Southern Housing Group Limited (202215874)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215874

Optivo (now Southern Housing)

26 March 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:
1. The landlord’s management of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a fixed-term tenant of the landlord and has lived in the property, a 3-bed house, since 2013.
When the resident moved into the property the household consisted of 2 adults and 5 children. At the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in January 2022 she stated that 13 people were living in the property.
Between 2014 and 2020 the resident reported a number of repairs to the landlord, this included issues with her windows and several leaks. In 2021 the resident reported several further repairs including leaks, issues with the front door and windows, and electrical faults.
The resident raised a formal complaint in January 2022 in relation to the outstanding repairs and because she wanted the landlord to assist her in moving to a larger property due to overcrowding.
The landlord responded to the stage 1 complaint in February 2022 and in May 2022 the resident asked that the complaint be escalated to stage 2. In September 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response, it did not uphold the complaint.

Relevant policies, procedures and legislation

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places an obligation on the landlord to keep in good repair and working order, the structure of the property and installations for electricity and water.
Section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 places an obligation on the resident as an assured tenant to allow the landlord access to carry out required repairs.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident not to “allow” the property to become overcrowded.
At the time of the complaint the landlord operated a 2-stage complaint process. It aimed to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days. The second stage of the landlord’s internal complaint process was a review panel meeting. The complaints policy:
1. Does not provide a timeframe for the review panel meeting to be held.
2. It does however state that the outcome of the review will be sent to the resident within 10 working days of the meeting.
3. States that the resident has the right to attend the review panel or to send a written statement.
4. The outcome of the review would be sent to the resident within 10 working days of the review panel meeting.

Scope of the investigation

It is acknowledged that some of the repair issues referred to by the resident in her complaint were reported to the landlord between 2014 and 2020. However, the matter was not subject to the landlord’s internal complaints procedure until 17 January 2022.
Paragraph 42 (c) states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising.
Therefore whilst this report has referred to historical noise reports for context, in line with paragraph 42 (c), the Ombudsman will only assess the matter in relation to events from June 2021 onwards (6 months preceding the formal complaint of January 2022). Any reference to events prior to June 2021 are made for context only.
This Service is aware that in November 2022 the resident’s solicitor wrote to the landlord initiating housing conditions Pre-Action Protocol under civil procedure rules (CPR).
Paragraph 41 (c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman cannot consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters that are the subject of court proceedings or where the subject of court proceedings where judgement on the merits was given.
It is the view of this Service that instigating the Pre-Action Protocol does not constitute legal proceedings. No claim form has been filed at court in this case, we have therefore considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs reported by the resident during the complaint period.

Summary of events prior to the period of investigation

In August 2014 the resident reported a leak coming through the ceiling in the children’s bedroom.
The resident reported in November 2016 that there was a concrete post on the driveway which was a trip hazard
In December 2017 the resident reported that she could not open the windows in any of the bedrooms or the dining room
The resident reported in January 2018 that there was a leak from the toilet in the bathroom. In October 2018 the resident reported that the water pipes in the property had holes in and were leaking into the electrical cupboard.
On 19 February 2020 the resident reported that the windows in the property were locked and did not have keys. She stated she therefore could not open the windows.
The resident reported an out of hours repair on 13 March 2020 due to a leak coming through her living room ceiling from the hallway above. The landlord attended on the same day and resolved the leak.

Summary of events during the period of investigation

On 22 July 2021 the landlord raised orders for inspections of the living room ceiling, stair treads and plasterboard in the electric cupboard under the stairs. The inspections were carried out on 9 August 2021. The landlord noted that there was “some water staining” on the living room ceiling from a leak and that it needed to apply some stain block. It said there was “no apparent issues” with the under stairs cupboard ceiling. It said there was only a “slight squeak” on the stair treads but no repair issue.
The landlord raised a works order on 24 August 2021 following a report from the resident that the front door did not open or lock from the inside.
An operative attended on 1 September 2021 and carried out a temporary repair to the door. A further visit was scheduled for the 25 November 2021 but this was cancelled by the resident as someone in the property had COVID-19. The landlord said that it requested that the resident rearrange the appointment when they were able.
On 20 December 2021 the landlord raised repairs for a leak at the back of the toilet and “a slow drip from the stopcock”. It attended on 21 December 2021 and found “no leak, just condensation” behind the toilet. An appointment was booked for 28 January 2022, to address the leak from the stopcock.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 17 January 2022. She said:
1. There was damp and mould in the property due to the condition of the windows which were “all locked shut”.
2. The landlord had not supported her to move to another property. There were 13 people living in the property and the overcrowding meant that some repairs could not be completed.
3. There were leaks throughout the property which were causing damage.
An electrical safety certificate dated 21 January 2022 demonstrates that the electrical installations were “satisfactory”.
The landlord attended the property on 28 January 2022 to repair the leak from the stopcock. The landlord said it was “refused access on arrival” as the resident said, “it’s too hectic in here today mate”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 January 2022 asking for an update on her complaint. She said that repairs had not been completed and that there were ongoing leaks and damp and mould. The resident also raised concerns around the overcrowding in the property.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 February 2022. It said:
1. It would arrange for a damp and mould inspection by a surveyor.
2. It said that it had discussed the resident’s housing situation with her in March 2021 and June 2021 and had directed her to contact the council.
3. It had explained that it was unable to transfer her to another property as it did not have a transfer list. It did however discuss the option for a mutual exchange.
4. A member of the landlord’s neighbourhood team would contact the resident again to offer further advice regarding her housing options.
5. All repairs reported since July 2021 were recorded as being complete with the exception of the following which it was waiting for the resident to re-book appointments for:
  1. Slow drip at the stopcock
  2. Front door repair
  3. Inspection for stair treads and plaster board in the understairs cupboard.
The landlord raised a works order on 7 February 2022 for a surveyor to carry out an inspection of the property on 17 February 2022. The repair records state that this did not go ahead as the resident refused access.
The resident reported a leak from a water pipe in the meter cupboard on 15 May 2022. This was passed to the water utility provider later that day but allocated to its contractor on 16 May 2022. The landlord’s repair records demonstrate that it attended again on 17 May 2022 and were unable to isolate the leak. This was again passed to the water provider as an emergency job as it required “repiping”. The repair records show that the leak was repaired on 19 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 May 2022 and said she had been “ignored” by the landlord. She said there continued to be leaks in the property which were causing further damage. The resident said she felt that the landlord was stopping her from “getting help to move to a bigger home”.
The landlord responded by email on 17 May 2022. It said that the resident’s complaint had been responded to in February 2022. It apologised that works had not been completed and asked if the resident wanted to escalate the complaint. The resident confirmed that she wished to escalate the complaint.
The landlord contacted the resident on 19 May 2022 and said it had arranged for a review meeting to discuss the complaint on 5 July 2022. The resident was asked to provide any relevant evidence for consideration, at least 10 working days before the review meeting. The resident replied and said she had videos and pictures of the issues and she would provide them.
The landlord emailed the resident on 1 July 2022 and provided a copy of the review pack for her reference. Later that day, it emailed again and said that “due to staff availability” the review meeting had been rescheduled to 24 August 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 July 2022 and asked why the complaint review meeting had been rescheduled. The landlord responded on the same day and explained that the meeting was changed as the director leading the panel was “off”.
The resident responded to the landlord later that day and said she had contacted a disrepair solicitor. She said she continued to live in property that had incomplete repairs, she had lost belongings due to the repair issues and this was preventing her from obtaining a move. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s email on 1 August 2022.
The landlord carried out an inspection of the property on 15 August 2022. Following the inspection the following repairs were raised on 17 August 2022:
1. A new front door to be installed as the current door was “beyond repair” and had “large gaps around the perimeter of the door and redundant locking mechanism”.
2. Rebuild the front garden wall and remove a sharp object from the driveway. This was completed on 14 September 2022.
3. Fix the plasterboard and skim patch in dining room. The landlord’s repair notes state that this repair was cancelled as the contractor reported being unable to contact the resident, despite several calls. It visited the property to try and arrange an appointment but reported being “verbally abused”.
4. Renew the locking handles on 7 windows. This was completed on 25 August 2022.
5. Replace the double-glazed window in the bathroom. This was cancelled following no access on 2 occasions for pre-booked appointments.
6. Renew the ventilator in rear bedroom. This was completed on 25 August 2022.
7. Renew the fan in the kitchen. This was completed on 22 December 2023.
The resident emailed the landlord on 19 August 2022 and said that the review pack did not mention an accident her son had had on the driveway, or her cooker, washing machine and tumble dryer being broken due to electrical faults in the property.
The landlord responded on 22 August 2022 and said that the review pack was produced before the resident provided further information on 1 August 2022. It said that it had provided the resident’s further information to the panel for consideration.
The resident emailed the landlord on 28 August 2022 and asked when she would receive the outcome of the review. She also complained that operatives had attended the property without an appointment and claimed to have been trying to contact her by phone, which she disputed. The landlord responded and explained that she would receive the complaint review response by 8 September 2022.
On 30 August 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and questioned what information had been shared with the review panel. She reiterated frustration that operatives had attended without appointments.
Internal landlord emails of 9 September 2022 show that its contractor asked for alternative means of contact for the resident as it had left voicemails and calling cards with no response. The landlord provided 2 telephone numbers for the resident and said it was due to contact the customer and would try and arrange an appointment then.
Further internal landlord emails of 12 September 2022 detailed a discussion between the landlord and the resident. It said that the resident expressed concerns around the electrical safety in the property, as she had seen sparks under her washing machine on 6 September 2022. She said this was disconnected from the wall but it did not trip the electrical fuse. The resident said similar issues had occurred with other electrical appliances. The landlord ordered an electrical test to be carried out at the property.
The resident chased the stage 2 complaint response on 13 September 2022 and 14 September 2022.
The landlord responded on 15 September 2022 and said it still did not have the response but it had chased it with the relevant party. The resident responded and expressed disappointment at the ongoing delay.
The resident emailed the landlord again on 19 September 2022 as she had still not received a stage 2 response from the landlord.
The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 20 September 2022. It did not uphold the resident’s complaint but it offered compensation of £50 due to its late complaint response. It detailed the repair history since July 2021 and said:
1. It had attended in December 2021 but the resident refused access and did not arrange access until May 2022. No leaks were apparent when it attended on 7 September 2022.
2. Most of the outstanding repairs were identified during the inspection in August 2022. It would “chase up the outstanding repairs and monitor via an action plan”.
3. The resident should claim for damage to personal items via her home insurance.
4. It had provided details for the local council and directed the resident to apply to join the housing register. It also recommended that the resident look for a mutual exchange. It could assist if the resident required help with either of the options it suggested.
5. The resident had claimed her water bills had increased due to the leak in the property. The landlord asked her to provide copies of her water bills for review.

Summary of events after the end of the landlord’s internal complaints process

The resident emailed the landlord on 22 September 2022. She indicated that she was not happy with the outcome of the stage 2 review panel as:
1. She had not been invited to the meeting.
2. Some of her concerns had not been addressed.
3. She disputed some of the findings around the repairs.
The landlord arranged to visit the resident on 17 October 2022 to discuss her housing options. The resident cancelled this appointment due to illness. A further appointment was booked for 4 November 2022, this was also cancelled by the resident.
Internal landlord emails show that the landlord’s electrical contractor attended to carry out a test on 5 October 2022 and 21 October 2022 but the resident refused access to the property.
On 15 November 2022 the landlord acknowledged receipt of a disrepair claim from the resident’s solicitor.
Internal landlord emails of 9 December 2022 said that the landlord only had 6 5-bed properties and 3 6-bed properties and “turnover of these [was] extremely limited”.
A disrepair survey was carried out on 20 December 2022. The report noted that:
1. The resident had indicated that there was damp and mould in 6 rooms in the house. Those rooms showed no sign of damp, with moisture meter readings showing as dry in each room.
2. There was “minor…condensation related mould” around 2 of the bedroom windows and a patch of black mould on one of the bedroom ceilings.
3. Under the kitchen sink there was a minor leak that had not been reported.
4. One of the rooms downstairs had a damp stain which the landlord had attempted to treat but access was not provided due to COVID-19 in the property.
The landlord carried out an electrical test at the property on 22 December 2022. It was noted that the electrical installation was “satisfactory”.
Internal landlord emails of 11 May 2023 noted that the landlord was experiencing issues accessing the property for pre-arranged repair appointments. It had asked the resident’s solicitor to advise of availability for appointments but had not received a response at that time.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s management of repairs at the resident’s property.

In May 2022 the resident reported a leak from a water pipe in the electric meter cupboard. The landlord attended 2 days later on 17 May 2022 but was unable to isolate the leak so passed the repair to the water provider as it required new pipes to be installed. The repair was completed on 19 May 2022. This Service considers that, as the works required were not straightforward, this was a reasonable timeframe for completion of the repair.
The resident reported a leak from the toilet and a separate slow leak from the stopcock on 20 December 2021. The landlord attended the next day and found no leak from the toilet, the water had been caused by condensation. This Service considers that the landlord’s attendance within 24 hours was reasonable.
The landlord booked a further appointment to address the leak from the stopcock on 28 January 2022. This was 26 working days after the resident reported the issue. As this was a slow leak and not uncontainable, this Service does not consider that this was unreasonable. When the landlord returned to the property in January 2022 as arranged to repair the leaking stopcock the resident refused access.
In August 2021 the resident reported that the front door did not open or lock from the inside. The landlord attended 8 days later and carried out a temporary repair to the door. The landlord arranged to re-attend 3 months later in November 2021. While it is accepted that the resident cancelled this appointment due to COVID-19 it is not clear to this Service why the landlord booked an appointment for 3 months after its initial attendance. This was an unreasonable delay.
In August 2022 the landlord inspected the front door and found it to be “beyond repair”. This Service has not seen evidence that a new door has been installed. This is a failing.
In January 2022, within her formal complaint, the resident said that her windows were all locked shut. The landlord replaced the locking handles on 7 windows in August 2022. This was 7 months after the resident reported the issue and was therefore an undue and unacceptable delay.
In August 2022 the landlord also agreed to replace the window in the bathroom. It arranged 2 appointments to carry out the work but the resident failed to provide access. The landlord therefore cancelled the repair, this was reasonable.
The evidence seen by this Service has demonstrated that in this case the resident has failed to provide access to the property on several occasions to allow the landlord to carry out repairs. She also failed to make contact with the landlord on several occasions to re-book repairs appointments which she had cancelled or failed to provide access for.
The evidence shows that the landlord and its contractor tried various means of contacting the resident to arrange to carry out works. It tried different telephone numbers it had on record, left voicemails, and attended the property leaving calling cards asking the resident to make contact. The resident has disputed that the landlord has made reasonable attempts to contact her but this Service has seen no evidence that challenges the landlord’s account.
The landlord’s repair records show that, when its contractor attended the property to book an appointment to fix the plasterboard and skim the dining room it was “verbally abused” by the resident.
This Service considers that the resident contributed to the delay in completing repairs to the leaking stopcock, front door, bathroom window, and plastering. This was because she did not make reasonable attempts to respond to contact from the landlord and on several occasions failed to provide access for appointed repairs.
In August 2022 the landlord raised a works order to rebuild the garden wall and remove a trip hazard from the driveway. This was completed a month later. This Service does not consider that this was an unreasonable timeframe.
Also in August 2022, the landlord raised a repair to renew the ventilator in the rear bedroom. This was completed within the month which this Service considers to be reasonable.
In September 2022 the resident expressed concerns around the electrical safety in the property. The landlord ordered an electrical test to be carried out at the property and this was done in December 2022. This Service has seen evidence that the landlord attempted to carry out the testing in October 2022 but that the resident failed to provide access on 2 occasions.
While it is accepted that the electric test found no issues with the safety of the property, this Service considers that, given the concerns expressed by the resident, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider taking legal action to gain entry to the property to carry out the test. That the test was not completed until 3 months later was not reasonable.
While the landlord also raised a repair to renew the fan in the kitchen in August 2022, this was not completed until December 2023. As this Service has not seen evidence that the landlord attempted to complete this repair prior to this date, this was an undue delay.
Overall, this Service acknowledges that the resident contributed towards delays in the completion of several of the repairs in the property. The landlord however failed to complete other repairs within a reasonable timeframe and has not demonstrated that this was due to inaction or obstruction by the resident. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs at the resident’s property.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.

The evidence seen by this Service shows that the resident first reported damp and mould to the landlord in January 2022.
In February 2022 the landlord said it would arrange for a damp and mould inspection by a surveyor. It booked an appointment for 17 February 2022 but the resident refused access.
In August 2022 the landlord inspected the property and found no signs of damp and mould.
While it is acknowledged that the disrepair survey of December 2022 took place after the landlord’s final complaint response, it did note that there was minor condensation-related mould in 2 of the bedrooms in the property. A recommendation has been made for this to be treated.
This Service is encouraged to note that the landlord has introduced a damp and mould action plan. This is a positive step that the Ombudsman hopes will assist the landlord in reducing the future impacts of damp and mould in its homes.
The actions within the landlord’s plan are consistent with recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould published in October 2021. The landlord introduced their strategy in March 2023. Following the strategy the landlord implemented a new damp and mould standard operating procedure in April 2023. This commits the landlord to inspecting reports of damp and mould within 10 working days. It is acknowledged however that both the spotlight report and the landlord’s strategy were published after the events of this case.
Overall, this Service considers that the landlord made reasonable attempts to carry out investigations into the resident’s report of damp and mould. The resident impeded these attempts by failing to provide access to the property. The landlord’s most recent survey has found some evidence of minor mould in the bedrooms and this should be treated. This Service has found no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

When the resident moved into the property in 2013 the household consisted of 7 people. At the time of the resident’s stage 1 complaint in January 2022 she stated that 13 people were living in the property. This Service accepts that the household is extremely overcrowded.
In January 2022 the resident said that she felt the landlord had not supported her to move to another property and that the property was overcrowded.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has explained to the resident on several occasions between March 2021 and February 2022 that the resident needed to contact the local authority regarding her rehousing. It also provided advice on the option of a mutual exchange.
In September 2022 again provided the details for the local council and advised the resident to apply to join the housing register. It also again recommended that the resident consider a mutual exchange and offered to assist the resident with both options.
This Service has seen evidence that the landlord attempted to provide the resident with further assistance following its stage 2 complaint response but that the resident cancelled appointments to discuss the matter.
The tenancy agreement obliges the resident not to allow the property to become overcrowded. The resident is in breach of this obligation. There is nothing to indicate that the landlord contributed to the overcrowded in the property or that it was obliged to resolve the overcrowding.
Overall, the landlord has demonstrated that it has repeatedly provided reasonable advice and signposting to the resident in relation to her housing situation. Therefore there is no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.

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

The landlord’s complaint process at the time of this complaint was not compliant with the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) in place at that time. The policy did not provide a timeframe for the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response. This was not acceptable.
It is noted that, since the events in this case, the landlord has merged with another landlord to form a new landlord. During this process the policies and procedures were amended and the complaints policy in place at the time is no longer in place.
The landlord took 15 working days to respond to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. While this did not exceed the timeframe in the landlord’s own policy and the Code by a large time period, the landlord should have acknowledged and apologised for the delay in its response. It did not do so.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was thorough and reasonably addressed each of the issues raised by the resident.
The resident did not make further contact on the complaint until May 2022 when she said she felt “ignored” by the landlord. The landlord reasonably clarified that it had responded to the resident’s concerns and asked if she wanted the complaint to be escalated. This Service considers that this was good practice.
In May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had booked the review meeting for her stage 2 complaint for 5 July 2022. This was 7 weeks after the resident’s escalation request which was not in line with the requirements of the Code in place at the time and was unreasonable.
The landlord then contacted the resident 4 days before the review meeting to reschedule to 24 August 2022. While it is accepted that staff absence is not within the landlord’s control, this Service considers that it was entirely unreasonable to postpone the review by a further 8 weeks when it was already out of the timeframe within the Code.
The landlord’s policy stated that it would provide a written stage 2 complaint response within 10 working days of the review panel meeting. The landlord failed to adhere to this timeframe and the resident was clearly frustrated by this and had to invest undue time and trouble chasing for a response.
The landlord’s complaints policy states that residents have the right to attend the stage 2 review panel. This Service has seen no evidence that the resident was invited to attend either in person or virtually. This was a breach of the landlord’s policy.
The resident has raised concerns regarding what evidence was considered by the review panel and some of the findings of the panel. This Service considers that had the resident been able to attend the meeting, this would likely have answered some of these questions and provided greater transparency.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was thorough and again reasonably addressed each of the resident’s concerns. It did not however sufficiently acknowledge its failures in adhering to its own complaint policy and the requirements of the Code and this was a failing.
Overall, the landlord unreasonably delayed in providing a response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It also failed to adhere to its own complaint policy and to the requirements of the Code in place at the time. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s management of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
3. No maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a property transfer.
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

This Service acknowledges that the resident contributed towards delays in the completion of several of the repairs in the property. The landlord however failed to complete other repairs within a reasonable timeframe and has not demonstrated that this was due to inaction or obstruction by the resident.
The landlord made reasonable attempts to carry out investigations into the resident’s report of damp and mould. The resident impeded these attempts by failing to provide access to the property. The landlord’s most recent survey has found some evidence of minor mould in the bedrooms and a recommendation has been made for this to be treated.
The landlord has demonstrated that it has repeatedly provided reasonable advice and signposting to the resident in relation to her housing situation.
The landlord unreasonably delayed in providing a response to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. It also failed to adhere to its own complaint policy and to the requirements of the Code in place at the time.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident compensation of £450 comprising:
1. £200 for distress and inconvenience in relation to its management of repairs at the resident’s property.
2. £250 for distress and inconvenience, time and trouble in relation to its complaint handling.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord to arrange a mutually suitable appointment to carry out a repair survey at the property. The landlord should:
1. Prepare a full list of all outstanding repairs at the property.
2. Draft an action plan and provide the resident with timescales for the completion of all repairs.
3. Ensure that appointments are agreed with the resident for each repair.