Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202308691)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202308691

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

30 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repair issues in her property.

Background

The resident has been an assured tenant at the property of the landlord since around February 2017. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The resident has a mobility disability, which the landlord was aware of throughout the period of the complaint.
In or around August 2017, the resident expressed concerns about her kitchen floor being uneven. She also noted that the windows and doors in surrounding properties had recently been replaced. She therefore enquired why hers had not been replaced at this time. She also reported mould around the window seals. It is evident that she reiterated these concerns in October 2018; however, it is not evident she received a response.
In April 2021, the resident reported uneven paving in her garden, which she considered to be a trip hazard. It is not evident that any action was taken.
In or around May 2022, the landlord fitted a new kitchen in the property. The landlord’s internal communications noted that there were no signs of damp or mould at this time. In July 2022, the resident reported that following the kitchen replacement, there had been a flood in the kitchen as the contractor had not connected the pipes correctly. This had resulted in the floor warping, which she was concerned was a trip hazard. It is not evident that the landlord raised any works or inspections at this time.
On 9 May 2023, the resident raised a formal complaint about the outstanding repair issues in the property. Her complaint included the following:
1. She noted that the doors were draughty, and the thermostat was located near them. This was resulting in increased energy bills.
2. She reiterated that she had never been informed about why she had not received replacement windows or doors.
3. She noted concerns about damp on an external wall of the property. She noted that she had reported this to the kitchen contractors when the new kitchen was fitted, but that no action was taken.
4. She noted that the electricity meter was positioned very high in her kitchen, and she could not see or access it due to her disability.
5. She reiterated her concerns about the damage to the kitchen floor following the leak.
6. She expressed concerns about the functionality of her boiler.
7. She also noted her windows were in a poor state of repair and there was mould around them.
8. She further noted a ceiling stain due to water ingress near her chimney.
It is evident from the landlord’s internal communications that it began arranging some works following the complaint. In particular, it raised door works and the evidence shows that the landlord sought to expediate these works given the delays experienced by the resident.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 18 May 2023 and noted further issues, such as damage to the garden fence and that the resident wanted her garden sheds to be removed. It also raised works to inspect the boiler, garden paving stones, and the damp and mould. It further raised works to repair the windows, skirting board, and kitchen floor.
It is evident that the resident had reported her concerns to her local MP. On 22 May 2023, the landlord noted the action it was taken to the MP. It also advised it would need further time to investigate the complaint.
By 30 May 2023, it had completed a mould wash, repaired the windows, and cleared the gutters, which it hoped would address the ceiling leak and damp and mould. The shed roofs had also been removed by a specialist asbestos contractor. However, based on the communication between the parties, the resident was unclear what other repairs or inspections would be completed and when.
In June 2023, the landlord noted that the resident had installed UPVC panelling in her bathroom. It advised it had not approved this and that the resident would need to arrange for it to be removed in order for it to inspect the bathroom for damp and mould.
The landlord provided its stage one response on 5 June 2023, which included the following:
1. It noted new doors were to be installed on 7 July 2023. It did not provide a position on compensation for the increased heating bills.
2. It noted that following repairs, the windows were in reasonable condition. It noted this is why the property had not been included in a previous replacement programme.
3. It noted the resident had made a number of reports of damp and mould since she had moved into the property. It advised it had completed a mould wash and cleared the gutters to address this. It offered £250 for the delay in taking action.
4. It noted that a shelf beneath her electricity meter had not been installed correctly and advised that it would address this. It did not comment on the meter being inaccessible for the resident.
5. It noted that works had been raised for a new kitchen floor and apologised that this had not been addressed sooner when she had reported the issue to its contractors. It also offered £500 towards the damage to her carpet caused by the flood.
6. Regarding the damp stains, it noted that the resident had carried out her own plastering. It noted that the resident had not sought permission for these works but did offer £500 compensation. It also offered £70 towards further redecoration costs.
7. It also reiterated that the resident needed to remove the bathroom panelling for it to inspect in the bathroom.
8. It offered a further £180 for the resident’s overall distress and inconvenience. In total, it offered £1,500. It also advised that further inspections to the garden and the damp behind the kitchen cupboards had been raised.
The resident subsequently advised she was not satisfied with the landlord’s offer of compensation. She also noted that it had not addressed her concerns about the electricity meter being repositioned. She requested that her complaint be escalated.
In mid-June 2023, it is evident that the sheds were demolished; however, the resident noted that a lot of rubble had been left. It is not evident that she received a response. She also reported that damp had returned.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 21 June 2023. The landlord noted it had sought to discuss the outstanding issues of the complaint but that the resident only wished to discuss compensation. The response increased the landlord’s offer of compensation to £1,870. This was broken down as follows:
1. £250 for the inconvenience caused by damp and mould;
2. £500 for the damage to the resident’s carpet;
3. £270 towards ongoing redecoration;
4. £500 towards the resident’s plastering costs;
5. £350 for overall distress and inconvenience.
In August 2023, the landlord raised further inspections to the property. The resident has advised this service that various repair works remain ongoing. Since the stage two response, she has raised issues with the roof and noted that issues with damp are still present.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

As noted above, the resident is continuing to experience repair issues, some of which have been reported after the period of the complaint. The resident has been advised that, as these concerns have not proceeded through the landlord’s complaints process, these are outside the scope of this investigation as per paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme. The resident may be able to raise these concerns as a new complaint with the landlord should she remain dissatisfied.
Similarly, in her discussions with this service, the resident raised concerns about issues going back seven years, including the information given when she signed up for the property. In accordance with paragraph 42(c) the Scheme, the Ombudsman is limited to investigation of issues which occurred within a reasonable period of being raised as a formal complaint. At the time of the complaint in question, this period was deemed to be six months. This investigation will, therefore, only focus on events within this timeframe. Any mention of earlier events is for context only.

Policies and procedures

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy. The policy notes that non-urgent repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The policy also notes that a resident’s circumstances, such as their disability, will be taken into account when delivering services.

Repairs

While the events from prior to the period of the complaint are outside of the scope of this investigation, it is evident that the resident had been reporting a number of concerns for a significant period. While the landlord evidently completed various repair works over this period, several concerns, such as why she had not received an upgrade to her windows and doors, went without answer. This overall lack of prompt action and poor communication was identified by the landlord during its complaint investigation, where it noted “it does appear that the tenant has been treated badly at times.”
As noted above, routine repairs should be completed within 20 working days. The landlord has acknowledged that this frequently did not happen. In particular, it noted that the reports of issues with mould, such as mould in the window seals, went unattended to. The resident noted that on some occasions, these reports were made through its contractors while they were completing other works. The reports were not then forwarded on to the relevant team or otherwise went unrecorded. It may be the case that the landlord does not have systems in place for contractors to raise works on the landlord’s behalf; however, it is not evident that relevant information was passed on. This represents a failing in the landlord’s systems and record keeping, which led to delays to action being taken.
The landlord’s policy also notes that it will take into account the vulnerabilities of the resident. In this case, the resident frequently made reference to her mobility issues and the impact the repair issues were having on her. In particular, she raised concerns that the uneven paving slabs outside and the uneven flooring in the kitchen were a potential trip hazard. Where such concerns are raised, the landlord should consider what expediated steps it could take or what mitigating steps or advice it could offer while repairs are arranged. This did not happen in this case. In fact, while it did arrange for floor works, this took several months to be completed, and there were often times where it did not keep the resident informed of dates for works, which led her to have to expend time and trouble chasing updates. The Ombudsman notes that in its formal response, the landlord apologised for this failure and also offered compensation in relation to the damage to the carpet caused by the flood, which was appropriate in the circumstances.
Additionally, the resident raised concerns about the paving stones in her garden. It is evident this was raised long before the period of the complaint, but was left unaddressed, despite the resident’s mobility concerns. When the landlord did acknowledge the issue, it took several inspections before the landlord took action, and once again, the resident had to chase updates regarding the arrangements. The resident has since informed this service that she is unhappy about the quality of the repair works. While this concern is outside of the scope of this investigation, a recommendation in relation to this has been made further below.
Similarly, the landlord misunderstood the resident’s concerns about her electricity meter. She made it clear on a number of occasions that her disability meant she could not read it at the height it was positioned. However, in its stage one response, the landlord only mentioned that it would reinstall a shelf next to the meter. This was not the resident’s concern, which demonstrated a failing in the landlord’s complaint investigation. Despite the resident noting this concern again in her escalation request, the landlord did not address it in its stage two response or any other communication. The resident has since advised this service that this issue has been discussed but that the landlord has indicated it will be difficult. A recommendation has been made in relation to this further below.
Regarding the removal of the sheds, it was appropriate that the landlord addressed this once raised by the resident as part of her complaint, and it was reasonable that it took some time due to the need for specialist asbestos contractors. However, while it was appropriate that they were removed, it is evident that there was rubbish left behind, which meant the resident had to expend further time and trouble chasing this issue.
Regarding the damp and mould in the property, while the mould described was not significant, the landlord nevertheless has a responsibility to satisfy itself as to the cause of the issue and take reasonable action, or otherwise give the resident advice about how to prevent it. The landlord has acknowledged that it delayed in acknowledging the resident’s reports or taking action. It appropriately recognised the impact this had on the resident and offered compensation, which has been assessed further below. It further arranged for a mould wash and for works to be undertaken to clear the gutter, which it surmised at the time to be the source of the issue. While the resident has since reported a return of the issue, this was an appropriate step at the time of the complaint.
It is not disputed that the resident completed some redecoration and replastering works at her own expense. The Ombudsman understands why the resident completed these works as she was having issues with bubbling plaster and mould in her bathroom. However, this service has not been provided with evidence that the resident alerted the landlord to the fact she was undertaking these works or that it had the opportunity to respond prior to them being completed. While it may be the case that the resident was experiencing delays with the landlord’s overall repair action, it is not evident that she sought to raise a formal complaint prior to taking on this expense herself. In such circumstances, it would not be reasonable for the landlord to have to cover the costs, as it may have been able to complete the works at a lower cost itself. Nevertheless, it was appropriate in this case that the landlord recognised this had caused the resident inconvenience, and that it offered compensation as a gesture of goodwill to cover some of her costs.
The same applies to the panelling in the bathroom, and it was reasonable that the landlord requested that this be removed to assist in its inspections. However, given that the resident had advised this was difficult due to her disability, the landlord should have provided a position about what assistance it could provide, which it did not do.
While the landlord’s stage one response covered many of the repair issues raised, it failed to comment on all of the concerns raised by the resident. In particular, the resident requested compensation related to increased heating bills. The landlord appropriately provided information about the replacement of the doors but failed to provide a position on whether the previous doors contributed to a loss of heating. The landlord’s surveyor reported that the door hinges were damaged and did not report that they were not fit for purpose with regards to heating. Nevertheless, the landlord should have responded to the resident to make its position clear on this matter, which it did not do.
Additionally, while the landlord sought to discuss the outstanding issues as part of its stage two response, it noted that the resident was primarily concerned with its offer of compensation. It was nevertheless aware that there were outstanding repairs, and it failed to formally set out its position on these, regardless of whether the resident had wished to discuss it. The formal complaint response is the landlord’s platform to set out exactly what it is doing to resolve a complaint, which ultimately creates an audit trail for the Ombudsman’s investigation (the landlord even specifically noted it was the resident’s intention to refer this case to this service). Its failure to set out all its intended actions to resolve the complaint was a missed opportunity.
The Ombudsman notes that there were a significant number of differing repair issues in this case, which were difficult for the parties to keep track of, and which evolved over time. The resident has complained of the number of different inspections and visits she has had, sometimes without prior warning. Similarly, the landlord’s internal communications show confusion amongst staff about what was booked for when. In such circumstances, especially where there is a vulnerable resident and a history of service failure, it is best practice for a landlord to assign a single point of contact to clearly define the outstanding repairs and to provide regular updates to the resident. The landlord missed the opportunity to take ownership of this case, however, which caused the resident ongoing distress and inconvenience.
In summary, there were acknowledged failings in this case to take action at the earliest opportunity and to communicate effectively. The Ombudsman has also identified failings with the landlord’s approach as it did not take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities or complete a thorough complaint investigation. Additionally, it failed to take effective ownership of the repairs, leading to further distress and inconvenience.
In its formal responses, the landlord did acknowledge some of its failings and the impact this had on the resident. It also offered compensation. As noted above, it was appropriate that it used its discretion to offer £500 towards the costs of replastering and an additional £270 towards any other redecoration. It also appropriately offered £500 towards the damage to the carpet. Regarding the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in addressing the damp and mould, it offered £250. For the overall distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the case and poor communication, it offered £350. This service’s remedies guidance notes that for instances of maladministration where the failing adversely effects a resident, but there has been some recognition and attempt to put things right, an offer of compensation from £100 is appropriate. In this case, while there has been distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, the landlord’s offer was in line with this service’s guidance and was proportionate for the failings during the period of the complaint. A finding of reasonable redress has therefore been made. The Ombudsman wishes to clarify that this finding is not a finding of no maladministration, and there were failures in the service provided identified in this case.
The Ombudsman further notes that the resident continues to experience repair issues and has expressed frustration with the landlord’s ongoing service. A recommendation has therefore been made below to address this.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its service failure in respect of the complaints regarding its response to the resident’s reports about repair issues in her property.

Recommendations

The landlord is to reiterate its offer of compensation, if this is yet to have been accepted.
The landlord is to assign a single point of contact for the resident to take ownership of the remaining repair issues. The point of contact is to discuss all outstanding repair issues, including any damp and mould, quality issues with the garden paving repair, and the positioning of the electrical meter. An itemised list of all outstanding repair issues should be agreed upon, and the point of contact should provide weekly updates until the issues are completed, including timeframes and appointment dates.