The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Your Housing Limited (202318849)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202318849

Your Housing Group Limited

8 July 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, damp, and mould and associated repairs.
    2. Associated formal complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is the assured tenant of the property, a ground-floor, 2-bed flat owned by the landlord. She lives with her 2 children, aged 1 and 13.
  2. The resident reported a water leak through her bathroom ceiling to the landlord on 5 June 2023. The report included that the bathroom ceiling was cracking, and water was close to the light fitting. It attended on the same day to complete an emergency repair and noted that follow-up works were required.
  3. The resident complained to the landlord on 20 July 2023 as it had taken no further action in relation to the required follow-up works. The leak was ongoing, and she said this was due to the landlord leaving her above neighbour (Neighbour A) with incomplete bathroom repairs. She stated the leak was getting worse and she was concerned about the safety of the ceiling structure and nearby electrical connections. She chased a response on several occasions between 7 August 2023 and 21 November 2023.
  4. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 1 of its complaints process on 21 November 2023. It arranged to inspect the property on 29 November 2023 and raise any works relating to damp and mould or making good following the leak. It apologised for the inconvenience she had experienced and offered compensation of £300, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
    2. £150 for the delay in resolving her complaint.
    3. £50 for its lack of communication.
  5. The resident escalated her complaint to the landlord on 18 January 2024 as it had not contacted her about repairs. She said that mushrooms and black mould had been growing from the bathroom ceiling. She asked it to review her complaint and provide an update on when repairs to the bathroom ceiling and mould treatments would be booked.
  6. The landlord responded to the resident at stage 2 of its complaints process on 27 February 2024. It confirmed that it had replaced the extractor fan in her bathroom on 15 January 2024 and had booked further works to fix the bathroom ceiling and mould wash a bedroom window reveal for 27 March 2024. It apologised for the further delays she had experienced and offered further compensation of £150, bringing its total offer across both stages to £400, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
    2. £250 for service failure relating to repair delays.
    3. £100 for its lack of communication.
  7. The resident remained dissatisfied with this response as the issue remained unresolved. The damp and mould were persistent and there were still mushrooms growing from the ceiling. As such, she brought her complaint to this Service.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with a revised stage 2 response on 31 May 2024. It apologised for not fully investigating the cause of the leak during its original stage 1 and 2 investigations. It agreed to complete cosmetic repairs to her bathroom and apologised for misdiagnosing the issue and not investigating her complaints to the standard she should expect. It explained that it had identified and rectified training gaps in its complaints team and it offered a further £500 compensation, broken down as follows:
    1. £100 for the inconvenience caused.
    2. £100 for service failure relating to misdiagnosed issues.
    3. £200 for service failure relating to incorrect complaint investigation.
    4. £100 for the delay in resolving her complaint at stage 2.
  9. The landlord’s total offer of compensation, therefore, was £950.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy outlines its approach to categorising and responding to repairs. It states that it will attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, or 4 hours for vulnerable customers, and some repair work may be completed. Urgent repairs are for issues which would be detrimental to the property or customer and will be attended to within 5 working days. It classifies reactive repairs as those that pose no immediate risk and will be completed within 28 calendar days. It has a specific procedure for damp and mould repairs, which it will complete within 21 calendar days.
  2. The repairs policy also states that the landlord may need to complete a pre-inspection before a repairs appointment can be arranged. It will complete this within 14 calendar days. Once this has taken place, it will arrange the necessary repairs within the appropriate timescales as outlined above.
  3. The landlord’s customer feedback policy explains its approach to complaints. It operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. It will acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days, including any proposed actions, offers of remedy and details of how to escalate the complaint to the next stage. Customers can request a stage 2 review of their complaint within 8 weeks of its stage 1 response. It will provide a formal complaint response within 20 working days of escalation.
  4. The landlord’s compensation policy includes guidance for its staff on the amount to offer for various aspects of service failure. It includes the following:
    1. £5 a day up to a maximum of £50 per repair for repairs service failures.
    2. £100 maximum for other service failures.
    3. £100 to £300 for goodwill gestures relating to distress and inconvenience, lack of communication and complaint handling delays, depending on severity.
    4. £100 maximum for a customer’s time and trouble in resolving matters.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould

  1. The landlord did not dispute that there were failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp, and mould. In its complaint responses it stated that it would arrange for inspections and works, and it apologised for repair delays and the inconvenience experienced by the resident. It offered compensation totalling £450 across both responses as previously detailed in this report.
  2. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this Service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology and compensation) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, this Service considers whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the dispute resolution principles, be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. On 5 June 2023, following emergency repairs, the landlord identified that further works were required in the resident’s property. However, it took no action to arrange or complete these which resulted in the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2023, 33 working days later. At this stage, it had already exceeded all the timescales set out in its repairs policy. It had not contacted the resident in this time. This was not reasonable as it had identified that further works were required and should have adhered to its policy in arranging a date for them.
  4. The resident chased the landlord for a complaint response, and it spoke with her on 15 August 2023. She told it that the leak was worsening and that mushrooms were growing from her ceiling. She said that the leak was coming from Neighbour A’s property and was only when the bath, sink or toilet was used. It requested that an appointment was made to inspect both her and Neighbour A’s properties for a leak and damage. However, it did not arrange anything until she chased it again on 29 August 2023. It did not raise an inspection as agreed but instead raised works to fill in weep holes above her bathroom window. It has not provided evidence showing that it communicated this to her or explained to her why it had chosen this course of action. Its communication was poor, and it remained in excess of the timescales published in its repairs policy.
  5. The landlord was due to attend the resident’s property and repair the weep holes on 6 October 2023. It failed to attend this appointment and rebooked the works for 6 November 2023. It inspected her property on 12 October 2023 and arranged works in Neighbour A’s property for 19 October 2023 to stop the leak. While the original appointment was missed, it took positive steps afterwards to put further appointments in place to identify and organise works.
  6. On 21 November 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response to the resident. In this, it confirmed that it had made an appointment for 29 November 2023 to inspect her property and that it would arrange any required works after this. It offered compensation of £300 as previously described. In relation to the leak, damp, and mould issues, its complaint response was appropriate, and the actions and remedies offered at this stage were reasonable and in line with its compensation policy.
  7. As arranged, the landlord inspected the resident’s property on 29 November 2023. After this, it raised works to replace the ceiling in her bathroom and complete a mould wash in one of the bedrooms. However, she chased it on 18 January 2024 as it had not contacted her to arrange works. This was 33 working days after it had inspected her property and over 6 months since it completed emergency repairs. It asked for works to be booked internally on 7 February 2024 but did not do so until 26 February 2024. The works were booked for 27 March 2024, over 9 months since the original leak occurred. This was not an acceptable delay in the circumstances and far exceeded the timescales in its repairs policy.
  8. The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 27 February 2024. It provided her with a date for works, 27 March 2024, and apologised for the further delays she had experienced. It increased its compensation offer to £450, including the £300 offered at stage 1. The remedies offered at stage 2 were appropriate and in line with both its compensation policy and her wishes to have the outstanding works arranged.
  9. The landlord completed work on 27 March 2024 as agreed. It emailed the resident on 7 May 2024 to ask if she was happy with these. She confirmed that she was but had to contact it again on 13 May 2024 as the leak had reoccurred. It arranged for an inspection to take place on 29 May 2024 and during this, it found that the cause of the leak was incomplete tiling in Neighbour A’s bathroom. It arranged for works to take place in Neighbour A’s property to stop the leak and for further works to be completed in the resident’s property to make good the ceiling, shower, and bath. On this occasion, the landlord acted promptly and completed a thorough inspection.
  10. On 31 May 2024, after the resident had brought her complaint to the Ombudsman, the landlord provided her with a revised stage 2 complaint response. In this response, it included the following in relation to the leak, damp, and mould:
    1. She had always stated the leak had been coming from Neighbour A’s flat, however, during its stage 1 complaint its operative incorrectly diagnosed the problem to be the weep hole above the window so repair efforts were focused there. Upon reflection, it agreed that Neighbour A’s flat should have been investigated soon and the issue resolved. It apologised for this.
    2. It arranged for works on 11 June 2024 to repair the issues in Neighbour A’s flat. Following this, it would attend the resident’s property on 12 June and 12 July 2024 to complete the further works identified.
    3. It offered a further compensation offer of £500, £200 of which directly related to repairs.
    4. It provided feedback to its repairs team about the delays and misdiagnosis in this case and was reassured that this would be addressed with the operatives to ensure the errors would not be repeated in future.
  11. The remedies offered by the landlord in the revised stage 2 response were reasonable and appropriate. However, the resident had not made a further complaint regarding the matter, thus the lapse of time since its original stage 2 response meant that it did not have to provide a revised decision.
  12. As the increased offer of compensation and further works were made several months after the landlord’s formal stage 2 response, it is not clear that it would have made further offers had the resident not referred the matter to this Service. However, the remedies offered in its formal stage 2 response were reasonable and appropriate at the time, so a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in the circumstances of this case. The revised compensation offer exceeded its compensation policy and meant it had offered a total of £950 compensation across its 3 responses. Its original and additional offers were in line with the remedies guidance issued by the Ombudsman. As such, no additional financial order will be made by this Service.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated formal complaint

  1. There were clear failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s formal complaint. She complained on 20 July 2023, and while it acknowledged this on the same day it did not provide a response until 21 November 2023, 87 working days later. In this time, she was left to chase it at least 5 times for a response and it reallocated her complaint 4 times to different complaint handlers. The delay far exceeded its complaints policy timescale of 10 working days and was not reasonable.
  2. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 November 2023 and of the £300 compensation offered, £150 of this was for the delay in resolving the resident’s complaint. It offered a general apology for the inconvenience she had experienced but did not specifically address the reason for the delays or how it intended to avoid this going forward. It advised her that any escalation request must be made within 10 working days of its response, which was not in line with its policy which states a customer has 8 weeks to do this. Despite making a fair offer of compensation, its stage 1 response did not adequately address the delays in complaint handling, and it provided the resident with incorrect information.
  3. The resident escalated her complaint to stage 2 on 18 January 2024, just over 8 weeks since the stage 1 complaint was received. The landlord acknowledged this on 8 February 2024 and gave a target date of 7 March 2024 for a response. It responded at stage 2 on 27 February 2024, 28 working days after escalation. This was a further delay which was not in line with its complaints policy of a response within 20 working days.
  4. In the stage 2 response, the landlord apologised for the further delays the resident had experienced but did not clearly mention its complaint handling in this or in the compensation offered. While the delay was minor, it would have been good practice to ensure it offered an apology for this. It was not reasonable of the landlord to fail to address its complaint handling in its response.
  5. In its revised stage 2 response to the resident, the landlord fully addressed its failures in complaint handling. It apologised for not fully investigating the issues raised in her complaints to the standard she should expect. It stated upon reflection of the complaint that it had identified training gaps within its complaint handling team and had ensured its employees had all completed online training provided by the Ombudsman. As part of its further offer of £500 compensation, it included the following:
    1. £200 for its failings in investigating her complaints correctly.
    2. £100 for the delay in resolving her complaint at stage 2.
  6. It is unlikely that the landlord would have taken this action if the resident had not brought her complaint to this Service. It did not offer these remedies as part of its original stage 2 response, but as there was not a significant amount of time between its original and revised responses, a finding of reasonable redress is appropriate in this case. The remedies offered in its revised response were reasonable and appropriate and its review of the case was thorough. This response demonstrated a good adherence to the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles in putting things right, being fair and learning from outcomes.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of a leak, damp, and mould and associated repairs satisfactorily.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation, which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about its handling of her formal complaint satisfactorily.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord should pay the resident the total sum of £950 which it has offered to pay as this recognised genuine elements of service failure and the sufficient redress finding is made on that basis.