Platform Housing Group Limited (202212978)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212978

Platform Housing 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

  1. The complaint is about:
    1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
    2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the front door.
    3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
    4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet drain.
    5. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a dislodged roof pipe and leak.
    6. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the central heating system.
    7. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its contractor damaged her CCTV equipment.
    8. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant. The property is a 2-bedroom house. There are no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on the housing records, although she has told the landlord her daughter is allergic to mould.
  2. The resident told the landlord on 8 September 2022 that a pipe in the loft space was dislodged and she could see light coming through the roof. She reported a leak on 23 October 2022 and said the ceiling in her daughter’s bedroom was cracked and water was coming down the wall. She also said the extractor fan in the bathroom was wet and there were issues with the front door and the heating system. In particular she noted the upstairs radiators were not working properly. The resident also noted she was still experiencing ASB and her neighbour had damaged her fence. She told the landlord on 24 October 2022 that the situation was affecting her daughter’s health and her own mental health.
  3. The resident made a complaint on 27 October 2022. She said there was mould in the property and there were still issues with the front door and heating system. She also said she had not received a response to her reports of ASB and noted the bathroom ceiling was wet. She told the landlord on 29 October 2022 that her CCTV equipment had been damaged by its contractor.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 2 December 2022. It said:
    1. It would not investigate the resident’s complaints about the heating or the front door as these issues had been investigated and determined by the housing ombudsman. Her complaint about ASB was currently being investigated by the housing ombudsman.
    2. There was a slight gap around the ventilation pipe which exited through the roof and whilst this was not unusual, it would arrange for the pipe to be sealed and the insulation relayed.
    3. The ceilings in the bathroom and bedroom were slightly discoloured and it would offer decoration vouchers for this as a good will gesture.
    4. It could not determine if its contractor had damaged the CCTV system due to the number of wires surrounding it.
  5. The resident told this Service on 20 April 2023 that a number of repairs were outstanding and that she had been subject to ASB. She also said the landlord’s contractor damaged her CCTV system. Her representative told the landlord on 21 April 2023 that the heating was not working correctly, there was mould around the bedroom windows and the bathroom ceiling was cracking. She also said the downstairs toilet was blocked and the front door was still wet. The resident asked for these issues to be added to her complaint on the same day.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 June 2023. It said:
    1. The resident’s complaint was acknowledged and investigated in line with its complaints policy.
    2. A number of roof tiles were re-seated and repaired on 24 October 2022. The gutters were also cleaned.
    3. Its contractor attended on 18 May 2023 and completed all of the outstanding work apart from power flushing the central heating system. This would be completed on 16 June 2023.
    4. The resident’s complaints about the front door and blocked toilet had been determined by the housing ombudsman.
    5. The resident had confirmed the drain was cleared and free flowing and it could find no evidence of mould under the window sealant.
    6. The resident’s complaint about ASB was under investigation by the housing ombudsman and it was unable to comment further. It would, however, offer £100 compensation in recognition of the delays in completing a management move assessment.
    7. Whilst there was insufficient evidence its contractor had damaged the resident’s CCTV equipment, it would offer £100 as a goodwill gesture towards the cost of repairs.
  7. The resident’s complaint was accepted by this Service on 15 April 2024. She said the repairs to the roof had been completed but noted she still had problems with the central heating system.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about damp and mould. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about damp and mould was determined by this Service on 4 January 2022 (case number 202010154).
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about repairs to the front door. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about repairs to the front door was determined by this Service on 4 January 2022 (case number 202010154).
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about ASB. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about ASB was determined by this Service on 18 August 2023 (case number 202206533).
  5. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this Service will not investigate the resident’s complaint about blocked drains. This is because the Ombudsman may not consider complaints that in the Ombudsman’s opinion, ‘seek to raise again matters which the Housing Ombudsman, or any other Ombudsman has already decided upon.’ In this case, the resident’s complaint about blocked drains was determined by this Service on 4 January 2022 (case number 202010154).

Scope of the investigation.

  1. In considering the landlord’s response to the issues raised by the resident, it is noted that she said her daughter’s health was affected by the delays in carrying out repairs. Whilst these concerns have been referenced in this report, it should be noted that this Service is not in a position to make findings on such matters, as this would be more appropriate for a court to consider. In this respect, the resident is advised to seek legal advice if she wishes to take her concerns further.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of problems with the central heating system.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 23 October 2022 that the central heating was not working correctly and no one had been in contact with her even though she had raised the matter previously. She said only 1 radiator was working upstairs and she wanted the control panel moving to a more accessible position. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s report or her subsequent e-mail of 27 October 2022 in which she raised concerns again about the radiators. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
  2. The landlord told the resident on 2 December 2022 that her complaint about the heating system had previously been investigated by this Service and it had been determined that whilst there were errors with the initial installation of the central heating system, there was ‘‘sufficient control for her to utilise it effectively.’’ It is unclear why these comments were made given no determination had been made by this Service. This caused confusion, led to delays and meant the resident’s concerns were not investigated. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm it would not re-pipe the upstairs plumbing.
  3. The housing records confirm a repair was ordered on 12 January 2023 following a report from the resident that the radiators were not warming up. Whilst the landlord attended on 13 January 2023 in accordance with its repairs policy, it is unclear what work, if any was carried out. The resident contacted the landlord again on the same day and said she had no heating.
  4. The housing records confirm the landlord’s contractor attended on 16 January 2023 and no faults were identified with the central heating system. The resident was advised to turn up the thermostat. She contacted the landlord again on the same day and said the operative was rude and did not check the upstairs radiators. She asked for a different operative to attend, given the radiators were not warming up. It is unclear from the housing records whether this request was facilitated.
  5. The resident told the landlord again on 21 April 2023 that the radiators were not warming up correctly and said the central heating system should be controlled by just one control panel, rather than by the 2 that had been fitted.
  6. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for its contractor to attend on 18 May 2023 to check the central heating system. This identified that the central heating system needed to be flushed. An appointment was arranged for this to be completed on 16 June 2023.
  7. In summary, the landlord initially failed to respond to the resident’s reports about the radiators and provided incorrect information regarding this Service is involvement in the case. It did, however, later respond to her reports and confirmed there were no issues with the central heating system. It also agreed to arrange for the central heating system to be flushed given the resident’s ongoing concerns. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the central heating system.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a dislodged roof pipe and leak.

  1. It is important to note that accurate record keeping is essential and helps ensure landlords meet their repairing obligations. It also ensures accurate information is provided to residents. As a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord also has an obligation to provide this Service with sufficient information to enable a thorough investigation to be undertaken. In this case, the records provided by the landlord were confusing and its poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. This is a failure and an order has been made below in this regard.
  2. The housing records confirm the resident contacted the landlord on 8 September 2022 and said a pipe in the attic was dislodged and she could see daylight through the roof. She asked the landlord if it would compensate her for the delay in completing the work and for using her electricity. She told the landlord on 23 October 2022 there was a crack in her daughter’s bedroom ceiling and water was dripping down the wall. She also said the ceiling in the bathroom was wet. The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence confirming a repair was raised or if it assessed the resident’s request. Its repairs and maintenance policy says it will do this.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 24 October 2022 that she was waiting for a roofer to attend and she could still see daylight through the pipe vent, even though the landlord had previously fixed it. Whilst she noted an electrician had visited that day, the landlord has not provided this Service with any information detailing what work was carried out. There is no evidence the landlord attended to inspect or repair the roof following the resident’s report of a leak. This was a failure to adhere to its repairs and maintenance policy which says it will attend to emergencies within 24 hours. Severe leaks are considered emergencies.
  4. The resident contacted the landlord again on 25 October 2022 and said no one had attended to resolve the roof leak and water was coming in through the dislodged pipe, which she said was supposed to have been fixed the previous year. She said she reported the leak on 23 October 2022 and the landlord had agreed to attend within 24 hours. She also said she contacted the landlord again on 24 October 2022 and was told someone would attend on that day. The landlord’s failure to attend meant it did not meet its repairing obligations as set out in the resident’s tenancy agreement. This says it is responsible for maintaining the structure of the building including the roof. It is also responsible for internal walls and plaster work. Neither did it meet the repair targets set out in its repairs policy.
  5. It is unclear from the housing records when the repairs to the roof were carried out. There is also no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s emails of 29 October 2022 and 1 November 2022 in which she noted no one had contacted her regarding fixing the dislodged pipe in the roof space. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
  6. The housing records confirm the landlord contacted the resident on 17 November 2022 and said the roof had been repaired and there had been no further leaks. The resident told the landlord the dislodged pipe had not been sealed and she could still see daylight through the roof. It arranged for a surveyor to attend on 25 November 2022, although no details were provided to this Service setting out what works were identified and ordered following the visit. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord.
  7. The landlord confirmed on 2 December 2022 that there was a slight gap around the ventilation pipe which exited through the roof space. It said this was not unusual and it could be sealed, although it is unclear from the housing records if, and when the pipe was sealed. This demonstrates poor record keeping by the landlord. It also noted the ceilings in the bedroom and bathroom were slightly discoloured. The landlord offered the resident decorating vouchers as a goodwill gesture. This was not appropriate given the landlord had an obligation to make good the decoration following the repair. In this case, the landlord has not evidenced it completed the work in accordance with its repairs policy. ,
  8. The landlord confirmed on 13 June 2023 that a job was raised on 24 October 2022 to investigate the roof leak. It said a number of roof tiles were re–seated and repaired on the same day, although it has not provided this Service with any evidence confirming this. It also said the gutters were cleared but again failed to provide this Service with any evidence. It did not address the resident’s concerns about the dislodged pipe. This was a failure on the part of the landlord.
  9. In summary, the landlord’s poor record keeping has made it difficult to determine whether its actions were fair and reasonable in the circumstances. It is evident the situation caused the resident distress and inconvenience as she was concerned for her daughter’s health. In this case, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a dislodged pipe and leak, for which it is ordered to pay £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that its contractor damaged her CCTV equipment.

  1. Whilst this Service has noted the resident’s claim for damages for her CCTV equipment, such matters are best dealt with by the courts. We have, however, investigated the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for the landlord to repair her CCTV equipment and whether it acted fairly, reasonably and in line with its policies and procedures.
  2. The housing records confirm the resident told the landlord on 29 October 2022 that its contractor had damaged her CCTV equipment whilst repairing the roof. She asked the landlord to fix the camera as an emergency and said no one had contacted her despite agreeing to do so. There is no evidence the landlord responded to the resident’s e-mail or her subsequent email sent on 1 November 2022. This meant it failed to manage the resident’s expectations. This was a service failure on the part of the landlord.
  3. It was reasonable for the landlord to agree on 1 November 2022 to visit the resident on 25 November 2022. This demonstrated it wanted to put things right for her. There is, however, no evidence the resident was advised to make a claim on her home contents insurance policy. The landlord’s compensation policy says it will do this. This was a failure.
  4. The landlord attended on 25 November 2022 and said the CCTV signal could be intermittent given there were a number of possessions around the equipment and an extension lead was used to supply the electricity. It also said it was impossible to confirm whether the equipment had been damaged by its contractors.
  5. It was reasonable for the landlord to confirm on 2 December 2022 that it had been unable to determine whether its contractor had damaged the wire to the CCTV camera. It said this was because there were a number of items surrounding the wires. There is no evidence the landlord told the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance or through its building insurance. This was a failure.
  6. The resident told this Service on 20 April 2023 that she had evidence the landlord’s contractor had damaged her CCTV equipment and she wanted reimbursing for the damage.
  7. The landlord confirmed on 13 June 2023 in its final complaint response that there was insufficient evidence to support the resident’s claim that its contractor damaged her CCTV equipment. It offered her £100 towards the cost of repairs as a goodwill gesture. This offer was reasonable in the circumstances and demonstrated the landlord wanted to put things right for the resident. It is, however, unclear from the housing records whether this offer was accepted by the resident.
  8. In summary, the landlord’s communication was initially poor and it did not advise the resident to make a claim on her home contents insurance or through its building insurance. There is also no evidence it learnt from the complaint. It did, however, later carry out an inspection and confirmed there was no evidence to suggest its contractor had damaged the CCTV equipment. Its offer of compensation was fair in the circumstances and demonstrated it wanted to put things right for the resident. In this case, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports that its contractor damaged her CCTV equipment. As such, we will not be making an award for additional compensation.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

  1. The housing records confirm the resident made a complaint on 27 October 2022. The complaint was acknowledged on 3 November 2022 in accordance with the landlord’s complaints policy. It confirmed the nature of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. This was in accordance with the housing ombudsman’s complaints handling code (the Code). The landlord confirmed it would send a response by 17 November 2022.
  2. The landlord did not issue its stage 1 complaint until 2 December 2022. This was outside the 10-working day target set out in its complaints policy. There is no evidence the landlord contacted the resident to confirm there would be a delay in responding. This was not in accordance with its complaints policy or the Code. It was appropriate for the landlord to confirm which elements of the resident’s complaint would not be investigated given the matters had previously been determined by this Service. It did, however, give misleading information regarding this Service’s involvement in the resident’s complaint about the central heating system. This was not appropriate and caused confusion.
  3. The resident told the landlord on 21 April 2023 that she would like a number of new issues adding to her complaint. This included issues with the central heating, problems with antisocial behaviour, mould on the bedroom window and a blocked toilet.
  4. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 27 April 2023 in accordance with its complaints policy. It confirmed the nature of the complaint and the outcomes the resident was seeking. It also said it would provide a response by 30 May 2023.
  5. Whilst the landlord contacted the resident and said it needed more time to carry out its investigation into her complaint, it did not do this until the day the complaint response was due.
  6. The landlord issued its final complaint response on 13 June 2023. It said it investigated the resident’s complaint in line with its complaints policy and confirmed which elements of the complaint were not investigated given they had previously been determined by this Service. This was appropriate, provided clarity and ensured it managed the resident’s expectations. It offered the resident £100 towards the cost of repairing the CCTV equipment and £100 for the delay in completing a management move assessment. Whilst this offer was fair in the circumstances, it did not offer compensation for the delay in issuing its final complaint response.
  7. In summary, in the main the landlord handled the resident’s complaint in accordance with its complaints policy. There was, however, a delay in issuing its final complaint response and it did not notify the resident of this until the day the response was due. In this case, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about damp and mould is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the front door is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s reports of blocked drains. is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 42(l) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about ASB is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord its handling of the resident’s reports of problems with the central heating system.
  6. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a dislodged pipe and leak.
  7. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the residents reports that its contractor damaged her CCTV equipment.
  8. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to offer a written apology to the resident for the failings set out in this report. A copy of the apology must be shared with this Service.
  2. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £650 compensation. This must be paid directly to the resident and made up as follows:
    1. £500 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her reports of a dislodged pipe and leak.
    2. £50 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident in its handling of her complaint.
    3. £100 compensation previously offered to the resident for the delay in completing a management move assessment, if not already done so.
  3. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to contact the resident and confirm the position regarding the central heating system and order any necessary work, as appropriate.

Recommendations

  1. Pay the £100 compensation previously offered to the resident towards the cost of repairing the CCTV equipment, if not already done so.