of water pooling at the front of the property during its attendance on 14 January 2021.
5. Confirmed it had carried out inspection to the reported leaks to the chimney in February and March 2020 but following this it had been unable to carry out follow-on work until later in the year due a ‘break in service’ caused by the UK’s coronavirus related lockdown. It noted that the chimney had been removed in November 2020, ‘solving any problem of water ingress to the chimney stack from outside’. It also advised that ventilation had been provided to the flue to ‘reduce the likelihood of condensation occurring and wetting the wall’. Regarding the reported damage the leak had caused to her living room flooring, the landlord expressed sympathy but advised the resident she would need to raise a claim with her household insurer.
6. Acknowledged the resident had replastered her kitchen wall and had a waterproof screed installed due to concerns over damp and confirmed that it was due to install a new kitchen ‘this financial year’ and it would make good any plastering at the time.
7. Stated that it had completed a repair to her gable end wall in July 2020.
8. Acknowledged her concerns regarding wetness to the ‘floor and wall to the side of the back door’ but noted that it attributed this to the issues with the chimney leak, and the chimney had now been removed.
9. Apologised for the length of time it had taken for it to resolve the issue (by removing the chimney).
10. Acknowledged the resident’s concern that, when the chimney had been removed, no ventilation had been provided to the internal flue but confirmed that work had now been completed to rectify this.
11. Acknowledged she disagreed with the findings of the landlord’s contractor who tested for dampness in a cavity wall but noted that it had agreed to remove and refill cavity wall insulation once it had visited in January 2021.
12. Apologised for not responding to an email she sent in November 2020, although it advised it had not received it. It also apologised for the conduct of an operative who the resident felt had been rude to her.
13. Stated it believed it had now resolved water ingress issues around the base of the chimney and confirmed it would replace any plaster that had been damaged and affected.
14. Noted her request to be moved out of the property and for her possessions to be put into storage while damp proofing and insulation reinstallation works were carried out, and for her flooring to be replaced, but advised it did not consider it necessary to decant her due to the ‘measures already taken and those planned’. However, it did advise it would discuss the matter with her further if she felt this was not the case.
15. Declined her request to be reimbursed for work she had had carried out to ‘stop damp at the property’, advising it was unable to do so as it had not received any request in writing prior to work being carried out.
The following day, the resident responded and requested that her complaint be escalated. She stated she had experienced damp issues since she moved in, but the landlord had not dealt with the matter. She requested compensation for ‘the damage caused by nearly 6 years of not taking responsibility and not doing repairs’ and the stress that this had caused. She also stated that her health was deteriorating as she was ‘living in a place that has water everywhere’, that she believed she should be moved out while her home was dried out and repaired and that her insurance would not cover the damage caused to her flooring ‘as it is caused by the building not being watertight’. The landlord acknowledged the request the same day and advised it would respond by 21 January 2021.
The landlord issued its Stage Two complaint response on 19 January 2021. It noted that its Property Services Manager had met with the resident on 14 January 2021 and that, based on this meeting and her complaint correspondence, it understood her complaint to be about:
1. Its slow response to repairs to her property, particularly relating to the chimney.
2. Water ingress exacerbated by the slow response causing damage to floors and walls and the resident’s floor coverings.
3. Her bathroom ceiling, which had become wet due to pointing cracks, had not been dried out or replaced.
4. The landlord not undertaking all works referred to in a March 2020 report compiled by a contractor.
5. Poor ventilation in the roof of the property.
It also noted that the resident requested the following resolutions:
1. For all the floor coverings to be removed and replaced once the floor had dried out, including bamboo flooring in the living room, carpet in the bedroom, and a screed and vinyl overlay in the kitchen and bathroom.
2. For the remaining repairs outlined in the contractor’s report to be carried out.
3. For the bathroom ceiling to be replaced.
4. For her to be decanted to an alternative property while works are completed.
5. For ventilation to be improved to the roof space and throughout the property.
In its response, the landlord apologised to the resident for the distress caused by the situation and for not ‘assisting more’ during the coronavirus restrictions. Regarding the specific areas of concern it identified, the landlord advised:
1. Its records showed the resident had reported damp in her property on 15 January 2020 and ‘previously made us aware of vegetation growing from the chimney’ but it was not able to identify any previous repairs reports regarding this issue from the time she moved into the property. It noted that it had identified the actual leak from the chimney on 24 February 2020 but that it had then taken eight months to remove the chimney. It stated that, despite it being affected by coronavirus related working restrictions during lockdown, it considered this to be an unacceptable delay, for which it apologised. It also apologised to the resident for not acting to prevent further water ingress to the property from the chimney during that time.
2. It accepted that concrete floors and walls within the resident’s property had ‘not been given a chance to dry out’ and this had resulted in moisture being trapped underneath. It acknowledged the resident had also been left with water staining to the living room and bedroom floor coverings caused by the leak from her chimney. It advised it would carry out the outstanding work recommended in a contractor’s report from March 2020, including replacing any damaged plaster and skirting, mechanical drying out of the floor and replacing of all floor coverings on a like for like basis and it agreed it would temporarily move the resident and her possessions out of the property while the works were being completed.
3. That it would remove the plasterboard and mineral wool above the resident’s bathroom ceiling and replace with new, while also ‘topping up the whole loft insulation to 300mm to ensure your property stays warm and is at less risk of mould forming’.
4. That it would improve the ventilation in the loft space and throughout the property by installing vents, a Positive Input Ventilation system in the ceiling of the resident’s hallway and new humidistat fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
5. That it upheld the resident’s complaint, acknowledging that it ‘could have been more proactive in our response to your repairs’ and it apologised to the resident that she had ‘not received the level of service you should expect’.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to Stage 3 of the landlord’s complaint procedures the same day. Although she stated she was happy that it had agreed to undertake works she had requested, she remained unhappy that a ‘proper survey’ had not been carried out following her complaint in 2016. She also raised concerns regarding the ventilation in her roof space.
The landlord issued its Stage 3 response on 18 February 2021. It apologised for the distress and upset caused ‘as a result of the complaint, and the multiple layers of issues that have contributed to it’. It further advised that its response would ‘focus…upon trying to put right what has gone wrong’ and that it would be sourcing alternative temporary accommodation for the resident and her household while it undertook works in her property, which it anticipated would take up to twelve weeks to complete and begin in mid-March 2021. It confirmed that it would meet the rental cost of the accommodation in full. It also clarified that it would be undertaking all the work it set out in its Stage Two response and would also ‘make good decoration as required upon completion of the works’.
The landlord’s response went on to address further issues raised by the resident within her complaint escalation request and subsequent correspondence with the landlord. The landlord summarised that the resident was concerned that:
1. There had not been an appropriate check on the loft before ‘extraction and replacement of fibre was done’ and that the resident did not consider the contractor who did the work had been suitably qualified.
2. Fibres and dust in her home may be asbestos.
3. The landlord had not complied with building regulations when it removed her chimney stack.
4. She had not received a visit from the landlord’s insurance company.
5. She had not had a dedicated officer dealing with her complaint.
6. The member of staff dealing with her complaint did not understand the ‘new rules’ regarding the current status of her complaint.
Responding to each point in turn, the landlord advised:
1. The contractor it used to extract and replace cavity wall insulation was fully accredited and insured. While it could not state which checks were done prior to work starting, it accepted that communication could have been better so as to give the resident ‘appropriate reassurance’.
2. It had received the data regarding mineral fibres used in the property (pre and post extraction of insulation) and confirmed that there was no asbestos present. It also confirmed that, to offer further assurance to the resident, it had arranged a further set of sampling tests which again detected no asbestos. However, it again accepted that its contractor could have communicated better with the resident and advised that non asbestos fibres ‘would be blown into the loft and other vented areas’ during extraction, which may have allayed her concerns and avoided causing distress.
3. It advised that ‘building regulations consent’ was not required when removing the chimney as it was removed to roof level.
4. It advised that claims regarding damaged personal belongings would usually be ‘subject to a claim against your household insurance’ and that if the resident’s insurer believed a third party was liable, it would then recover the sum it paid out from the third party’s insurer. It did advise that the resident could make a claim directly against its public liability insurance but noted that this ‘only covers the current cost of any damaged goods…whereas most contents policies will replace the old item with new’. It also clarified that it had already agreed to replace all floor coverings on a like for like basis.
5. It clarified that the resident had had a named officer at each stage of the complaint process, who had issued each respective response.
6. It had followed its Complaints Policy and complaints procedure appropriately. It advised that it had adopted Housing Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code in 2020 and carried out a self-assessment, which was published on its website. It noted that the Ombudsman expresses a preference for landlords to operate a two-stage complaints process and that, while the landlord at present retained a three-stage process, it advised it was in consultation with the Ombudsman regarding this.
7. The landlord offered a further apology for ‘the distress and upset the circumstances of your complaint have caused’, along with £250 compensation ‘as a gesture of goodwill’.
In correspondence with this Service, the resident has confirmed that all work has now been completed and she is happy with the final outcome.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and chimney

Landlord repair logs indicate it received a report regarding rising damp in the resident’s property in January 2020, and a report of a leak from the chimney in February 2020. While, within her original complaint and subsequent correspondence with the landlord, the resident makes clear that she considers the issue had been ongoing for several years and contributed to issues of damp within her property, aside from a report regarding ‘plants’ growing out of the chimney in 2015, this investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord was alerted to any issues regarding a chimney leak prior to January and February 2020. Once it had been made aware of the issue, it acted appropriately by arranging an inspection and attending with a contractor in March 2020. It identified the leak and the impact the water ingress was having elsewhere in the property, and arranged for appropriate follow-on works, namely the removal of the chimney down to roof level, which appeared to solve the issue.
However, having carried out an inspection in March 2020, the landlord did not complete the removal of the chimney until November 2020, some eight months later. This Service appreciates the additional challenges and burdens faced by housing providers during the coronavirus lockdown last year, and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to attribute some of the delay in completing the repair to this and the impact the lockdown had on its service provision. However, it also acknowledged that the eight months wait for the work to be completed amounted to an ‘unacceptable’ delay and it apologised to the resident for this. While the apology was reasonable, having acknowledged that part of the delay was avoidable, and not related to the coronavirus lockdown, it was not appropriate that the landlord did not provide any further explanation for the additional delay. However, it did also act appropriately by apologising for additional damage caused by further water ingress to the property which occurred while the repair remained outstanding. This demonstrated that the landlord recognised the impact that the delayed repairs had had on the resident and her home.
Having reviewed the case as part of its Stage Three complaint response, the landlord offered a further apology to the resident, stating it had recognised the ‘distress and upset’ that the situation had caused her and offered her compensation of £250 as a ‘gesture of goodwill’, in addition to the works it planned to carry out in her property. Although the landlord does not specifically state that the goodwill gesture was compensation related to the delay in completing the removal of the chimney, it was positive and appropriate that its later response recognised how both the delay and the associated water ingress problems, which continued while the work remained outstanding, had affected the resident and as a result it sought to both put things right and treat her fairly.
However, while this Service acknowledges the compensation award was in addition to the schedule of works and the landlord’s commitment to replace the flooring throughout the property, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have considered making a slightly higher award to recognise the extent of the delay, the knock-on effect this caused and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman considers that an offer of £400, to reflect a £50 award for each month of the delay, would have been more appropriate.
While this Service appreciates the resident’s frustration and that she believes the landlord could have identified the leak to the chimney sooner, there is no evidence that it failed to act on any reports received before January 2020.
With regards to reported issues within the resident’s roof, landlord repair records and correspondence seen by this investigation shows that, after acknowledging ventilation issues raised in her Stage One and Stage Two complaints, the landlord took appropriate action by acknowledging the resolution she sought and agreeing to the recommendations made within a report carried out by its contractor. It agreed to install vents in the loft space, along with a new ventilation system, new fans in the kitchen and bathroom as well as topping up the loft insulation. These were all appropriate steps for it to take and demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s reports seriously and was attempting to fulfil its repair responsibilities, as well as ‘putting things right’, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, and undertook the works while the resident had been decanted to temporary accommodation.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the works it carried out, in relation to asbestos and building and safety regulations

Although not referred to within the resident’s original complaint, the landlord acknowledged that she subsequently raised concerns in correspondence regarding possible asbestos in the property after work had been undertaken in early 2021 to extract and reinstall cavity wall insulation. On completion of the work, the resident was concerned about fibres that had been blown into the loft and settled on items she was storing there and the potential health consequences of this should they contain asbestos.
In response to the concerns raised, the landlord acted appropriately by promptly arranging a sample survey, which indicated that there was no asbestos present, and providing the resident with this information to offer her reassurance. It was also appropriate that the landlord acknowledged that its contractor could have spared her some anxiety by better communicating with her regarding the possibility that fibres would be blown into the loft during the removal and reinstallation of the insulation material. Having acknowledged this, it was appropriate for the landlord to issue an apology for any distress caused.
In her Stage Three escalation request, and within further correspondence, the resident queried whether the landlord had complied with the relevant building regulations when it carried out the removal of her chimney. In its Stage Three response, the landlord advised that ‘building regulations consent’ was not required as the chimney had only been removed to roof level. While this was a reasonable explanation for the landlord to give, and there is no evidence that its position was incorrect, in order to reassure the resident it would have been helpful for the landlord to provide further information regarding the advice had it sought on the issue. However, it is positive that, in correspondence with this Service as part of this investigation, the landlord has outlined that it has since held further discussions with the Local Authority’s Building Control team to provide further reassurance to the resident. This was a proactive step for it to take and further indicates that it took the resident’s concerns seriously.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over damage caused to her personal belongings

Within her original complaint, the resident outlined that the water ingress issues in the property had damaged floor coverings. She also later outlined that other possessions she had stored in her loft had been damaged when they were covered in fibres during the removal and reinstallation of cavity wall insulation. Within its responses, the landlord was reasonable in advising that residents would usually be expected to claim on their household insurance if personal items had been damaged. However, it was positive that the landlord also provided further advice in this instance, acknowledging that she could make a claim against its own public liability insurance, while noting that this would only cover the cost of the damaged, rather than new, goods. The landlord sought to treat the resident fairly by providing additional information and context.
However, in regard to her damaged flooring, the landlord agreed to replace all floor coverings – including carpets, vinyl and screed coverings – within the property on a like for like basis and from the evidence available to this investigation, agreed to honour quotes provided. This was an appropriate step for the landlord to take and showed that, having acknowledged the inconvenience caused during this case, it was attempting to put things right in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was generous and amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and its complaint procedures

From the information seen by this investigation, the landlord acted reasonably when handling the resident’s complaint. Its initial decision to decline to escalate her 2016 Stage One complaint to Stage Two was reasonable due to the length of time that had passed between her contact. It was also appropriate that it opened a new complaint as, while it is acknowledged that the resident felt the issues with damp related to her complaint from 2016, there were new, additional issues that she had raised which it needed to address.
Having decided to open a new complaint, the landlord responded promptly, acknowledged her escalation requests and appropriately progressed her complaint through its complaint procedures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its Stage Two and Stage Three responses were detailed and sought to fully address the resident’s concerns, including regarding issues that were not part of the original complaint. This was reasonable and indicated that the landlord sought so treat the resident fairly. The landlord’s responses also sought to put things right with the resident by acknowledging its delayed repairs and where communication could have been better and apologising where necessary. There is also evidence that the landlord thoroughly reviewed the case at each stage of the complaints process, which was reflected by it amending its decisions and ultimately confirming the works it would carry out, agreeing to decant the resident and finally offering £250 compensation as a goodwill gesture.
There is evidence that the landlord also sought to speak with the resident to discuss her complaint further during the complaints process, at one point arranged a face to face, socially distanced, meeting to discuss additional concerns regarding the repair issues. It also agreed an extension with the resident when it felt it would not be able to issue its Stage Three response within its stated target time. This was good practice on the part of the landlord and shows that it sought to maintain effective communication with her and to keep her updated on the progress of the complaint.
While the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s complaint procedure are noted, it was reasonable for the landlord to advise that while it acknowledged the recommendation in the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code for landlords to adopt a two-stage complaint procedure, and it was in discussion with this Service regarding updating its procedures, for the time being it continued to operate a three-stage complaints procedure. It is noted that the landlord has now adopted a two-stage complaint procedure, details of which are published on its website. However, there was no obvious detriment caused to the resident by her complaint being processed under the three-stage procedure the landlord operated at the time and, from the evidence available, the landlord handled her complaint appropriately.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure with regards to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s loft and chimney.
In accordance with Paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration with regards to:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding asbestos and its compliance with building and safety regulations.
2. The landlord’s handling of the complaint and its complaint procedures.
In accordance with Paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress with regards to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns over damage caused to her personal belongings.

Reasons

From the information available to this Service, the landlord responded promptly to the report it received in early 2020 regarding damp and a leak from the resident’s chimney. It arranged an inspection and scheduled follow-on works. However, while the UK’s coronavirus related lockdown caused a delay in completing the works, the landlord accepted that there was a further, avoidable delay before the chimney was removed in November 2020, although it did not provide any further explanation for this. However, after reviewing the case at Stage Three of its complaint procedures, it was appropriate that it offered the resident a further apology and compensation as a gesture of goodwill, although it could have considered offering her a higher amount to better reflect the circumstances of the case. The landlord also acted appropriately when it ultimately agreed to undertake a large number of works within the property, in accordance with a contractor report and the resident’s desired resolution, and it also agreed to decant the resident’s household while the works took place.
The landlord responded promptly when the resident raised concerns regarding possible asbestos fibres, arranging a survey and reporting back with the findings to provide her with reassurance. It also appropriately identified that she could potentially have been spared anxiety if there had been better communication from its contractor, and it apologised for this.
While the landlord could have provided further information regarding why the work to remove the chimney was exempt from building regulations, the landlord’s explanation as to why permissions were not needed was reasonable.
The landlord’s position that the resident should claim on her household insurance for any damaged personal possessions was reasonable and it proactively provided her with additional information regarding its own Public Liability Insurance. It also agreed to replace all the resident’s damaged floor coverings on a like for like basis. This was an appropriate step for it to take and amounted to a generous offer which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, constituted reasonable redress for the damage that had been caused.
The landlord dealt with the resident’s complaint appropriately, provided prompt and detailed responses, maintained good communication with her during the complaint process and sought to treat her fairly by responding to issues which were not part of the original complaint. Its decision to open a new complaint rather than re-open the complaint from 2016 was reasonable and did not cause the resident any obvious detriment. While it is noted that the landlord has now adopted the two-stage complaint procedure recommended in the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, there was also no obvious detriment caused to the resident by her complaint being dealt with under its previous three-stage complaint procedure. The landlord’s response to her query regarding this matter was also reasonable.

Orders

The landlord should, within 4 weeks of this letter:
1. Pay the resident £400 compensation to recognise the delay in completing the chimney repair.
2. Write to her to share the outcome of its retrospective application to the Local Authority’s Building Control team regarding the removal of her chimney, if it has not done so already.