Places for People Group Limited (202324732)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202324732

Places for People Group Limited

30 July 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 was about:
1. The landlords handling of sewage smells from the residents shower-room.
2. The landlords handling of other repairs needed to the resident’s property.
3. The landlords handling of the residents complaint and level of compensation offered.

Background

The resident occupied the 2-bed ground floor wheelchair adapted property under an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord. This was move-on accommodation, that he lived in with his partner and their 3-year-old son.
The residents partner has been nominated as his representative for this complaint. For ease of reference she will also be referred to as “the resident” for the purpose of this report.
The landlord had a managing agent (MA). This is a charity, which, provides temporary housing with additional care and support for people with spinal injuries. The tenancy agreement stated that, the landlord authorised the agent to manage the tenancy and co-ordinate the tenancy matters throughout the period of the tenancy, subject to the clauses set out within the tenancy agreement. The landlord carried out all maintenance and repairs.
There were vulnerabilities in the household which the landlord was aware of. The resident had significant spinal problems, which qualified him for occupation of this property and the support provided. He did not use a wheelchair. He and his partner had asthma, she also has serious bladder problems, but this was only declared to the landlord through the complaint process.
Prior to the residents complaint there was a problem with a re-occurring smell from the drainage in the wet room. The resident said her health was being impacted by the fumes and smell from the drainage. She said it was affecting her breathing and preventing her using the wet room. The landlord had responded to the reports and carried out remedial works, but the problem kept re-occurring.
The resident approached the agent with her concerns, who re-reported the problem to the landlord’s maintenance team, and wrote a letter of complaint on the residents behalf on 5 June 2023. The complaint was about the length of time it was taking to resolve the drainage issues, and the residents prolonged exposure to toxic fumes. It requested the root cause be identified and addressed.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 18 August 2023. It partially upheld the residents complaint as it had not responded in a timely manner, it had closed the complaint in error, following attendance by the landlords drainage operatives on the same day it was logged. It sincerely apologised for this and opened the complaint. It confirmed attendance and action taken 3 times between April and August 2023 to attend to the drains, but acknowledged the problem had not been resolved. A specialist drainage expert was attending 21 August 2023, to inspect with CCTV.
The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2, as she did not feel the landlord had fully understood that the complaint was not about the smell, but about the impact on her health. The ventilation issue had not been mentioned in the response, she had reported a number of repairs which had not been resolved. She set out the outcomes she wanted which were:
1. Proper ventilation in the bathroom.
2. Damp and mould inspected and resolved.
3. Supply ventilation masks.
4. Get to the root cause of her breathing difficulties.
5. Provide texts and emails regarding repairs visits in easy read format.
The landlord completed its stage 2 investigation and its final response on the matter, was to uphold the residents complaint. It apologised and offered a total of £700 compensation. This included £100 for lack of communication, time and trouble to chase repairs, £100 for failures in its complaint handling and £500 for distress and inconvenience for the delay in completing all the repairs.

Post Internal Complaints Procedure (ICP)

The resident complained on 18 December 2023, that the works and inspections raised following the stage 2 complaint investigation identified further works. The landlord had to return, and some were not going to be completed until January 2024, which the resident was not happy about.
On 17 April 2024, in the information it provided to the landlord, for the Ombudsman’s investigation, the agent had noted the residents had moved out in February 2024 of their own accord. They confirmed to the landlord that there was no damp or mould present and no sewage smells had been detected.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The residents complaint to this Service, said that the reported sewage smells in the property were having a harmful effect on her health, particularly her breathing.
The Ombudsman has no reason to doubt the residents views on this aspect of her complaint, but this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability, and does not have the authority to determine if there was a direct link between the landlords actions or inaction and any ill-health experienced by the resident. This is a matter better suited for the courts or an insurance/personal injury process
As a result this investigations focus, will be on, whether the landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s reports of the sewage smells. If the resident considers that her health has been impacted as a direct result of the landlord’s actions or inaction, then they can seek independent legal advice on making a claim through the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.
Also in the complaint to this Service the resident has asked the Ombudsman to consider a number of issues which were not raised or considered as part of the resident’s complaint to the landlord, and as a result were not responded to in the landlord’s complaint responses. These issues included:
1. Repairs to windows.
2. Repairs to communal bins.
3. Safety window restrictors.
4. Garden patio concrete edge.
5. Failure to make reasonable adjustments.
Paragraph 42 (a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints that are made before having been through the landlords full complaints procedure.
The matters listed in paragraph 14, were not included in the residents original complaint, so cannot be included in this investigation. The resident may wish to make a further complaint to the landlord if they remain dissatisfied with these matters.

The landlords handling of the sewage smell from the shower room.

The landlord has statutory repairing obligations for its rented properties, which is set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The act requires landlords to keep in repair and proper working order, the structure and exterior of the building (including drains, gutters and external pipes), as well as the installations for sanitation such as basins, showers, baths and toilets.
All repairs must be completed within a reasonable timeframe, the landlord’s responsive repairs policy has a timescale of 24 hours for emergency repairs and 28 days for non-emergency repairs.
The repairs records indicate that the resident reported a problem of a strong sewage smell coming from her wet room on 2 February 2023. She reported that it had become unbearable “like ammonia or rotten egg fumes” and was causing breathing difficulties, breathlessness and nausea.
This had been logged as a non-emergency repair, the landlord sent out contractors within 8 days on 10 February 2023, which was well within the 28-day timescale for this priority repair.
It does not appear from the records that the landlord was aware the residents suffered from asthma at this time, had it done so a quicker response time would have been expected.
It was still however, a shortcoming on the landlords part, not to consider a more urgent response when someone had reported fumes which were causing breathing difficulty, or at least to ask the resident whether there were health problems to assess any potential risk.
On 10 February 2023, the landlord said the contractors that attended could not find a fault. As a precaution it said it followed this up with a specialist drain clearance contractor who jet cleaned the drain, manholes, and stack, which cleared significant fat blockages. This was a reasonable response to the issue, from the landlord.
The resident reported that the smell from the bathroom had started again on 17 April 2023, re-iterating it was causing her breathing difficulties.
The operatives attended on 24 April 2023, checked all the seals inspected both the bathroom and kitchen, but reported that no smell could be detected. The landlord said it re-called the drainage specialist, to jet the drains to the residents home, which was appropriate. However the drains were found to be running clear and free from blockages.
The resident said that she continued to report re-occurrences of the smell and poor ventilation that was causing her breathing difficulties on 15 and 23 of May 2023. When she received no response from the landlord she made a formal complaint through her managing agent on 5 June 2023.
The managing agent complained about the ongoing issue at the property of a severe smell of sewage from the wet room. Although the MA did not declare the residents had asthma, she did advise this was causing them breathing difficulties to the extent the residents were wearing facemasks.
She acknowledged there had been several callouts since February 2023, but they had not been successful in resolving the issue. They raised their concerns about prolonged exposure to toxic fumes on the families health and the length of time it was taking to resolve. It noted that the extractor fan in the wet room was not functioning correctly.
In response, on the same day the landlord increased the priority and raised an emergency order for operatives to attend within 24 hrs. It was reported again no smells could be detected, but the drainage specialist was called in and they cleaned the inspection chamber. This was reasonable and within an appropriate response time for residents with medical problems.
The smells returned again on 10 July 2023, that day the drain specialist were called directly who jetted the manhole runs to clean and descale. The landlord had complied with its statutory repairing obligations, by attending to all reports of the smell/fumes from the resident.
Sewage smells and fumes are usually associated with problems from the drainage system, so it was appropriate for the landlord to call in drainage experts, which it did without hesitation. The landlord was also within its rights to rely on the advice of its expert contractors in how to address the issue.
In some instances, it is not always easy to detect where the root cause of a fault lies, and a process of elimination has to be gone through, which can take time. Whilst this can be really inconvenient and distressing for the resident, the landlord can only be expected to respond, refer to experts, rely on their advice and keep trying to get to the bottom of the problem. It was evident that the landlord did this.
When all efforts made by the landlord and its contractors had failed, it made the decision to commission a CCTV survey of the drains, which its stage 1 response said was booked for 18 August 2023, which was reasonable. This resulted in the need for a new interceptor cap to be fitted which the landlord completed on 31 August 2023, which was reasonable.
This action appeared to resolve the issue, but a few months later the smell of sewage was reported to have returned, (the exact date is unclear) .
In response the landlord said it called in a specialist ventilation contractor, who identified that a new extractor fan was required. This would have been appropriate, as a further process of elimination, had the extractor fan not already been reported as not functioning properly on 5 June 2023.
In accordance with its repairs policy, on report of the fan not functioning properly any fault found should have been addressed within 28 days. The landlords stage 2 response on 1 December 2023, stated a job had just been raised for replacement, which meant it was still outstanding after 180 days, which was not reasonable.
This was not reasonable; it did not meet the requirements of its repairs policy or its statutory repairing obligations. However the landlord acknowledged this failing in its stage 2 complaint response, it apologised and offered the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience for the delay in this repair and one other.
This was considered reasonable redress for a failure which had adversely affected the resident, but the detriment had been acknowledged and the matter was being put right. The amount of £500 was within the range the Ombudsman would recommend in these circumstances.
Overall the landlord responded to the sewage smells in the property in accordance with its repairing policy and its legal repairing obligations.
There were shortcomings in the initial prioritisation of the job raised, it was clear the gravity of the breathing issue were not understood. This was however addressed when the managing agent set out the health implications in her letter of complaint.
Nonetheless a health issue was raised resulting from the fault and there should have been more questions asked by the repairs team, and the risk assessed. The landlord needs to take lessons from this going forward.

The landlords handling of other repairs needed to the resident’s property.

The resident’s MA reported that damp and mould had appeared in the wet room on 21 August 2023. She advised both residents suffered with asthma. People with asthma can be more at risk of the effects of damp and mould than those without it.
Government guidance on addressing the health risks of damp and mould, requires that landlords always tackle the underlying issue promptly, and act with urgency when concerns have been raised about tenant health.
The landlords damp mould and condensation policy states that it will attend site to remove the immediate risk of mould spores and then investigate to identify the root cause.
There was no evidence that the landlord attended to clean the mould spores as per its policy. It did refer the residents case to its specialist damp contractor. Unfortunately the contractor had a backlog of inspections and there was an estimated wait of 45 days. While the backlog was unfortunate, and outside of the landlords control, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed, but there was no evidence that it did, which resulted in the resident approaching the councils housing enforcement team.
Being aware of the delay and that the residents had asthma, should have made removing the mould a priority for the landlord. There was no evidence it did, which was not reasonable.
A damp and mould survey was completed on 24 October 2024 and works were raised to replace the silicone seal, install an extractor fan and renew the bathroom light fitting, which was appropriate.
The landlord said that according to its records, a repair was raised for the residents backdoor in October 2022, it was passed to an external contractor, who said they could not make contact. As a result nothing further was done.
We have no reason to doubt the landlord, but this was not evidenced as the repairs records provided to this Service did not go back that far. Nevertheless, the landlord determined in its investigation that it should have done more to progress this to completion which was reasonable.
It accepted this failing, apologised to the resident and offered the resident £500, as mentioned earlier, for the distress and inconvenience for the delay in this repair and the extractor fan. This, for the reasons set out earlier in paragraph 40 and 41, was considered reasonable redress.
However, the landlord deviated from its damp and mould policy, in not attending to remove the mould when the residents were asthmatic and with the knowledge there was a backlog and delay on inspections, which was a service failing.

The landlords handling of the residents complaint and level of compensation offered.

In July 2020, the Housing Ombudsman published a new complaint handling code, with the purpose of enabling landlords to resolve complaints raised by their resident’s quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. All member landlords were required to complete a self-assessment against the Code and take appropriate action to ensure their complaint handling was in line with the Code, by 31 December 2020.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaint procedure, complaints need to be made within 6 months of the event occurring. Stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days from receipt and Stage 2 complaints should be responded to within 20 working days from receipt.
The resident made a complaint on 5 June 2023, through her MA. The complaint was not progressed in accordance with the landlords complaint handling policy. The response date passed, and the resident had to send 2 chase up emails through her MA throughout July 2023.
The landlord has admitted the complaint was mistakenly closed which meant it was not responded to until 18 August 2023, significantly exceeding its complaint policy response time of 10 days.
The landlord recognised this service failure in its stage 1 response, it apologised to the resident, which was appropriate, but it did not implement its compensation policy and consider any redress for the resident. For the amount of delay experienced by the resident this was not reasonable.
The resident escalated her complaint on 13 September 2023, she did not think the breathing difficulties that she had experienced had been fully considered, just the smell and it had failed to respond to the issue of ventilation.
The resident requested the landlord supply them with ventilation masks. This is not within the normal remit of a landlord, and the landlord advised it did not have a supply. However it offered to reimburse the resident if she wanted to supply her own, which was reasonable.
The Code, requires that landlords shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions.
The landlord had advised the resident in its stage 1 complaint response that it was unable to deal with the impact on the residents health, through its complaints procedure. If she outlined specifically what she wished to claim for and why she felt the landlord was at fault, it could pass the details to its insurers.
This was correct information and an appropriate response as not only had it advised her on the correct process, it was offering assistance.
However as the resident escalated her complaint because she did not think her health issue had been appropriately considered, this information should have been re-iterated in the stage 2 response.
The resident had raised the issue of a failing extractor fan in her complaint. This had been completely overlooked in the landlords complaint response, which was a failing. The poor–quality fan, was contributing to the containment of the sewage smell in the bathroom and the development of the damp and mould.
If the fan had been addressed in the complaint, some of the problems with the smell could have been alleviated 6 months earlier and the damp and mould could have been avoided.
The stage 2 complaint was responded to on 1 December 2023, which was 58 working days. This significantly exceeded the landlords 20 working day complaint policy response time, and was not code compliant.
The landlord recognised this service failing in it stage two review response, it appropriately apologised again and offered the resident £100 compensation.
Remedies should be commensurate to the distress and inconvenience caused. Having apologised to the resident for its failure to respond in time at stage 1, the landlord was unable to demonstrate that lessons had been learnt when it repeated the failing again at stage 2.
A consistent failure to adhere to timescales throughout the process, is something the landlord needs to address. This could be seen as the landlord placing a lack of importance on the process, increasing the risk of damage to the landlord tenant relationship and a lack of trust in the landlords complaints procedure.
The offer of £100 compensation was considered low for the level of complaint handling failings identified and detriment experienced by the resident, and was therefore, not a proportionate offer.
The landlord offered the resident £100 for the lack of communication, time and trouble to follow up on repairs, this offer was also considered low. The resident and her managing agent had to arrange numerous repeat call outs, chase up repairs make formal complaints and then chase up responses to those complaints. The amount of reports and correspondence between February 2023 and December 2023 in relation to getting the repairs resolved was considerable, £100 was not a proportionate offer for the time and trouble involved.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was service failure in the landlords handling of other repairs needed to the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was maladministration the landlords handling of the residents complaint and level of compensation offered.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord within 4 weeks:
1. Apologises to the resident for the failings identified in its handling of the damp and mould and the residents complaint.
2. Pays the resident the sum of £600 compensation, in addition to the £700 previously awarded (total £1300). This is broken down as follows:
  1. £100 for the failure to attend and remove mould in line with its policy.
  2. £300 – in addition to £100 previously offered for the landlords complaint handling failings identified in this report.
  3. £200 – in addition to £100 previously offered for the time and trouble to follow up on repairs.