Platform Housing Group Limited (202304401)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304401

Platform Housing Group Limited

2 August 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
    1. Reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
    2. Request to be reimbursed for replacement carpets.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord in a 2 bedroom bungalow, and her tenancy started in March 2021. The landlord has recorded the resident, and her husband, as vulnerable due to suffering from health conditions that affect their mobility and cause “breathing difficulties”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord on 7 December 2022, and reported that since a recent boiler service there had been a “sound of running water” and the boiler would keep “firing up” on its own. She had not noticed any leaks, but asked the landlord to investigate. The landlord attended on multiple occasions throughout December 2022 and January 2023.
  3. On 27 January 2023, the resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak, and the associated repairs. She said it had not yet fixed the leak, and was unhappy about the time it had taken to resolve it. She reported that the ongoing leak had caused mould, which was causing damage to her personal possessions. The landlord fixed the leak on 1 February 2023.
  4. The landlord temporarily decanted the resident on 10 February 2023. The landlord arranged for a specialist damp surveyor to complete an inspection of the resident’s property on 23 February 2023. The inspection identified “rising damp” in the walls and recommended works to resolve the problem.
  5. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 1 March 2023. It upheld the resident’s complaint and said the “urgency” of the repair had not been “relayed clearly when booking the appointment”. It apologised for the delay in attending to the repair. It explained it had instructed a damp specialist surveyor to inspect the property, and it was awaiting quotes for proposed works. The landlord offered £500 in compensation for the delay, and the “distress and inconvenience” the issue caused.
  6. The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response, and asked her complaint to be taken to stage 2 on 8 March 2023. She said she disagreed with the landlord’s version of events described in its response, and was unhappy with its handling of the decant. She said she was asked to move to a smaller property with “no prior warning”.
  7. The landlord sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 14 April 2023. It set out the latest position on the damp works, and the remedial decoration works it had agreed with the resident. It said it hoped she could move back into the property in 4 to 6 weeks. It explained it was processing the resident’s claim for damage to personal property through its insurer. It explained it would cover the cost of replacing the carpets up to £650, and any additional costs would need to covered by the resident. It upheld the complaint, and made an increased offer of £1,000 in compensation in recognition of “overall impact and inconvenience”.
  8. The resident moved back in to her property around 9 June 2023 (the exact date is unclear). The resident contacted this Service on 30 November 2023 and asked us to investigate her complaint. She said she was unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the decant, and reimbursement for carpets. She explained the landlord had opened a new stage 1 complaint investigation, as she had complained the mould issue had returned. She expressed a concern that the conditions in the property were impacting on her and her husband’s health.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. Throughout her complaint, and when she brought her complaint to this Service in November 2023, the resident expressed a concern that the mould in the property was affecting her, and her husband’s health. This was due to them both suffering from COPD. The serious nature of this is acknowledged, and we do not seek to dispute the resident’s comments. However, this aspect of the resident’s complaint ultimately requires a determination of liability for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit.
  2. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
  3. The resident made a complaint in January 2023, and exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in April 2023. Therefore, this investigation has focused on the landlord’s handling of matter up to that point. It is noted the resident raised a concern that the damp and mould had returned, in November 2023. At the point we determined the complaint ‘duly made’ in November 2023, the landlord’s handling of matters around that time were subject to a live complaint.
  4. In line with the approach mandated by our Scheme, we are unable to assess the landlord’s handling of matters it has not had the opportunity to respond to as a complaint. Considering this, our investigation has focused on the events up until the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure in April 2023. If the resident remains unhappy with the landlord’s handling of matters after that time, she may wish to progress her complaint through the landlord’s complaints process, and we could then investigate once she has exhausted its complaint procedure.

Reports of a leak, and the associated repairs

  1. Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property, and keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation.
  2. Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
  3. The landlord’s decant policy states that it is likely it will need to temporarily decant a resident when it needs to complete damp proof works. The landlord’s damp and mould policy states that all reports of damp and mould will be “investigated quickly by a competent surveyor”.
  4. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has 2 categories of repair:
    1. Emergency repairs, which will be attended to within 24 hours.
    2. Appointed repairs, which residents will be offered a “mutually convenient” appointment.
  5. The landlord was first on notice about a possible leak from 7 December 2022. On each report the landlord completed repairs visits promptly, which was reasonable in the circumstances. However, the evidence also shows it missed opportunities to rectify the leak, did not investigate with the appropriate thoroughness, and there was an unreasonable delay in fixing the leak. The resident was evidently distressed at the leak, the delay increased that distress. The resident was also inconvenienced by the need to repeatedly raise the repair before it was fixed. This cost her time and trouble.
  6. The landlord’s repair records show that, on 11 January 2023, an operative visited and a noted that a further investigation of a possible leak was needed. There is no evidence to indicate this was followed up at the time. Indeed, the landlord’s own assessment of this visit, in an internal email in February 2023, stated that “no follow on was raised” as there was an existing job. The notes reflect there was no mention of a leak for the other job. This is evidence the landlord’s information management about the repair was poor. This was a failing in its handling of the matter, which increased the distress and inconvenience the resident experienced. She was cost further time and trouble of needing to raise the repair again.
  7. Once the landlord fixed the leak, it raised an inspection of the property with a specialist damp and mould surveyor. This is evidence that the landlord appropriately adopted the approach set out in its damp and mould policy and the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould. The evidence shows it promptly inspected, used an appropriate specialist to try and identify the “root cause” of the issue. This was appropriate in the circumstances. Given it was aware damp proof works were needed, it decided it needed to temporarily decant this resident, this was an appropriate application of its decant policy.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, of March 2023, offered a detailed assessment of its handling of the repairs and was transparent about failings it had identified. The stage 1 response showed learning and set out that would use its learning to improve its service for resident’s, this was appropriate in the circumstances.
  9. The stage 1 complaint response did not set out when it hoped to complete the repairs by, which was a shortcoming in its response. The resident was evidently distressed at having to move away from her home, and the landlord’s complaint response did little to manage her expectations. It is noted that the landlord was waiting for quotes from the surveyor. However, it did not set out when it hoped to be able to provide an update, or an indicative timeframe for the likely time she would be away from the property. This was a shortcoming in its response, which caused the resident an inconvenience.
  10. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, went some way to putting right the above shortcoming. The landlord set out when it hoped the resident would be able to move back in to her property, which is evidence it sought to manage the resident’s expectations and provide reassurance.
  11. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address the resident’s concerns that its version of events, set out in its stage 1 response, was inaccurate. Its comment that as “we are both in agreement” the complaint was “upheld”, and it would not provide a “further explanation”, was inappropriate. Given the resident had challenged its version of events, not to provide further detail was unreasonable. The resident was inconvenienced by the fact it did not use its final complaint response to address specific concerns she had.
  12. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response also offered no assessment of its handling of the temporary decant, which was unreasonable. The landlord said that its understanding of the complaint, in part, was that the resident was unhappy with its handling of the decant. While it is noted the landlord made an increased offer of compensation for its “overall” handling of the issue, that it did not address this concern was a failing. The lack of assessment means the landlord missed an opportunity to show learning and consider any further detriment the resident may have experienced. This was a failing in its handling of the matter and the resident was inconvenienced, again, by the landlord not addressing a specific concern she had raised.
  13. The resident moved back in to her property around the 9 June 2023, which was 8 weeks after the landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response. It is noted that this was outside of the indicative timeframe the landlord gave in its stage 2 complaint response. Due to the complexity of the work carried out, a further 2 week delay was not excessive. However, the detriment the resident experienced was increased due to a further 2 weeks away from her home.
  14. This Service welcomes the landlord’s decision to revisit its offers of compensation in order to try and put right its evident failings, and the detriment the resident experienced. However, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did not address 2 concerns the resident had raised in any detail. Also, at the time of its final offer of compensation the matter was outstanding and the resident was decanted for 2 weeks longer than its estimate. Considering these failings, and the detriment they caused, we have determined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter. As such, we have made a series of orders below.

 

Reimbursement for Carpets

  1. As outlined above, the scope of this investigation is to consider matters up to the point the resident exhausted the landlord’s complaint procedure in April 2023. As such we have considered the landlord’s position on the reimbursement for carpets as set out in its stage 2 complaint response. If the resident is unhappy with the landlord’s handling of the carpet issue beyond that point, she may wish to raise a further complaint with the landlord.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of April 2023, clearly set out that it would contribute “£650” towards the cost of the resident’s carpet. An internal email from April 2023, shows that this was based upon a quote from its carpet supplier supplied the measurements from the resident’s property. The evidence shows the landlord calculated its offer with the appropriate thoroughness, and was reasonable in the circumstances.
  3. The landlord used its stage 2 complaint response to manage the resident’s expectations about the cost of carpets. It stated that if the resident wanted a “higher specification [she] would be required to cover the additional cost”. The resident was evidently disappointed with the landlord’s position on the carpets. While her concerns are noted, the landlord set out its position with clarity and its approach was reasonable in the circumstances.
  4. The resident told this Service, in November 2023, that she the landlord said it would cover the cost of the carpets between “£2,000 and £2,500”. While we do not seek to dispute the resident’s claim, we have not seen any evidence to indicate the landlord gave this figure. As set out above, the landlord set out its position clearly in its stage 2 response, and we have seen no evidence to indicate its position changed in relation to the carpet reimbursement. As such, we have determined there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the matter.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, and the associated repairs.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to be reimbursed for replacement carpets.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the failings identified in this report.
    2. Pay the resident £1,150 in compensation, made up of:
      1. The £1,000 it offered for its handling of the leak issue (if it has not already done so).
      2. An additional £150 in recognition of the distress, and inconvenience, caused by its handling of the leak issue.
  2. Within 8 weeks the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its handling of the leak issue, it should identify points of learning to prevent similar failings happening again. Given its lack of consideration of the resident’s concerns raised in her complaint, the review must also consider:
    1. Its record keeping and communication around the repairs.
    2. Its handling of the temporary decant.
  3. The findings of the review must be shared with this Service, and the resident, also within 8 weeks.