Call for Evidence on housing maintenance now open! Respond by 25 October 2024. Submit evidence online.

Places for People Group Limited (202220651)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220651

Places for People Group Limited

25 September 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 complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor quality works and delays to his bathroom renewal.
    2. The landlord’s lack of communication in relation to his decant.

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. In 2022, the landlord began completing planned bathroom renewals for some of its properties. The landlord explained to the resident that he would need to be decanted at the beginning of the works for two nights, as it needed to remove asbestos boards from the bathroom safely. The landlord sent a letter to the resident on 15 June 2022, confirming the schedule of works, which would commence on 29 June 2022. It stated that the works should be completed within 5-8 working days. The works were completed on 19 July 2022.
  3. The resident submitted a complaint on 3 August 2022. He complained about the quality of the works and the delay, the woks taking 15 working days to be completed. He also complained that the landlord had not arranged for temporary accommodation for the full extent of his decant, and that it had failed to communicate that he would not have anywhere to stay between 8am and 3pm on 30 June 2022.
  4. The landlord visited the resident on 12 August 2022 to assess the quality of works. It responded on 15 August 2022, stating that its original estimate of the timeframes was not inclusive of the asbestos removal. It concluded that the works overran by 4 working days, due to additional works having been identified. The landlord offered a total of £65 compensation for exceeding its original timescale. The landlord stated that most of the works were to an acceptable standard. However, it agreed that the grouting behind the shower, some of the tile edging and a hole left around the toilet soil pipe were below service standards. It explained that it would re-attend to rectify the works. The landlord apologised that the resident could only check into his room on 30 June 2022 at 3pm. It offered the resident £25 in recognition of his inconvenience.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 20 September 2022. He stated that the landlord had been delayed by 7 days, not the 4 days that it had stated in its response. The resident was unhappy that the majority of the works had been found to reach the landlord’s standard, stating that they were of poor quality.
  6. The landlord responded with its final response on 29 September 2022. It had reinvestigated the complaint, and agreed that the works had been delayed by 7 days. The landlord reviewed the quality of the works and maintained that the majority were up to standard, reiterating that it would reattend to complete those already identified. It offered an additional £30 for the 3 extra days delay, and £50 for the lack of clarity in its communication regarding the timescales. The landlord apologised that the resident had not been informed of the check in time for his hotel. It stated that it should have explained the booking to the resident, which would have identified any issues that needed to be rectified. The landlord offered an additional £125 compensation in recognition of the resident’s inconvenience and £50 for its lack of communication.
  7. In his complaint to this Service, the resident has stated that he is dissatisfied that the landlord has deemed the majority of the works to be up to standard. He does not wish for the landlord to return to rectify the works, and would like an alternative workman to complete the works.

Assessment

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of poor quality of works and delays to his bathroom renewal.

  1. Under the landlord’s tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order any installations provided by the landlord for sanitation and the supply of water, including basins, sinks, baths and toilets. Under the same agreement, the resident must allow the landlord, its employees and contractors acting on behalf of the landlord access at all reasonable hours of the daytime to inspect the condition of the premises, or to carry out repairs or other works to the premises.
  2. According to the landlord’s repair policy, a planned repair is non-urgent, and can consist of a replacement rather than a repair of a component. Timescales for the commencement and completion of works will be arranged within the landlord’s planned repair timescales, which is 90 days.
  3. The landlord began works on 29 June 2022, completing the works on 19 July 2022. This is within the 90-day timescale set out above. The landlord originally stated ‘‘that the works should be completed in approximately 5 to 8 working days’’. However, it identified further works to be completed during the works, such as the need to replace the climate control unit and further works to the walls, which needed to be dried out due to a small leak before tiling could commence.
  4. A delay is not always a failing if the landlord had a legitimate reason for the time taken. In-line with general customer service standards, the landlord would be expected to continue to manage the resident’s expectations, and to keep him updated on its repairs. In this case it was reasonable for the landlord to have identified and completed additional works, as this was necessary for the bathroom renewal to be completed.
  5. The landlord’s initial estimate regarding the works did not indicate an exact timescale, approximating that they would be completed in a maximum of 8 working days. However, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have made it clearer at the start of the works that this was an estimate and not a definite timescale. The landlord has also explained that it failed to factor in the asbestos removal in its projected timescales, which added an additional 3 working days to the works. Overall, the works took 15 working days, rather than 8 working days the resident had been led to expect. This would have caused inconvenience to the resident, as the landlord had failed to manage his expectations. This is a failing in the circumstances.
  6. The resident agreed that he was happy with the quality of the works 19 July 2022, yet submitted a complaint about the renewal’s standard on 3 August 2022. The resident complained that he was unhappy with the tiling, the shower grouting and poor decoration. He later added that he was unhappy that the landlord had not replaced the dividing wall which had been damp, and that the taps on his bathtub had been placed too close to the wall. It understandable that the resident may have found additional issues after the landlord left, or that he may have wished to make a report about the works. However, the landlord was not given an opportunity to put the works right before the resident made a formal complaint.
  7. Once the complaint was submitted, the landlord acted appropriately by contacting its contractors to investigate the resident’s reports of poor workmanship. In-line with general customer service, the landlord would be expected to assess the works, and to consider if any aspect fell below its policy standards. The landlord contacted the resident on 8 August 2022, arranging to inspect the works on 12 August 2022. The landlord considered the works, and concluded on 15 August 2022 that its contractor would reattend to undertake remedial works to a gap found by the soil pipe, the tiles behind the shower and the tiling edges. After its inspection, it concluded that the remainder of the works were up to its service standards. This was reasonable, as the landlord had fully considered the quality of the bathroom and found that it was up to an appropriate standard.
  8. In its complaint responses, the landlord acted appropriately by identifying its communication errors, and poor workmanship in this case. It apologised for the resident’s inconvenience, and explained what works would be rectified by its contractors. It also explained that it had inspected the other aspects and found that they were up to its service standards. In total it offered the resident £145 compensation, in recognition of the impact its failings had on the resident. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s response, which identified its errors, and attempted to put things right, offered suitable redress in the circumstances. The amount offered is also in-line with our remedies guidance, which can be found on our website.
  9. The resident has stated that he does not wish for the landlord’s contractors to complete the remedial works. The landlord is a social housing provider, and must balance its costs, with its obligations to residents. It is reasonable for the landlord to offer for its contractors to complete the works, as it will have a pre-existing service contract with them. The resident is expected to abide by his tenancy agreement, and allow access to the landlord to complete the remedial repairs.

The landlord’s lack of communication in relation to his decant.

  1. The landlord needed to remove asbestos from the resident’s bathroom safely. It acted appropriately by arranging for the resident to be decanted to a local hotel on 30 June 2022, for two nights, which was communicated to the resident on 8 June 2022. The resident was required to leave the property at 8am on the day of his decant, however, the landlord did not explain that the hotel room was only available from 3pm. The resident had not arranged an alternative place to go for that day, and was only able to walk around the town for the hours before check in. The resident has since explained that he has issues with his leg, which affects his mobility, causing discomfort.
  2. The landlord’s decant policy states that when arranging a decant, the landlord will consider a resident’s individual needs, and will adapt its approach for health and safety or mobility requirements. The landlord has explained that it did not have prior knowledge of the resident’s mobility needs. However, it has identified that it should have discussed the resident’s decant needs prior to the booking, to have highlighted any vulnerabilities or requirements. The landlord has also identified that it should have explained to the resident the time of his check in, which would have allowed other arrangements to have been made.
  3. The landlord acted appropriately in its complaint responses by identifying its lack of communication to the resident. It acknowledged the impact this had on him, and the inconvenience caused as a result. The landlord offered £150 compensation for the resident’s inconvenience on the day of his decant and a further £50 for its lack of communication. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord offer of £200, in addition to its actions of identifying its communication errors, and acknowledgement of the impact on the resident, offer sufficient redress in this case.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its response to the resident’s reports of poor quality works and delays to his bathroom renewal satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its lack of communication in relation to his decant satisfactorily.

Recommendations

  1. That the landlord pay the resident the £345 compensation it previously offered the resident, if this has not already been paid. The finding of reasonable redress being based on this payment being made to the resident.
  2. The landlord should contact the resident, and arranged to complete the remedial repairs laid out in its complaint response.