Settle Group (202000097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202000097

Settle Group

10 December 2021

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 landlord’s response to reports of mould, damp walls, and ceilings.
2. The landlord’s response to concerns about the boiler’s low pressure and a leak from a radiator.
3. The landlord’s response to a request for compensation for damage to the carpet following a leak.

Background and summary of events

Background

4. The resident is an assured tenant of a 1 bed flat.
5. The tenancy agreement notes that the landlord will carry out inspections of the property in order to establish repairs and will be responsible for repairs relating to heating and hot water (boiler) and windows. It notes the resident must grant access to its contractors to carry out any works or inspections and the resident will be given a minimum of 24 hours’ notice. It notes it is not responsible for any disrepair that has not been reported. It advises if access is not granted it will apply to the court for an injunction to gain access.
6. The landlord’s Repairs and Maintenance policy notes to cover any accidental damage to items in the home it strongly suggests residents get contents insurance.

Summary of events

7. In April the resident contacted Environmental Health reporting disrepair as a result of a leak he noted had been repaired. Environmental health contacted the landlord. The landlord advised that reports in March, relating to the shower had been attended to within 24 hours, but one appointment had been cancelled by the resident. The resident then reported the same incident and the landlord advised it was unable to book a 24-hour appointment if he was not at the property. A note was made to authorise the call out once the resident confirmed he was at the property. The resident did not call back that day but did the following week and a same day appointment was arranged and attended.
8. On 27 May, the resident complained to the landlord that there was damp to the walls, floors, and ceilings from leaks, which had also damaged his carpet. He referred to bugs under the carpet and defective windows and doors, broken electrical fittings, a faulty gas boiler which had left him without heating or hot water for periods of time (the Ombudsman notes this is a historic matter which occurred in 2018). He noted the property was cold and overcrowded, given his son had also moved in with him.
9. The resident noted that a leak had occurred on 6 March, and he contacted the landlord on 9 March and the issue was not resolved until 19 March, longer than the stipulated 24 hours. He requested £800 for damage to his carpet, from the historic issue. The resident noted that the landlord had attended the property in April to investigate the cause of the leak which had since been repaired but could not gain access, so had called him to advise as such and for him to contact back. He advised that he sought rehousing and would not be allowing access.
10. On 10 June, the landlord provided its stage 1 response. It noted that in relation to the:
    1. Repair issues: there had been no previous reports of damp mould, defective windows and doors or damage from leaks. It advised it was unable to undertake routine inspections due to the pandemic restrictions, but it would arrange an inspection and consider the £800 compensation request when restrictions were eased. It referred to the historic works in the bathroom in 2018.It advised that the two blockages reported in March had been attended to and cleared the following day of the reports and in line with its 24-hour emergency repair.
    2. Heating: Again, it referred to historic matters with the boiler in 2018 noting there had been no further reports of no heating or hot water. It advised the resident to contact it if there were issues and it would respond.
11. Also in June, the landlord was contacted by Environmental Health noting concerns for the resident. It advised that whilst it was not carrying out visits due to the pandemic restrictions, it had two appointments booked for a gas service and to rectify a leak on the radiator. It requested that the contractors report any concerns following these visits and it would add the resident to the ‘safe and well’ check list, and explore what support it could offer. The landlord noted that access had been refused to carry out the gas check and repairs.
12. In July, the gas check was completed, and the boiler was certified as working. The landlord later attended the property with Environmental Health; however, access was not granted. The resident responded to the landlord’s stage 1 response noting it had failed to attend to the leaks in March within 24 hours and that he would not be allowing access until he moved from the property.
13. In August, the landlord advised the resident that it would be attending on 1 September to inspect the property, given the previous access refusal. In September, the landlord was unable to inspect the property as access was denied again. The landlord then sought an injunction, and this was granted on 7 September for access to carry out repairs. The landlord provided a copy to the resident advising that it would be attending on 1 October, and he would need to grant access in line with the injunction. Access was granted.
14. On 5 October, the landlord provided its final response following a visit to the property on 1 October and calls to the resident to discuss the repairs needed. It noted:
    1. Damp walls and ceilings: that whilst there was a small patch of staining in the hallway indicating a leak in the past, moisture readings showed the ceiling was dry, the leak in the above property had been fixed and there was no evidence of water ingress in any part of the property. It noted surface mould in the bathroom as a result of a jammed window and faulty extractor fan. It advised it would repair both to allow air into the bathroom and clean the mould. There was a small area of damp in the cupboard as a result of water seeping through the bathroom tiles when the shower was in use. It advised it would repair the tiles and provide a humidifier to dry the cupboard.
    2. Heating: that the boiler pressure was low and there was a small leak on one radiator meaning the heating was not as efficient. It advised it would repair both to also help with stopping mould growth.
    3. Compensation: that whilst the resident sought £800 compensation for the carpet damaged by the leak, there was no carpet in the hallway or evidence of bugs. It acknowledged the leak was historic and the resident may have disposed of the carpet, but that he had not advised it of the issue at the time and it needed evidence, like photographs, that the carpet was there and was damaged by the leak. It would then consider compensation.
15. It explained it would provide appointments for all repairs and the resident would need to grant access, however he had refused an appointment to repair the boiler noting he was moving home. The landlord explained it had no record of him moving, but would support him if he contacted it as soon as possible.

Assessment and findings

16. Following the resident’s reports of mould and damp in the property, and boiler issues, the landlord sought to arrange an inspection. Whilst it was unable to do so sooner due to the lockdown restrictions, it did note that there was a pre-arranged gas safety inspection and boiler repair booked, where it would ask its contractors to assess the property. The boiler inspection was completed and noted as being in working condition, with a minor repair needed. The landlord sought to address this repair two days later, however access was refused.
17. The landlord continuously attempted access to the property however the resident continued obstructing this. This led to the landlord seeking an injunction to gain access. This was in line with the tenancy agreement. Once the landlord was able to gain access, it set out the repairs it would be carrying out to address the mould and damp issues and the boiler repair. This was reasonable in the circumstances given that access had been delayed by the resident, therefore the landlord was not responsible for the time taken to address the issues.
18. In relation to the compensation for the resident’s carpet, the Ombudsman notes the alleged damage related to a historic incident, which the Ombudsman has not assessed as part of this complaint; given the lapse of time. However, it was reasonable for the landlord to consider the resident’s request, especially since it clearly notes that residents are encouraged to take out contents insurance for such eventualities. Additionally, while the landlord stated it would consider this, in order to do so it required evidence of the carpet’s existence and damage caused, as the resident had not previously raised the matter. This request was also reasonable.

Determination (decision)

19. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration with the landlord’s response to the resident’s:
    1. reports of mould, damp walls, and ceilings.
    2. concerns about the boiler’s low pressure and a leak from a radiator.
    3. request for compensation for damage to the carpet following a leak.

Reasons

20. The landlord responded appropriately to the resident’s concerns, but was limited in the action it could take given the lack of access.
21. The landlord appropriately arranged inspections in order to determine the works needed.
22. The landlord appropriately considered the resident’s compensation request and reasonably requested supporting evidence.