St Mungo Community Housing Association (202214386)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202214386

St Mungo Community Housing Association

27 February 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. This complaint is about:
    1. The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s complaints about roof leaks and damp in his home.
    2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord. He started his tenancy in his current home in February 2016.
  2. The landlord’s repair records show issues of damp and mould first being reported to it on 7 May 2017. There is a note of similar problems returning in October. Damp problems in a cupboard are mentioned both times.
  3. The first reference to roof repairs is in August 2018. The records do not provide a completion date.
  4. The records show further reports of damp problems, including in the cupboard, in 2019, and further reports of roof leak problems in 2019 and 2021.
  5. The resident complained to the landlord in May 2022. He said he had reported roof leaks “just before the pandemic” and the matter was still not resolved. He also complained that damp had returned to the under-stairs cupboard. The landlord responded to the complaint in June. It apologised for its delays fixing the roof and said it was still investigating, hoping to commence work shortly. It also explained the cupboard damp was probably related to the roof leaks. It said it would chase up the repairs and arrange a new inspection. There is no evidence of a new inspection until September.
  6. The resident complained again in August 2022. He said he had been experiencing roof leaks and damp in his home since he moved in, and the landlord had ignored his concerns and reports. He said he wanted the landlord to compensate him for its poor repairs service.
  7. The landlord’s notes state that it decided it should look at the complaint again at its first complaint stage rather than escalate it (presumably because a much wider range of issues had been raised). It inspected the property on 6 September 2022, and then sent its complaint response on 28 September. It explained its inspection had shown the roof renewal had been completed. It apologised for the time taken to do that, and acknowledged renewal should have been done earlier, rather than attempts to repair it. It said the damp in the under-stairs cupboard was greatly reduced since the roof renewal, and it would review the cupboard again in 6 months after it had had time to dry out. It said it would install more air vents in the cupboard door, and attend to the other issues identified in its inspection. It offered the resident £350 compensation for the inconvenience he had experienced.
  8. The resident was dissatisfied with the level of compensation offered by the landlord and escalated his complaint in early October 2022. He gave multiple examples of what he saw as poor repair service by the landlord, but emphasised again that he had experienced leaks and damp problems since he started his tenancy, especially in the cupboard (which he believed was the result of rising damp, not the roof leaks).
  9. The landlord sent its final complaint response on 21 November 2022. It again acknowledged its poor service with the roof repair and renewal, and the subsequent leaks and damp. It said it believed the cupboard damp was due to the roof leaks, not rising damp, and needed time to dry out. It explained that its records showed the resident had first reported leaks and damp associated with the roof condition in 2017. It increased its compensation to £2500 in light of the length of time the problems had gone unresolved, and the distress and inconvenience caused to him (£2340 for length of the delay + £160 “in recognition that there are still works to be completed and the associated impact on you”). It explained some of the service improvements it had made for complex repairs, and apologised for its poor service. It explained how the resident could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman if he remained dissatisfied.
  10. The resident remained dissatisfied with the compensation and corresponded further with the landlord. It wrote to him again on 10 February 2023. It explained again that it believed the damp in the cupboard would recede following the roof renewal and needed time before it addressed any remedial work in relation to it. It also agreed to commission an independent damp survey to either support the landlord’s view or say otherwise. It explained its compensation had been calculated based on the number of weeks since the resident reported the issue in July 2017 to the roof renewal date in July 2022 (minus the several month period when the resident had been decanted), which it said gave a total of ££2380. It also said that it was prepared to increase its offer by £500, taking the overall total to £2880.
  11. The resident remained dissatisfied and brought his complaint to the Ombudsman. He explained he believed the landlord should have based its compensation on the period since he started his tenancy, and was also dissatisfied with its handling of his complaint.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation offered by the landlord following the resident’s complaints about roof leaks and damp in his home.

  1. The resident was dissatisfied with the time period used by the landlord to calculate its compensation for the delayed roof repair, because he said the damp and roof problems he experienced had started as soon as he moved into the property in early 2016. He felt that earlier date should have been used.
  2. The repair records provided for this investigation by the landlord show the first report of damp problems in the resident’s home on 7 May 2017. No mention of the roof is made in that report, or in the second report in October of that year. However, both reports mention damp problems in the cupboard. The first reference to roof repair issues was in August 2018. There are reports of other repair problems in the resident’s first year, but nothing indicating he reported damp and roof problems. Because of that, the landlord’s decision to start its compensation calculation in 2017 was reasonable and in line with the repair records, given its stated view that the cupboard’s damp problems were linked to the roof condition.
  3. However, the landlord explained that the first report of roof leaks was on 5 July 2017. It started its compensation calculation from that date. The repair records do not show a report on that date or any other action, so it is unclear where the landlord got it from. The date of the first relevant report shown in the repair records is 7 May 2017 (the discrepancy could be a simple misreading of 7/5/2017 as 5/7/2017), approximately 8 weeks before the landlord’s date. Accordingly, the landlord’s compensation of £10/week was £80 short.
  4. The compensation offered by the landlord in its second complaint response was £2340 for the delayed roof repairs, plus £160 for the fact that not all repairs had been completed at that time. In its further compensation offer in February 2023 it explained that it had recalculated the compensation for the delay slightly, resulting in a new amount of £2380 (based on the start date of 5 July 2017), and said it would offer a further £500, for a total of £2880. In recalculating this amount the landlord appears to have left out the additional £160 it offered earlier. Taken together, the landlord’s compensation should have been £2380 + £500 + £160 = £3040.
  5. It may be that the £160 had been paid separately already, which is why it was not included in the final compensation offer, but the evidence shows no sign of that.
  6. £10 per week for the repair delays represented approximately 7% of the resident’s weekly rent at the time. While he clearly experienced inconvenience and frustration with the delays, the evidence does not show that any specific part of his home was uninhabitable. Accordingly, that amount was not an unreasonable basis for the compensation.
  7. As identified above, the landlord’s calculation of the number of weeks taken to resolve the roof repair was inaccurate, and should have used the earlier date of 7 May 2017. Accounting for that error, the final compensation for the delay should have been £3120 (£3040 + £80)
  8. If the landlord had subsequently acted as it said it would its compensation (recalculated as above) and apologies in its complaint responses might have been reasonable. However, in its September 2022 complaint response, and its letter dated 10 February 2023, it explained that it would revisit the damp and mould in the cupboard, after it had time to dry out, and consider what remedial work was needed. It also told the resident in February 2023 that it would commission an independent survey of the damp to provide a further opinion about the cause. Both the landlord and resident have confirmed that neither of these things were done. In the circumstances of the long running damp problems in the cupboard, that can only be considered a further failure, which has not yet been remedied.

Complaint handling

  1. Part of the resident’s complaint to the Ombudsman was about delays in the landlord’s handling of his complaint, and that some of its complaint investigations were not impartial.
  2. The complaints policy in place at the time the resident made his first complaint to the landlord has not been provided. Nonetheless, the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) active at the time (May 2022) makes clear that landlords should aim to respond to an initial complaint within 10 working days. A landlord can extend this timescale if it gives the complainant an explanation and clear timeframe for when the response will be received.
  3. In this case the resident sent his first complaint on 10 May 2022. The landlord sent its response on 10 June. That was clearly over 10 working days, and no evidence of an update to the resident has been seen. The landlord apologised for the delay in its response.
  4. The resident sent his next complaint on 8 August 2022. It appears that because he raised a much wider range of issues than in his first the landlord decided to treat this as a new complaint (this was in line with the Code). It sent him an acknowledgement on 2 September saying it intended to send its response by 16 September. It apologised for the delay. It then sent its second complaint response on 28 September. The landlord therefore exceeded the 10 working day target, and its new target. While it did send an update, that itself was delayed.
  5. The resident escalated his complaint on 5 October 2022. The landlord sent him an update on 11 November, acknowledging further delay, and asking to extend the deadline to 18 November. The landlord’s policy at this time gave 20 working days to respond to an escalated complaint (which is also in line with the Code), and allows extending the deadline slightly if contact is made with the complainant. The landlord subsequently sent its complaint response on 21 November. The landlord’s handling of this stage of the resident’s complaint was not ideal, as it still exceeded the relevant timeframes and its update to the resident was late, but, overall, it was broadly reasonable and in line with its policy and an improvement on its earlier delays.
  6. In its November 2022 complaint response the landlord explained how the resident could bring his complaint to the Ombudsman. He continued to correspond with the landlord until February 2023, but that does not indicate further complaint handling delays by the landlord.
  7. The resident complained to the Ombudsman that the landlord’s final complaint response lacked impartiality because an officer from one of the departments he was complaining about was involved with it. The final response was written by a senior manager with no apparent direct involvement in the previous two complaints. It is inevitable that a complaint investigation would need to call on information from the teams involved in the complaint, and doing so in this case was not unusual. Nothing in the evidence indicates any specific lack of independence or impartiality in the complaint response.
  8. While the later stages of the landlord’s complaint handling were broadly reasonable, the initial stages were noticeably delayed, and not handled in line with good practice (such as the Code). The landlord apologised for the delays, but offered no other remedies suggested by the Code and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in regard to:
    1. The level of compensation offered following the resident’s complaints about roof leaks and damp in his home.
    2. Its complaint handling.

Reasons

  1. The compensation offered by the landlord for its repair delays was broadly reasonable, but was calculated incorrectly and the landlord failed to follow up on inspections it promised in its final complaint response and further letter to the resident.
  2. The later stages of the landlord’s complaint handling were broadly reasonable, but the initial stages were noticeably delayed, and not handled in line with good practice. The landlord apologised for the delays, but offered no other remedies suggested by the Code and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Orders

  1. In light of the landlord’s failure to follow up the damp issue in the resident’s cupboard it is ordered to pay him £250.
  2. The landlord must also ensure that it has paid the previously offered compensation to the correct value of £3120, as explained above.
  3. For its delayed complaint responses the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100, in light of the inconvenience caused to him.
  4. Evidence of payment must be shown to this Service within 4 weeks of this report.
  5. Within 8 weeks of this report the landlord must follow up on the promise it made to commission an independent damp and mould survey of the resident’s home, to identify any remaining damp issues and their causes. A report of the survey must be shared with the resident and this Service.