ForHousing Limited (202220869)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220869

ForHousing Limited

29 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. The complaint is about:
   1. The landlord’s handling of repairs in the property because of damp and mould.
   2. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

2. The resident lives in a 3-bedroom house under an assured tenancy agreement.
3. In or around March 2020, repairs to the property which had been identified in an earlier damp survey were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 7 December 2020. She was dissatisfied that the repairs identified had been rebooked for September 2020 but had been cancelled and that no further repairs had been completed.
5. In its stage 1 complaint response on 4 February 2021, the landlord stated that it would arrange for a further damp inspection and complete any further repairs which were needed.
6. The resident raised another complaint on 4 April 2022. She was dissatisfied that a new damp survey had been conducted in March 2021, but the repairs identified in that report had not been completed.
7. Further damp surveys were conducted on 4 May and 7 July 2022. Those surveys identified extensive repairs to the property, including:
   1. replastering walls and ceilings throughout the property
   2. damp proofing to the walls of the property
   3. refitting skirting boards
   4. refitting electrical sockets
   5. repairing extractor fans
   6. repair of the kitchen units
   7. laying a new concrete footpath
   8. repointing brickwork
   9. repairing roof tiles.
8. The resident raised further complaints on 13 and 15 July 2022. She was dissatisfied that:
   1. repairs which had previously been identified had not been completed
   2. her kitchen units had been left in her garden and had become damaged by rainfall as a result
   3. she wanted the landlord to replace the kitchen units, as she believed that they were damaged beyond repair by mould and rainfall
   4. her kitchen sink, which she owned, had been broken by an operative whilst moving it
   5. she had been told that the landlord would install a temporary sink as an emergency, but this had not been done
   6. she had lost access to her kitchen as it had been taped off due to concerns about the presence of asbestos
   7. asbestos testing should have been carried out within 24 hours, but it had since been several days and she had not been updated about this
   8. the lack of asbestos testing had caused further delays in operatives attending to complete plastering in the kitchen.
9. The landlord informed the resident that it would provide her with its complaint response no later than 3 August 2022. In the absence of a complaint response, the resident escalated her complaint on 4 August 2022.
10. Following this, the resident raised further complaints that she had consistently informed the landlord that operatives needed to telephone her at least 30 minutes before their arrival but consistently failed to do so. She explained that she worked night shifts and needed to take her child to school.
11. In its stage 2 response on 28 October 2022, the landlord:
    1. apologised for not providing a stage 1 complaint response, the missed appointments, and its lack of communication with the resident about the repairs
    2. stated that it had instructed contractors to telephone the resident at least 30 minutes prior to attending her home
    3. summarised the outstanding repairs, which included:
       1. replastering walls
       2. replacing skirting
       3. redecorating
       4. replacement of the resident’s sink
       5. replacement of the kitchen units
    4. offered the resident £250 compensation for the delay in completing the repairs.
12. In February 2023, the landlord:
    1. acknowledged that multiple repairs were outstanding which it had previously agreed to complete in its stage 2 complaint response
    2. offered the resident a further £1,899 compensation, in addition to the compensation it had previously offered.
13. The Ombudsman understands that the repairs were completed at an unknown date between March 2023 and January 2024.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the property

14. The landlord’s repairs policy does not specify any timescales for it to carry out non-emergency repairs. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair.
15. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive where repairs cannot be completed within a reasonable time by:
    1. communicating the cause of delays to residents
    2. explaining what it intends to do to resolve those delays
    3. identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact.
16. The evidence indicates that the repairs were first identified in early 2020 and that the appointments booked for March 2020 were cancelled due to the restrictions implemented by the government in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Ombudsman cannot fault the landlord for this.
17. A second damp survey was completed in March 2021. The evidence indicates that the only repairs completed following this were to the chimney stack in or around September 2021. This was a failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to carry out repairs which they have already identified within a reasonable time.
18. In the absence of repairs, the resident raised a further complaint, which resulted in a third damp survey being conducted in May 2022, which should not have been necessary. This survey again identified significant repairs to the property.
19. The resident explained to the landlord on several occasions that she needed operatives to contact her by telephone 30 minutes before attending. She explained this was because she worked night shifts and needed to take her child to school in the morning. She was therefore concerned that if she was not contacted by telephone, she would either be asleep or out of the house when operatives arrived.
20. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the resident’s request to be contacted prior to operatives attending was reasonable. Had the landlord acted upon this request, it could have avoided many of the resident’s complaints relating to delays and missed appointments.
21. Between May 2022 and March 2023, the resident repeatedly complained to the landlord that:
    1. contractors attended without prior notice
    2. pre-booked appointments had been missed
    3. repairs remained outstanding
    4. the quality of some of the repairs was poor.
22. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord disputes the resident’s account of these events. Furthermore, the resident’s complaints were consistently made about the same problems over a prolonged period of time. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the resident’s description of her experiences was accurate.
23. The evidence indicates the landlord did not always respond to these communications from the resident, and where it did respond, it failed to provide any meaningful explanation for the delays or what it intended to do about them. This was a failure by the landlord and would have caused the resident to feel that it was uninterested in her concerns.
24. The evidence also indicates that between March 2021 and March 2023, the landlord repeatedly gave the resident schedules for the work to be completed. The landlord repeatedly failed to complete repairs according to its own schedules, and when it did so, failed to explain why this had occurred. This was a failure by the landlord.
25. It is not known when all the identified repairs were completed by the landlord. What is known is that the resident continued to raise complaints about the lack of repairs as late as March 2023. The landlord has provided evidence of a post-repair inspection dated 26 January 2024.
26. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the landlord took 25 months at the least, and up to 34 months at most, to complete the repairs it identified in the second damp survey in March 2021.
27. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the delays in completing these repairs were reasonable or unavoidable. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
28. It is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the repairs to the property, in that:
    1. it unreasonably delayed in completing repairs it had already identified for at least 25 months
    2. it did not proactively communicate with the resident about the repairs and delays, or explain what it intended to do about them
    3. it repeatedly failed to make reasonable adjustments which the resident had requested.
29. The landlord offered the resident a total of £2,149 in resolution of her complaint. Given the extent of the repeated and continuous failings by the landlord and the impact on the resident identified in this report, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord’s offer of redress was inadequate.
30. The resident has expended significant time in attempting to compel the landlord to complete repairs it was already aware of, which should not have been necessary. Furthermore, it is reasonable to conclude that the prolonged disrepair impacted the resident’s enjoyment of her home, for which she pays rent.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

31. The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. The policy states that the landlord was required to provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days. The landlord was required to convene a review panel within 21 working days of the complaint being escalated. It would then provide a stage 2 response within 5 working days of the panel meeting.
32. The resident raised her first complaint on 7 December 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 18 December 2020 and stated it would provide its complaint response no later than 11 January 2021.
33. The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 4 February 2021, which was 40 working days after the resident raised her complaint, and 18 working days after the deadline it had set to respond. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
34. The resident raised several further complaints in July 2022. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 20 July 2022 and stated it would provide its complaint response no later than 3 August 2022.
35. In the absence of a complaint response, the resident escalated her complaint and asked the landlord for updates on 4 and 5 August 2022, which should not have been necessary. This was a failure by the landlord. The Ombudsman expects landlords to handle complaints in a way that is consistent with landlords’ policies and within the deadlines they have set.
36. On 11 August 2022, the landlord offered to provide a stage 2 complaint response either with, or without, a review panel convening. The landlord did not provide, or offer to provide a stage 1 complaint response. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. This was a significant failing by the landlord.
37. A review panel meeting was held on 2 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 28 October 2022, which was 60 working days after the resident escalated her complaint, and 39 working days after the review panel had met. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. This was a failure by the landlord.
38. Following its stage 2 response, the landlord offered the resident £2,149 compensation. This was for the delays in completing repairs, missed appointments, and to reimburse the resident for her broken sink. The landlord did not offer any compensation in relation to the complaint handling failings identified in this report.
39. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints, in that it:
    1. unreasonably delayed in providing complaint responses
    2. did not communicate any delays to the resident
    3. failed to provide a response at stage 1 of its complaints process.
40. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to compensate the resident for the complaint handling failings identified in this report.

Determination

41. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property.
42. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

43. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
    1. pay the resident an additional £900 compensation comprised of:
       1. £650 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the unreasonable delays in completing repairs
       2. £250 for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
    2. provide the Ombudsman with evidence of the above payment.

Recommendations

44. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord undertake a review of this complaint to identify lessons learnt. The review ought to consider:
    1. the cause of the delays
    2. how it communicates repairs and delays to residents.
45. The Ombudsman’s new Complaint Handling Code will be live from April 2024. It is advisable that the landlord reviews the provisions and completes an assessment on the likelihood of it being able to meet the timescales in the Code from April 2024 in addition to its self-assessment.