Incommunities Limited (202118294)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118294

Incommunities Limited

4 October 2023

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 the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s concerns about the energy efficiency of the property.
2. Repairs to the property.
3. The resident’s request for a management transfer.
4. The associated complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, whose tenancy began on 16 November 2015. At the time of complaint she lived at the property with her husband and 2 adult children.
The property is a 3 bedroom first floor flat in a converted detached house. The building is of stone construction and the landlord says it is approximately 200 years old. An energy performance certificate (EPC) issued in 2015 assessed the property as having an E rating for energy efficiency.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy allows for it to carry out ‘direct lettings’ of properties (commonly known as a management transfer) to residents falling into certain categories. Amongst the ‘discretionary’ categories it lists “under-occupation/downsizing” and “affordability of customers current home”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints process. Its complaints policy says that it will “aim to respond within 10 working days with the decision and outcome” but will keep complainants informed if there are any anticipated delays meaning it will not meet this.
The complaints policy says that at stage 1 “A full or interim response will be relayed to the customer by their preferred method of contact”. There is no mention of an interim response in relation to stage 2 of its complaints process.

Summary of events

On 10 December 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to raise concerns about the temperature in the property. She reported that it was extremely cold, even with the heating on.
The landlord attended the property on 28 January 2021 to inspect the boiler and radiators in the property to ensure they were adequate. It replaced parts in the boiler and fitted a new thermostat.
On 2 February 2021, a specialist contractor carried out a damp and mould survey of the property for the landlord. It’s report said that:
1. The exterior of the building needed repointing in several places, and had leaks from the guttering, and a rain pipe. This needed urgent attention as it had potential to cause damp penetration
2. Inside of the property, it had recorded high levels of humidity and a very low average temperature – despite the heating being on.
3. There was mould affecting walls in 2 of the bedrooms, the living room, the hallway and the stairs.
4. It recommended that the landlord:
  1. Wash down and treat all mould affected areas.
  2. Install an extractor fan in the bathroom to reduce moisture levels.
  3. Conduct a ‘heat calculation’ to check that the radiators were of the correct size and type for the property.
The landlord fitted an extractor fan to the bathroom of the property on 15 February 2021.
On 17 February 2021, the resident contacted the landlord for advice on rehousing. She said that the heating bills for the property were unaffordable, and due to this she was looking to move. The landlord gave her advice about accessing and bidding on the local authority’s housing register.
On 24 February 2021, the landlord carried out an assessment of the radiators in the property, as its contractor had advised. It returned on 5 March 2021 to fit new radiators in the kitchen and a bedroom, and carry out repairs to the one in the hallway.
On 7 May 2021, the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the exterior of the building.
The resident contacted the landlord on 8 June 2021, asking for an update on work to wash down and treat the mould inside the property.
The resident made a formal complaint on 2 August 2021. She expressed dissatisfaction that she still had damp, mould and large cracks in the property walls. She said the landlord had carried out the external work to the building, but had not addressed the internal issues and had not been in contact with her.
On 11 August 2021, the local authority’s Housing Standards department wrote to the landlord. It said the resident had advised it that internal work to the property was still outstanding, including cracks in the wall and persistent damp. It asked the landlord to address these within 28 days.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 7 September 2021. It said, as discussed with the resident, it had now booked in for the cracks in the property’s walls to be filled. It also advised it had spoken to the relevant department about a management transfer for her, as she had requested. The landlord acknowledged that its communication around the repairs had not been as good as it should have been and apologised for the resident feeling the need to complain.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it carried out plastering work and mould treatments to various rooms in the property between 7 September 2021 and 30 September 2021.
On 21 September 2021, the landlord informed the resident that it had considered her case for a management transfer and this had been refused due to the circumstances not being deemed an emergency. It said it had reviewed and increased her priority banding on the local authority’s housing register, and she should continue to bid through this. The resident told the landlord that she could not afford to heat the property due to rising gas prices, and expressed concern that this would cause further damp and mould issues.
The local authority’s Environmental Health (EH) department wrote to the landlord on 4 October 2021. It said it had inspected the resident’s property, and identified hazards which required works to bring the property up to the required standard. It attached a schedule of works which included investigating and repairing a leak in one of the bedrooms, cleaning and treating mould affected areas, filling cracks and gaps in the wall, and replastering some areas. It advised these works should be completed by 19 November 2021.
EH also noted that “The property currently has the minimum EPC rating of an E. It would be advisory to internally insulate the solid stone walls in the original part of the building. This would increase the energy efficiency of the property and make it cost effect (sic) for tenants to maintain a healthy temperature within.”
On 8 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord requesting to escalate her complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. She complained that:
1. The landlord had not yet started the schedule of works compiled by EH, which was due to be completed by 19 November 2021.
2. The landlord’s communication with her around the works had been poor, causing her to repeatedly chase it for updates.
3. She had been told by the landlord that she would be offered a management transfer if she downsized to a 2 bedroom property. As a result her son had left the household, but she had then been rejected for the management transfer.
4. She felt the landlord was forcing her to stay in the property, which was causing her financial issues due to the high cost of heating bills. This had now been made even harder to manage as her son’s contributions towards them had been lost.
5. She felt the property was below an E on the EPC ratings and that this should be investigated.
On 10 November 2021, the landlord contacted the resident to say it was planning to install equipment to monitor the temperature and humidity in the property over a period of several weeks (internal landlord emails show the equipment was not immediately available due to being in use in other properties). The landlord also signposted the resident to an organisation specialising in energy efficiency support, and its internal team which assists residents with budgeting.
On 25 November 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident to inform her that it would be delayed in providing its stage 2 complaint response. It apologised and said it aimed to provide her with a written response in the next 10 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 30 November 2021 requesting a letter to explain in writing the reasons she had been refused for a management transfer.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 December 2021, advising of the reasons for refusing her management transfer. It said that it did not deem her need to move to be of an urgent nature and that it would be “unfair, unjust and not proportionate” to offer her priority above the many other families in need. It advised her to continue bidding through the local authority’s housing register – where, due to her financial hardship, she had the highest banding possible for someone already housed.
On 9 December 2021, after being contacted by the resident, this Service wrote to the landlord requesting that it provide its written stage 2 complaint response to the resident.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 10 December 2021, providing what it described in internal communications as an “interim stage 2 response”. It said that:
1. It had completed the external repairs to the building in May 2021. It had then carried out internal repairs, some of which had required the external repairs to be completed before they could be started.
2. After it had completed the internal repairs, some of the new plastering had cracked, and wallpaper removed in other areas had revealed further existing cracks.
3. It had received contact from EH in October 2021, providing a schedule of works with a recommended completion date of 19 November 2021. It had arranged for a contactor to carry out these works between 14 December 2021 and 16 December 2021.
4. It recognised communication issues, and delays, in its handling of the repairs and would consider how it could offer her redress once all repairs had been completed.
5. In September 2021, the resident had spoken to it regarding a management transfer. She had been advised she would have a better chance of this being approved if she was downsizing to a 2 bedroom property, but that it would be a management decision. It had provided the resident with a letter explaining the reasons that the management transfer was subsequently refused and apologised for raising her expectations.
6. The EPC for the property was not due for renewal until 2025. It understood she wished for it to carry out works to improve the current E rating, and would respond to this once it had received results from the monitoring equipment which it would be installing the following week.
7. It appreciated that she was struggling to keep the property warm, and that the Housing Standards team had recommended lowering the ceilings to assist with this. This was not something that it would be doing, and it would provide her with the full reasoning for this in its final response.
The landlord’s records indicate that the schedule of works provided by EH was completed by 17 December 2021, with the exception of one area of the loft which it was unable to insulate due to it being “inaccessible”.
On 10 January 2022, the landlord’s ‘sustainability team’ held a meeting to discuss the property. It concluded that the works required in order to fully resolve the issues in the property would be extensive, lengthy and require the resident’s family to be decanted. It said the cost of the works should also be considered and may mean that disposal, or change of use for the property, was more cost effective. It recommended that the most “timely and ethical resolution” would be to assist the resident with moving to a more suitable property.
On 12 January 2022, the landlord advised the resident that it had approved her for a management transfer to a 2 bedroom property due to the latest information it had received.
The landlord provided its stage 2 final complaint response on 21 January 2022. It said that:
1. Before making a decision as to whether it would be carrying out works to improve the energy efficiency of the property, it would require a full survey and costings to decide whether it would be financially viable.
2. Following the latest information, it had approved her management transfer request. It appreciated the upset that had been caused by her asking her son to leave the household in order to secure this.
3. The schedule of works provided by EH had been completed on 17 December 2021. It understood this had taken slightly longer than anticipated, and acknowledged it could have completed the repairs in a “more seamless manner and at an earlier opportunity”.
4. It had many properties which held an EPC rating of E or below, and many of its customers were struggling with increasing energy costs. Due to this it was unable to consider compensating her for heating costs as this would set a precedent.
5. It would like to offer her £450 as a “goodwill gesture” for the stress and inconvenience she had suffered over the last year.
6. It was in the process of recruiting a surveyor to lead on its sustainability strategy and retrofit improvements, which it hoped would improve its effectiveness in cases such as this going forwards.

Events since landlord’s final complaint response

On 31 January 2022, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation, but informed it that she still intended to refer her complaint to this service for investigation.
On 14 March 2022, the resident and her family moved into a new property via management transfer.

Assessment and findings

Concerns about energy efficiency

After the resident raised concerns about the temperature within the property, the landlord appropriately arranged for a survey by a specialist contractor, which was completed within a reasonable timeframe. After receiving the contractor’s report, the landlord took steps to inspect and improve the heating system in the property in accordance with the recommendations made.
Although the Housing Standards team made a recommendation to the landlord to improve the EPC rating of the property, this was not a requirement and the landlord was not obliged to follow it. The Minimum Energy Efficiency Standards dictate that all rented properties should have an EPC rating of E or above. The property had a current EPC which complied with this, and had been let to the resident on this basis.
Despite being aware of the resident’s concerns about rising energy costs and the affordability of her bills since at least February 2021, it took until 10 November 2021 for the landlord to signpost her to support services. Although the detriment caused by this was limited – owing to the fact the resident later advised that the support service was unable to offer any meaningful assistance, this is still a cause for concern. Especially as the landlord’s final complaint response remarked that it was aware of other residents experiencing similar difficulties.
Due to the resident’s continued concerns after repairs had been completed, the landlord reasonably agreed to install monitoring equipment in the property for several weeks to measure the temperature and humidity in the property and enable it to make an informed decision on its next steps.
Once the data from the equipment had been collected, the landlord appropriately held a meeting to review this and discuss options to improve the energy efficiency of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider the costs involved in any work, and the fact that disposing of the property may be a more prudent option.
Having assessed that even if works were undertaken, they would be extensive and require the resident to be decanted, the landlord appropriately recommended approving the resident’s management transfer to provide a “timely and ethical” solution for her. It also acknowledged the fact that she had informed the landlord that her fixed rate energy deal would shortly be coming to an end, leading to a dramatic increase in her bills which would cause further financial hardship.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it was unable to consider compensation for the resident’s heating costs due to it setting a precedent for other residents in similar situations. This was a reasonable position. The increasing energy costs experienced by the resident were not related to any defect with the property, or failing on the part of the landlord, but to market forces outside of its control and for which it could not be deemed responsible.
In summary, the landlord appropriately carried out works recommended by its contractor to improve the heating system in the property and when the resident continued to express dissatisfaction, conducted further investigations and considered the options available to it. However, the landlord failed to signpost the resident to support available for those struggling with their energy bills in a timely manner.

Repairs to property

After receiving its contactor’s survey report in February 2021, the landlord was made aware of several repair issues affecting the inside and outside of the property. It was reasonable for the landlord to prioritise completing the external repairs, and addressing issues with water penetration, before beginning internal work to deal with damp and mould and plasterwork.
The landlord did take swift action to address concerns with the heating system, and also install an extractor fan in the bathroom, as recommended by the report.
The landlord’s records show that the external work was completed in May 2021. This was 3 months after its contractor’s report, but this did not represent an unreasonable delay considering the works were contracted out, required the erection of scaffolding and covered an extensive area of the exterior of the property.
The resident contacted the landlord in June 2021 to chase up the outstanding works inside the property. Although it communicated about the matter internally, the landlord has not provided any evidence that it responded to the resident, and this led to her submitting her formal complaint in August 2021 and approaching EH for assistance.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord completed the outstanding repairs the following month. Although the landlord’s final complaint response did note some mitigating factors, including waiting for areas to dry out, it acknowledged that the repairs could have been delivered “quicker and more seamlessly” and that the resident incurred time and trouble in chasing for updates. In addition to this her family had to live with damp and mould in an already humid and cold property for a longer period than necessary.
After receiving the further schedule of works from EH in early October 2021, the landlord failed to communicate with the resident about this, or its intentions towards it. It also failed to commence works in a timely manner, leading to the resident escalating her complaint on 8 November 2021.
The schedule of works was not completed until mid-December 2021 – nearly a month after the completion date requested by EH. The landlord stated that the works took longer than expected due to the poor structure of an internal wall which was discovered during the works The resident states she had pointed this defect out to the landlord previously and it had failed to appropriately investigate.
The landlord has provided this service with a breakdown of the £450 compensation that it awarded to the resident in its final complaint response. This indicates that a total of £300 of this was awarded for failings in its handling of the repairs, including communication around them. This amount is in keeping with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for a failure which adversely affects a resident and where the landlord has acknowledged the failing and made an effort to put things right.
In summary, although the landlord completed repairs to the exterior of the building in a reasonable timeframe, it failed to follow up and carry out the internal repairs until after the resident made a complaint on the subject. After its initial repairs failed, the landlord did not communicate with the resident about its intentions towards the schedule of works provided by EH, nor did it complete the works within the timescales specified. However, the landlord acknowledged its failings and made a reasonable offer of redress in keeping with the Ombudsman’s guidance.

Management transfer

The resident first notified the landlord of a desire to move property, due to the expense of her heating bills, in February 2021. At this time a management transfer was not discussed and the landlord gave the resident appropriate advice about registering for, and using, the local authority’s housing register.
The landlord has not provided any record of when a management transfer was first discussed with the resident, or the possibility of her downsizing to improve her chances of being accepted for one. However, in its interim stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did acknowledge that such a conversation occurred in September 2021.
In her request to escalate her complaint, the resident said that a member of landlord staff advised her that she would be given a management transfer if she downsized property. However, the landlord’s call notes of 9 September 2021, record that the resident said she had been told by that same staff member that her request for management transfer “will need to be signed off by someone higher”. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the advice regarding downsizing was given in the context of improving the resident’s chances of being accepted for a move, rather than guaranteeing this.
The landlord notified the resident that she had been refused for a management transfer on 21 September 2021. Although this service has been provided with a blank copy of the application form the landlord uses for a management transfer, it has not had sight of one completed for the resident’s case. It is therefore unclear why the resident’s application was not accepted, when the application form lists downsizing to relieve “financial hardship” as a discretionary criteria for acceptance.
Although it did not accept her for a management transfer, the landlord did ensure that the resident’s priority banding on the local authority’s housing register was reviewed and increased to reflect the financial hardship she was experiencing.
On 30 November 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to request a letter confirming the reasons her management transfer application had been refused. Internal landlord emails indicated that it was not standard practice for it to write to residents in this circumstance as management transfers were an “an in-house process, not to be advertised with customers”. In this circumstance, where the resident was aware she was being considered for such a transfer, it would have been appropriate for the outcome to have been communicated to her in writing rather than only verbally as appears to have been the case.
The landlord did provide the resident with a letter, outlining the reasons her application was refused, on 3 December 2021. Although this provided a reasonable explanation, it hinged largely on the fact it did not deem her circumstances to be “urgent”. Considering the resident advised the landlord that she was spending upwards of £10 a day heating the property, it is unclear in which circumstances a need to downsize to avoid financial hardship would be deemed urgent.
In internal communications, the landlord made reference several times to the fact that the property was not typical of its stock and that a different approach was needed to deal with the repair and energy efficiency issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to also adopt this approach when considering the management transfer and to have given due consideration to the unique nature of the situation.
Following feedback from its sustainability team’s meeting of 10 January 2022, the landlord moved swiftly to reassess and approve the resident for a management transfer. Analysis carried out by the landlord as part of its complaints investigation showed that between it originally rejecting the resident for a management transfer, and later reversing that decision, no suitable properties had become available in the resident’s desired areas. The detriment to her of it initially refusing her application can therefore be said to be limited.
The landlord’s breakdown of its £450 compensation offer indicated that £100 was awarded due to the “family impact” of the resident’s son moving out, and the landlord not focusing on “property type” enough in assessing her for a management transfer. Due to the limited evidence regarding the landlord’s input into the resident’s decision to try and downsize, and the limited detriment caused by its initial refusal of her management transfer, this represents a reasonable level of redress on this matter.
In summary, the landlord did not evidence appropriate consideration of the unique nature of the property, the resident’s individual circumstances, and reasonable discretion in its initial refusal of her management transfer. It also failed to appropriately provide her with written confirmation of its decision and reasoning until she requested this. However, the level of detriment caused was limited and the landlord’s offer of compensation was reasonable in the circumstances.

Complaint handling

Although the resident made her complaint on 2 August 2021, the landlord took until 7 September 2021 to provide its stage 1 response. This was a period of 26 working days. The landlord appropriately contacted the resident to inform her of a delay on 16 August 2021. However, its letter stated that it aimed to provide its response within the next 10 working days, and it would therefore have been appropriate to provide a further update when it became apparent it would not achieve this.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was brief and lacking in detail. Although it confirmed that the outstanding repairs had now been booked in, it did not provide the dates or any reference numbers for them. Nor did it advise on next steps in regards to the management transfer request, only that it had spoken to the relevant department. Whilst the stage 1 response refers to previous discussions with the resident on these matters, and the information may have been relayed during these, it would still have been appropriate to provide the information in its formal written complaint response.
After the resident escalated her complaint on 8 November 2021, the landlord wrote to her on 25 November 2021 to inform her that it would be delayed in providing its written response, and aimed to do so within a further 10 working days. However, it failed to provide an explanation for the delays – as required under the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code. It then failed to provide a written response within the further 10 working days, leading the resident to approach this service for assistance.
After receiving correspondence from this service, the landlord provided an ‘interim response’ on 10 December 2021. Its logic for this was that the repairs had not yet been fully completed and it wished to obtain the data from the monitoring equipment to determine next steps. This was understandable, however, the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code does not allow for ‘interim’ complaint stages, which unduly delays the complaints process and can cause confusion for complainants. It would instead have been appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with a final response based on the facts at that time, and outlining any outstanding actions.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response was thorough, evidenced learning and made an offer of compensation which, as detailed above represented reasonable redress on some points of complaint. However it failed to acknowledge or apologise for the failings in its complaint handling, and made no offer of redress for these.
It is noted that the landlord’s stage 2 response referred to the compensation of £450 as a “good will payment”. Such terminology frames the payment as the landlord offering something which it is not obliged to, and should be avoided in the context of offering residents redress to which they are entitled owing to service failure.
Despite the failings mentioned here in the landlord’s complaint handling, it is clear that the complaint handler undertaking the stage 2 investigation made a determined and diligent effort to gather information from multiple departments within the landlord and push matters forward to provide a fair and timely outcome for the resident. The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management highlighted issues across the sector with poor records and systems impacting the ability of complaint handlers to respond effectively to residents, and this appears to have been an example.
In summary, the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was delayed and insufficient in detail. It then provided an interim stage 2 response, outside of the complaint handling code, and did not provide its final stage 2 response until over 2 months after the resident’s request to escalate her complaint. The landlord did not acknowledge these delays, or make any offer of redress to the resident for these.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the energy efficiency of the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of repairs to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of the resident’s management transfer request.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord failed to appropriately signpost the resident to support until several months after she had expressed concerns about the financial hardship being caused by her increased utility bills.
The landlord acknowledged delays in carrying out the repairs, and its communication with the resident around these, apologised and made a reasonable offer of compensation.
The landlord failed to appropriately consider the unusual nature of the property when initially handling the resident’s management transfer request. However it later reversed the decision with limited detriment, and made a reasonable offer of compensation.
The landlord failed to handle the resident’s complaint in accordance with the timescales set by the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code and its own policy. It also inappropriately issued an interim complaint response. The landlord did not acknowledge these failings, or make a reasonable offer of redress for them in its final response.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Pay the resident compensation of £250 composed of:
  1. £100 for the service failure in its handling of her concerns about the energy efficiency of the property.
  2. £150 for the maladministration in its handling of her complaint.
2. Ensure relevant staff are aware of internal and external support available to residents struggling with the cost of their utility bills, and are appropriately signposting them at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders to this service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord review the way it gathers/provides internal information for complaint handlers to ensure this is received in timely and accessible manner enabling them to effectively respond to complaints.
It is also recommended that the landlord review its management transfer process to ensure it provides a written outcome to any resident who is aware they are being considered.