Places for People Group Limited (202214143)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214143

Places for People Group Limited

2 May 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 handling of:
1. Repairs to the patio doors and bedroom window.
2. Repairs to the bathroom extractor fan.
3. Repairs to the front and back doors.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the property. The property is a two-bedroom bungalow. The resident has vulnerabilities recorded on the landlord’s system.
The resident told the landlord on 31 March 2022 that the bedroom window was broken. The landlord tried to fix it but declared it needed to be replaced. The order for the window was raised but it did not get manufactured.
The resident told the landlord on 19 May 2022 that the bathroom extractor fan was not efficient and needed looking at. The landlord attended and found it needed to be replaced.
On 14 August 2022 the landlord attempted to repair the patio doors but decided they needed replacing. The order on the landlord’s system got closed so nothing progressed. In September and October the resident complained to her landlord about the continued delays on all her outstanding repairs.
The landlord sent its stage 1 complaint response on 31 October 2022. It accepted that there had been failings in its handling of the window and patio doors. It also acknowledged the continued delays to the bathroom fan renewal. The landlord offered a total of £225 compensation for missed timescales, lack of communication and inconvenience. It agreed to measure for the window and patio doors on 8 November 2022, and this happened.
The landlord reported that it tried to replace the bathroom fan on 16 November 2022, but the resident refused, as she wanted a different fan. The job was closed on the system.
The front and back doors had been replaced in 2022 but by November of that year, the resident had reported drafts coming from them. On 19 January 2023 the landlord adjusted the doors, but the resident reported this had made it worse.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 7 February 2023 increased the compensation offer to £325 in acknowledgement of the continued delays and inconvenience. The response listed several outstanding actions:
1. Date of installation of new bedroom window and patio doors.
2. Date of a cavity wall insulation survey.
3. Date of a draft remedy for the doors.
The resident remained unhappy and contacted the Ombudsman. She felt the compensation was not enough and wanted the works completed, including a new back door. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not mention the bathroom fan.
When the landlord fitted the bedroom window and patio doors on 28 February 2023, it also agreed to raise a new order for the bathroom fan. The front and back door were also inspected on that day.

Post internal complaints procedure

After the landlord visited on 27 February 2023, the resident did not hear from the landlord’s contractor until she chased on 27 March and 4 April 2023. The back door was replaced in July 2023. The front door had new handles and a new cylinder fitted on 23 August 2023.
The exact date the new bathroom extractor fan was installed is not known but the landlord reports it was in December 2023. It was a specialist fan as agreed with the resident.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve the repair issues in a timely manner and communicate effectively with her has impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health. However, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the repairs and the resident’s health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
The resident has, in her communication with the Ombudsman, raised other issues she has had with the landlord, around repairs and communication. This Service’s role is to investigate complaints brought to it that have exhausted a landlord’s internal complaints process. This investigation report, therefore, concerns the matters which were the subject of the resident’s formal complaint and of the landlord’s final response dated 7 February 2023.

Repairs to the patio doors and the bedroom window

The landlord has a duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenancy Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. Once the landlord has received notice that the property requires repair, this should be carried out in a reasonable timescale.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy at the time stated the following repair timescales:
1. Emergency repairs: 24 hours.
2. Appointable repairs: 28 days (currently 60).
3. Planned repairs: 90 days.

At the time of the complaint, the landlord had extended the expected timescales for appointable repairs to 60 days. This was in response to a backlog of repairs caused by the Covid-19 pandemic. It remained in operation through the duration of this complaint.

The resident reported an issue with the bedroom window on 31 March 2022. It was raised as an “appointable repair”. The landlord’s initial response was appropriate. It accepted responsibility to repair the window and attended on 14 April 2022, in line with its published timescales.
When the resident reported issues with the patio doors on 29 June 2022, the landlord raised it as an “appointable repair” and attended within the 60-day timescale, on 14 August 2022. This was an appropriate response from the landlord.
Both appointments resulted in a recommendation for renewal. An order was raised to a contractor on 9 May 2022 for the new window. This was 15 working days after the appointment. This was an unreasonable delay. It was not customer focussed nor in line with the landlord’s stated aim in its responsive repairs policy to “continually strive for the highest levels of performance”.
The landlord closed the repair job for the patio doors on its system and did not create a new one. There was therefore no order for the new patio doors, so nothing progressed. This was not appropriate. It resulted it the resident being dissatisfied with the service she was receiving and delayed the eventual completion date of the work.
There was no evidence that the landlord proactively communicated with the resident around the window and patio door replacements. Landlords must communicate effectively with residents to deliver a good service. The landlord’s poor communication may have delayed the repairs and added to the resident’s distress because she did not know what was happening. Because of this, the resident made a formal complaint.
The window and patio doors were replaced on 27 February 2023. For the bedroom window, taking into account a new 60-day order was raised for the window on 9 May 2022, this was 295 days (204 working days) after the window was ordered. The patio doors were replaced 244 days (169 working days) from the date the resident reported the issue. The completion dates far exceed the 60-day timescale for an appointable repair. This was an inappropriate delay given the type of repairs they were. No evidence has been provided to the Ombudsman to support that the repairs and subsequent renewals were complex or unique in any way to mitigate the long delay. It was also an unreasonable delay given the vulnerabilities of the resident, which the landlord knew about. In the Ombudsman’s view the delays were a result of system errors, poor communication internally and with contractors, and poor tracking of works orders.
On 31 October 2022 in its stage 1 complaint response the landlord apologised and acknowledged the delays. It provided the reasons for the delays – poor communication internally and system errors. It offered in total, for all the complaint issues £225 for missed timescales, poor communication, and inconvenience. The landlord’s stage 2 complaints response of 7 February 2023 offered a further £100 because of the continued delays. It provided an apology and a further plan of action to complete the repairs.
Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and agreement to carry out outstanding repairs) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint in all the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s assessment, the landlord’s total offer of compensation (£325) was not proportionate to the impact the failings had on the resident. The resident experienced distress and inconvenience as a result of the landlord’s delays and spent a lot of time chasing for answers. She has told the Ombudsman that she believes her health has deteriorated as a result of the landlord’s actions. The landlord’s final response did not put things right. Outstanding, outdated issues remained, with no decisive time specific action in place.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the bedroom window and the patio doors. The delays were significant, avoidable, and the resident was not kept updated on a regular basis. The landlord did not use the opportunity of the complaints process to improve its services and complete the repairs in a timely manner. The Ombudsman sets out an order below to apologise to the resident and pay the resident £600 for her time and trouble, distress and inconvenience.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan

The resident reported an issue with the bathroom extractor fan on 19 May 2022. It was working but not efficiently removing all the steam from the bathroom. The landlord acted appropriately and raised an “appointable repair”. It attended in time on 18 July 2022 and declared the fan needed to be replaced.
A new order was raised and booked for 6 September 2022 but was cancelled twice due to staff availability. It was re-booked for 16 November 2022 and then 26 November 2022. While this was not ideal, the resident was kept informed, and the landlord explained the cancellation reasons. This was reasonable of the landlord and in keeping with its responsive repair policy to “actively engage with residents about repairs to their home”.
In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delay in installing a fan. It specifically offered £25 for the delays to the fan installation and then across all complaint issues offered £50 for lack of communication and £100 discretionary payment. This was a reasonable remedy for the type of repair, the low impact on the resident and the duration of the delay (as of 31 October 2022, the date of the stage 1 complaint response). However, the delay continued, and this is reflected in the order the Ombudsman has made.
On the 26 November 2022 the landlord reported that the resident refused the new fan as she did not feel it would be efficient enough. The job was closed as complete. This was not reasonable of the landlord. At the time, the landlord should have spoken to the resident to try and understand what the issue was and attempt to resolve the situation. The outcome should have been clearly documented.
After the landlord visited on 27 February 2023 it followed up with an email to the resident detailing the actions it would take. This included re-raising the job to replace the extractor fan. It is good practice to follow up a meeting with a written document of what was agreed, and the landlord acted reasonably in doing so.
It is not clear in the evidence whether it was at this point an agreement to fit a different fan was made, but at some point, it was. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that the new fan has a shutter on it which stops the wind coming through it when it is not on. It was a reasonable action of the landlord to install a different fan. It showed it had listened to the resident and adapted its service provision accordingly.
The landlord has not provided evidence of the exact date the fan was installed, and the resident cannot recall the date. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it was in December 2023. From the date of reporting the issue on 19 May 2022 to 1 December 2023 was 562 days (389 working days). Taking into consideration the resident’s refusal on 26 November 2022, there was still an inappropriate delay installing a new extractor fan.
In summary, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the bathroom extractor fan repairs. The fan was always working, and this accounts for the finding of service failure rather than maladministration. The landlord also kept the resident informed about the delays up to 26 November 2022. After that appointment the communication ceased until 27 February 2023, and the resident took considerable time and trouble to find out what was happening. The Ombudsman’s order below reflects this finding.

The landlord’s handling of the repairs to the front and back doors

The front and back doors were replaced in 2022 by the landlord. The back door had the wrong glass installed and the landlord agreed to change it. The resident however did not want the landlord to use its contractor, nor wait for a long time, so she paid £120 privately and had the glass replaced. It was reasonable of the landlord to acknowledge the error and agree to change the glazing.
The landlord’s affordable housing compensation policy states that it will not offer reimbursement where the resident has not given the landlord an opportunity to put things right. The landlord had offered to put things right and had raised the order on its system. The landlord acted appropriately in not reimbursing the resident for the glazing.
On 26 November 2022 the resident reported a draft coming through the front door. An order was raised with a target date of 25 January 2023 (60 days). It attended on 19 January 2023 and adjusted the front and back doors. The landlord acted appropriately in its assessment of the repair as an ‘appointable repair” and by attending within 60 days, as per its responsive repairs policy timescales.
When the resident spoke to the landlord in relation to stage 2 of her complaint, she told them she thought the work on the 19 January 2023 had made the drafts worse. Although the front and back doors complaints had not been part of the stage 1 complaint, the landlord added them to its stage 2 complaint response. This was reasonable of the landlord, as the issue was relevant to the delays in repairs at the property and it was a current issue for the resident.
In the written summary from the landlord’s visit on 27 February 2023 the resident was told the landlord’s contractor would be in touch about the back door. The resident continuously tried to contact the landlord from 27 March 2023 to 4 April 2023 as she had not heard from the landlord or its contractor since 28 February 2023. It was unreasonable of the landlord not to keep a close watch on the actions from its email and communicate with the resident. It undid its proactive work of sending the action summary. The resident did not know what was happening and she incurred time and trouble to try and find out.
On 15 May 2023 the landlord raised a job for the back door to be measured for a replacement and it was replaced on 5 July 2023. The overall timescale of 26 November 2022 to 5 July 2023 (222 days, 150 working days) taken by the landlord to repair the door was not appropriate.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the front and back door repairs. Communication with the resident was poor, as was the communication between the landlord and the contractor. The resident made it clear in her communication that she was worried about energy costs, security, and her health. The landlord knew what the vulnerabilities of the household were and did not take them into account when handling the door repairs.
A theme running through all parts of this complaint is that the landlord responded appropriately to the initial repair request, by assessing it correctly and attending within published timescales. However, when a responsive repair became a replacement the process failed, resulting in the resident living with disrepair for long periods of time. An order has been made for the landlord to reflect on this and make changes to its processes to ensure it learns from this case and improves its services to its residents.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the patio door and bedroom window repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the bathroom extractor fan.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the front and back doors.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £1000, broken down as follows:
1. £600 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling of the patio doors and bedroom window repairs.
2. £100 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling of the bathroom extractor fan repairs.
3. £300 for the time and trouble, distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s failures in handling of the front and back door repairs.
The above amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £325. If already paid, the £325 should be deducted from the above amount.
This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to complete a case review that considers and accounts for the failings in this case. A senior manager should conduct the review, which should set out:
1. How, when a repair becomes a replacement, the landlord will ensure a work order is raised, monitored and completed. The landlord should set out the process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure this change is implemented.
2. How the landlord will ensure it provides residents with regular communication on the status of the repair/replacement. The landlord should set out the process change(s) and associated staff training that will ensure this change is implemented.
The landlord should provide this Service with a copy of the case review.