Optivo (now Southern Housing) (202117753)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117753

Optivo

19 January 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

1. The resident has complained about the following:
   1. The landlord’s handling of works to resolve the ventilation, drainage, and access issues at the property.
   2. Damage to the resident’sbelongings.
   3. The contractor’s behaviour.

Background and summary of events

2. The resident holds an assured tenancy of a two-bedroom bungalow owned by the landlord. The tenant lives at the property with his partner (referred to together as ‘the residents’). The tenancy commenced on 19 September 2016. There are vulnerability issues within the household, and the resident has restricted mobility and a long-term health condition. The residents are visited by health care professionals on a regular basis. They have stated that as a result of the situation they have lost finances and therapy equipment; experienced stress and anxiety; suffered damage to personal property; experienced disruption to their home over a lengthy period of time. They have informed the Ombudsman that the situation has had a negative impact on their health conditions and their physical and mental health. They are seeking compensation for these factors.
3. The resident has explained that following a roof leak and works to the loft, the property began to suffer from poor ventilation with damp and mould affecting each room. The landlord initiated works to resolve the problem including removing and replacing loft insulation, and improving the ventilation and drainage at the property, cleaning and treating the mould, with redecoration where required. Works were also undertaken to improve access at the property.
4. The residents contacted the landlord on 25 November 2020 and raised concerns regarding the new drainage system as water was pooling at the drain outside the front door. A complaint was made to the landlord on 12 April 2021 relating to works it undertook to resolve the issue and the length of time the works had been ongoing. The complaint referred the following areas:
   1. External drainage outside the front door
   2. Replacement of bathroom and front doors
   3. Mould and damp and damage to internal decorations
   4. Loft
   5. Damage to hot tub and other furniture
   6. Contractor behaviour

Drains

5. The residents reported that water was pooling near the top of the drain and had concerns that the drain was not low enough. The company installing a new front door for level access visited on 9 December 2020 and agreed with the residents regarding the positioning. The landlord arranged for the drainage company to re–attend on 15 December 2020. The drains were assessed and found to be ‘working perfectly’ but the operative did note that the drain and path leading to the front door needed to be dropped between 20-40 millimetres so that when a new door was fitted it would provide level access. The operative confirmed that this had not formed part of the brief when the company were instructed. He also noted that drainage from the green opposite could be contributing to the pooling and recommended a land drain be installed there to assist.
6. Further works were undertaken and completed in early March 2021 however the residents reported that water was still pooling and not running off. They also raised concerns regarding an end piece that had been broken and that an attempt to fix this had been undertaken by a small piece of cement being added to stop the water. The landlord had signed the works off as satisfactory, but in its complaint response, agreed to look into this issue and raise a repair if required.

Front door

7. A new front door was to be installed to allow level access for the residents. The landlord consulted with the contractors who were responsible for the drains and the door. The complaint response at stage one confirmed that both had agreed that there was no issue with the drain or the threshold to the door. The door was in production and the landlord was waiting for an installation date to be provided.
8. The door was installed on 15 December 2020 and a slim line door chain was sourced and fitted shortly afterwards. Before the installation, several appointments were required to measure and survey the doorway, in part due to the installation of the new drainage system.

Bathroom door

9. The bathroom door was rehung so that it opened inwards. The residents were concerned that the final door was not as it had been described to them and that it looked different from the other doors in the property. They were told that the frame would be removed and replaced but this had not happened, and instead plastic striping used. The complaint explained that the trim was thicker and the old hinge sites were visible. These were filled with filler and looked untidy and would eventually fall out. They also reported that the groove around the frame stood out and again was filled with plastic.
10. The landlord inspected and took photographs. It was satisfied that the door was functioning and did not look out of place. However, the final complaint response on 3 September 2021 confirmed that a repair order for the architrave to be replaced had been raised.

Mould & Damp

11. The landlord commissioned an Environment Inspection, and an inspection took place on 18 December 2020. This appears to have been a second inspection as it found the condensation problems to have disappeared but concluded that they may return when the temperature dropped again. It noted that there was an extractor fan in the bathroom and kitchen, both of which were working. The report proposed that a loft mounted positive input ventilation system was installed at the property.
12. The landlord sought more information and whether it should provide a vent to the front door. The inspector confirmed the running costs of the system would be approximately £10 per year and advised against a vent as this could potentially create a further cold spot.
13. The landlord’s internal correspondence states that the residents were not happy with the proposed installation, and this was not therefore commissioned.
14. The residents were unhappy about the positioning of the extractor fans as both were located next to windows. They explained that when the inspection was done, they were told that the positioning defeated the purpose of the fans as the extracted moisture would return via the window vents. The landlord did not accept that there was a problem with the extractor fans, although the one in the bathroom was repaired in May 2021 when it stopped coming on when the light was switched on.
15. Throughout the course of the works the landlord inspected the property and undertook mould treatments at the property. By March 2021 it noted that the mould was ‘barely noticeable’, and a third treatment was arranged. It redecorated all affected rooms and agreed to use the resident’s preferred paint where requested.
16. The landlord inspected the loft on 11 March 2021. The inspection found that one of the boards in the loft was water stained. The residents were concerned that this board would be filled with mould that would continue to cause problems in the kitchen below. The inspection found that although stained, the board was not damaged and was ‘bone dry’ to the touch. The landlord was satisfied that this was not causing any problems to the kitchen ceiling and therefore did not need replacing.
17. The residents raised concerns regarding the extractor vent pipe which they reported was damaged and compacted. They also raised concerns regarding the solar overflow pipe. They believed this needed to be filled as it was one of the causes of the internal damp. The landlord’s response at stage one of the complaints procedure confirmed that its surveyor had inspected and found no issue with the pipework. However, the final response agreed that it would replace the pipe to make sure that it matched the neighbouring properties pipework which discharged water away from the surface of the wall.

Damaged items

18. The residents informed the landlord that when the drain was installed the contractor moved their inflatable hot tub causing a puncture to the inner tubing. A patch repair had been undertaken. The resident explained that the hot tub was used to help with their medical conditions and asked that the inner tube be replaced.
19. The contractor disputed that any damage had been caused and on a visit of 15 December 2020 reported that the hot tub was inflated and looked fine. The landlord also took photographs of the hot tub on 11 March 2021 which, it stated, did not show any signs of damage.

20. The landlord requested a photograph of the patch repair. The resident has stated that this was provided but the landlord has no evidence of receiving this. The complaint response at stage one confirmed that the residents would need to submit an insurance claim and a form was provided.

21. At the time of the complaints panel the hot tub had been disposed of and no insurance claim submitted. The landlord confirmed that it would not be able to reimburse the residents in this instance.

21. The residents also requested that the landlord replace other property damaged by the mould and damp or make a goodwill gesture towards replacement costs. The letter at the final stage of the complaints process confirmed that the landlord was satisfied that it had acted as speedily as possible, bearing in mind the Covid-19 pandemic. Again, the landlord advised the residents to complete the insurance form and to send this to its insurance team.

Contractors’ behaviour

22. The complaint panel discussed the resident’s concerns that surveyors and contractors had called at the property without appointments and that this caused inconvenience and distress. Its final letter concluded that it was

‘obviously better for all concerned if appointments are made, and kept, to prevent the need for return visits, however it is also possible that either a contractor or surveyor could be in the area and would call to speed the process up. In such instances it is your prerogative to refuse access if it is inconvenient. If you want no cold callers at all in future, please advise and appointments will be made in every instance.’

23. A further complaint was made regarding the drainage contractor who requested that the residents reduce the flow of traffic in and out of the property. The residents explained that they would struggle to do this given the number of carers that were required. The contractor then asked the residents if they could leave their home and go out whilst the works were completed. The residents were unhappy that they were made to feel uncomfortable in their home and believe the landlord should have planned for a safe space to be provided to them.

24. The landlord’s complaint response stated that the contractors request related to the Covid-19 pandemic and was an attempt to work in safe conditions whilst observing social distancing, as well as requiring time for the concrete to set. The landlord apologised if the contractor was unprofessional in this request.

25.The landlord’s final response apologised for the length of time it had taken to fully complete the level access front door and associated grounds works. It acknowledged that this had required several call back appointments and offered a discretionary payment of £50 for this. It also offered £25 for a delay in informing the resident of the outcome of an inspection on11 March 2021, which was sent on 15 April 2021. A further apology was given to the resident and the landlord confirmed that the matter would be discussed at the next team meeting and lessons learnt.

 

 Assessment and findings

Works at the property

26. The landlord’s obligations under the tenancy and s11 Landlord & Tenant Act 1985 were to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the property, including drains, gutters and external pipes; internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards (but not including internal decoration), pathways and steps where they provide a means of access to the property. The bulk of the works raised by the resident fall within the landlord’s repairing obligations. The question for the Ombudsman is therefore whether the landlord’s response to the complaint was fair in all the circumstances.

27. Once it was informed by the resident of the issues in the property, the landlord had a duty to respond to the matter in line with the obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and its published policies and procedures. Once the landlord was aware of the situation at the property took the following steps to put things right:

1. Instructed appropriately qualified contractors to assess the damp and mould, install a front door with level access, and to improve the drainage at the property.
2. Undertook a number of inspections to ascertain the condition of the property and effectiveness of the works.
3. Undertook improvement to the finishes of the bathroom door to satisfy the residents’ concerns.
4. Treated all areas affected by damp and mould and redecorated all rooms where the decoration was damaged.
5. Ensured the pipework was correct and that drainage takes moisture away from the property.
6. Provided financial compensation to recognise that the works required numerous attendances at the residents’ home, and for a minor communication delay.

28. The residents also stated that there were issues that remained unanswered. These related to the front door allowing easy access for a wheelchair; that a previous inspection of the damp course had stated that better drainage and pointing of the brick work was needed; that the solar panel pipe installation offered little protection or benefit. The Ombudsman is satisfied that these issues would have been considered as part of the landlord’s inspections, the work it was undertaking, and its overall response to the complaint.

 28. It was appropriate for the landlord to obtain professional assistance, and it was reasonable that it relied upon the opinions and advice given, by experts in the relevant fields. When the residents have raised concerns, the landlord has responded and visited in a timely fashion, it has provided details to relevant experts, often requiring them to visit the property again. This was appropriate and is evidence that the landlord was taking the matter seriously and was proactively seeking solutions.

29. The landlord recognised that there was damage caused to decorations and took steps to put this right by redecorating once the area had been treated to remove mould growth. The landlord has therefore taken steps to comply with its repairing obligations and to put things right for the residents. Overall, the landlord acted appropriately to the resident’s repair reports. 

31. The landlord offered the residents compensation of £75. This was appropriate, as it was proportionate to the inconvenience of multiple visits and the minor communication delay. The amount offered was in line with the guidance set out in its compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s own remedies guidance (available on our website) which recommends a payment of £50 to £250 in instances of service failure resulting in some impact on a resident.

Resident’s belongings

32. The tenancy agreement sets out that the landlord is responsible for maintaining insurance for the structure of the property but ‘This responsibility does not cover replacing your personal belongings and you are advised to take out adequate contents insurance on your own.’
33. The landlord also has an ‘Making a liability claim’ leaflet which sets out that it does not accept liability for any incidents that were sudden, unforeseen, or caused by factors outside of its control. The leaflet also sets out that if the claim is for injury or stress the landlord would need authorisation to approach medical professionals to obtain evidence.
34. In accordance with the leaflet, the landlord advised the residents that they would need to submit an insurance claim and provided them with the necessary form. In relation to the damage to the hot tub it also sought information from the contractor who the resident’s believed had caused the damage. Liability was disputed. No information was provided regarding the other items that were damaged and no claim form was submitted. As no claim form was submitted the landlord did not fully consider the claim. This was in accordance with its policy and procedures and there is no evidence of any service failure. It was a matter for the residents whether or not to pursue their claims through the landlord’s procedure.
35. The residents have also stated that the situation caused them stress and anxiety and has had a negative impact on their health conditions. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence that this liability claim was made to the landlord, or any medical evidence submitted to support the claim. There can therefore be no finding of fault in the landlord’s lack of response on this point.

Contractor behaviour

36. In response to the formal complaint the landlord raised the resident’s allegations of inappropriate behaviour with its contractor and investigated. It concluded, in discussion with its contractor, that the operative had not behaved inappropriately given that he was seeking to allow the concrete to set and to limit any risk posed by the Covid-19 virus. The landlord apologised if the contractor had appeared unprofessional when making the request. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord conducted a proportionate investigation into this issue and reached a reasonable conclusion.

 Determination (decision)

37. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
    1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the works to resolve the ventilation, drainage, and access issues at the property; and
    2. no maladministration by the landlord in response to the damage to the residents belongs; and
    3. no maladministration in its response to the complaint about the contractor’s behaviour.

Reasons

38. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord has taken reasonable and proportionate steps to progress the reinstatement and other repair works to the resident’s property. The work has taken time, in part due to drying out, but also as snagging and new issues continue to arise. The landlord has instructed appropriate experts and is following their guidance to ensure the property is accessible and sufficiently ventilated. contractors. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord’s overall approach to the works has been reasonable and proportionate, it has recognised that the works required a high number of visits and has provided compensation for this and a minor communication failure.

 

39. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord has acted appropriately by asking the residents to complete the insurance form so that its insurance team could investigate liability for the damage to goods. As no claim was made it was reasonable for the landlord not to progress this element of the complaint and there was no maladministration in this approach.

 

40. The Ombudsman is satisfied that the landlord dealt with the residents’ concerns regarding the contractor’s behaviour appropriately. The issue was raised with the contractor and an apology and explanation given to the landlord.