Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited (202014309)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202014309

Nottingham Community Housing Association Limited

18 May 2021

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 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 applicant 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:

3.1. The landlord’s response to reports about water ingress at the resident’s property, and

3.2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damaged front and back doors.

Background and Summary of Events

On 2 September 2020 the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint that she had contacted it several times about the draughts coming in through the doors and windows. It responded to the resident’s complaint on 15 September 2020 and it agreed to arrange for its technical inspector to attend her property and inspect the windows and doors. The resident did not escalate that complaint.

The landlord’s technical inspector carried out the inspection on 2 October 2020. It was agreed that all the windows needed to be replaced, with the exception of one bedroom window. It was also found that the front and back doors needed minor repairs.

The landlord obtained a quote for the windows, which was received on 28 October 2020. It agreed to the quote in early November 2020.

The resident made a new complaint to the landlord on 26 November 2020. She said she was no further forward with her windows and doors, and wanted all her windows replaced as well as both her front and back doors. The landlord acknowledged this the same day.

On 10 December 2020, the landlord provided its Stage One complaint response to the resident. It said:

8.1. Its inspector had agreed that the windows needed to be replaced, with the exception of the bedroom window. An order had been raised, and the windows measured and authorised. It confirmed it would need to arrange an asbestos survey before the windows could be replaced, and that its contractor would be in touch with her about this.

8.2. An additional order had been raised for her front and back doors to be adjusted. It said an appointment had been made, but because she was self-isolating at the time, this was cancelled. That particular contractor did not have any further availability until January 2021. It had therefore arranged for a different contractor to contact the resident to arrange an appointment. However, when the resident was contacted on 9 December 2020, she refused the door repairs.

8.3. It was arranging for a ventilation specialist to carry out an inspection to check there were no underlying issues causing the condensation.

8.4. It did not think the resident’s complaint was warranted.

The resident responded to the landlord on 12 December 2020 and asked for a review of her complaint. The landlord acknowledged this on 14 December 2020.

On 6 January 2021, the landlord provided the resident with its Stage Two response to her complaint. It said:

10.1. As it had gained access to the resident’s home to complete the asbestos survey, the window replacements could go ahead. It gave her a reference number of the work and confirmed the target completion date was before 31 March 2021.

10.2. The front and back doors, and the bedroom window, were all replaced in 2008. Its technical inspector thought the doors could be repaired by its specialist UPVC contractor and did not warrant replacement. It noted the resident had refused the repair, but confirmed it she were to reconsider this, it would arrange the repair for her.

10.3. The ventilation specialist had been unable to contact her to arrange the survey of the property, but it had since given them the resident’s direct phone number. It confirmed that any works identified as a result of that survey would be completed.

10.4. If she were not satisfied with the outcome of the complaint, she could refer the matter to this Service.

On 12 January 2021, the ventilation specialist carried out an inspection of the property. They said there were four occupants and one pet, which would contribute to the levels of condensation. It was noted that the property had full double glazing and gas heating. They observed mould on all three bedroom windows, as well as condensation. The remaining windows were clear during their visit, though they recorded that the resident had advised them those windows had condensation during cold weather. It was also noted that there was condensation in the loft. They recommended this was investigated by a suitably qualified person, as if it were left unattended, it may result in wet rot. They also recommended a ventilation system be installed in the property to resolve the condensation and mould problems.

The resident brought her complaint to this Service on 17 February 2021. She attached a photo of her son’s bedroom to show there was condensation, and so she disagreed with the landlord’s view that the window did not need to be replaced. She confirmed that the asbestos report had taken place in December 2020 and said that, despite the windows being measured in September 2020, she had still not had a date for their replacement. She thought six months to replace the windows was excessive and had caused an expensive winter due to draughty doors and windows.

On 23 March 2021, the resident advised this Service that the agreed works had still not been arranged by the landlord in respect of the windows, or the recommendations made by the ventilation specialist. She said she wanted the agreed windows to be fitted, as well as the window the landlord had refused to change. The resident also said she wanted the front and back doors replaced as they had broken locks and there were draughts coming through both doors. She also said the back door had a large crack.

The landlord advised this Service on 13 April 2021 that it had received the ventilation specialist’s report on 12 January 2021, however, it had failed to process this due to a technical error. It said that the recommendations in respect of the roof ventilation had been raised to its contractor and would be completed within four weeks. It had also raised a job for the ventilation unit, and this was booked in for 27 April 2021. Finally, the landlord confirmed that the replacement windows were booked in for 19 April 2021, that the delay was due to a resource issue and that the communication from its contractor had been poor.

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s maintenance service policy says it aims to respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within six working days, and routine repairs within 30 working days.

The landlord’s compensation policy says that residents may be eligible for compensation if it does not meet any standards it had agreed or the resident has any extra expense or losses for something that was its responsibility.

Assessment and Findings

Water ingress

After receiving the resident’s complaint concerning her windows and doors, it was appropriate for the landlord to arrange an inspection as this enabled the landlord to identify the extent of any repair/maintenance issues at the property and responsibility for resolving any such issues. When its technical inspector recommended that all the windows needed to be replaced, apart from the bedroom window, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon that advice and arrange for the relevant windows to be replaced.

The resident has expressed concerns about the length of time taken to replace the windows. Although the resident said the window measurements were taken in September 2020, it is noted that the technical inspector did not visit the property until October 2020. It therefore seems likely the measurements were taken at this date, or later.

Taking into account that the landlord was reliant upon an external company to manufacture and deliver the windows, it is accepted that much of the delay was likely out of its hands. It is also the case that the windows were not being replaced because they were in a state of disrepair, rather they were being replaced to try and resolve the condensation issues. As the landlord was improving the windows rather than repairing them, it was not obliged to adhere to its published repair timescales. However, it did advise the resident that it expected the installation of the new windows to be completed by 31 March 2020 but this was delayed by around three weeks, until 19 April 2021 because of a resource issue, and poor communication by the landlord’s contractor. This likely caused the resident some unnecessary frustration.

The resident is also concerned that the landlord’s technical inspector found that all the windows needed replacing, with the exception of the bedroom window. It is understood the technical inspector reached that conclusion because the bedroom window had been replaced in 2008. However, whilst the bedroom window had been replaced around 12 years earlier, the ventilation specialist found that all the bedroom windows had mould and condensation. Though the ventilation specialist did not recommend that the affected windows be replaced. Instead, they thought a ventilation system ought to be installed to address the issues with condensation in the property (as well as recommending that further investigation take place in the loft).

Although the ventilation specialist did not recommend that the windows be replaced, the landlord had already decided to replace all the windows (with the exception of the one bedroom window). It had made that decision based upon the advice of its technical inspector, and so it continued with that course of action, which was a reasonable decision to make in the circumstances.

However, the landlord has advised this Service that it failed to comply with the ventilation specialist’s recommendations after these were received. It has explained that this was due to a technical error. That is unfortunate, particularly as it had reassured the resident in its Stage Two complaint response that it would complete any works recommended by the ventilation specialist.

The landlord has confirmed to this Service that it had arranged for the ventilation unit to be installed in late April 2021, and had also arranged for a contractor to address the condensation in the loft.

The landlord’s failure to act immediately on the ventilation specialist’s recommendations meant that the resident was caused inconvenience due to the ongoing issues with condensation in the property. Its failure to update her about the matter would have also likely caused the resident unnecessary confusion, given that she had been advised by the landlord that it would comply with any recommendations made, yet it failed to do so. Whilst it is accepted that its failure to act on the ventilation specialist’s advice occurred after the landlord had completed its internal complaints procedure, it would be reasonable for the landlord to pay the resident compensation to reflect the inconvenience she was caused by this delay and lack of communication, as well as the three-week delay with installing the windows.

The landlord’s compensation policy does not specify amounts to be paid where a resident has experienced inconvenience. However, in line with this Service’s remedies guidance, it would be appropriate for the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the impact caused by its errors in respect of the condensation in the property.

Front and back doors

The landlord’s technical inspector thought that the front and back doors only needed minor repairs and did not need to be replaced. It was reasonable for the landlord to rely upon this advice and therefore attempt the repair.

Although the landlord’s contractor was due to carry out that repair, the resident was not able to go ahead with the appointment and so it was cancelled. As that particular contractor could not reattend until January 2021, the landlord arranged for a different contractor to carry out the repair. That was reasonable. However, by that point, it is reasonable to conclude from the landlord’s Stage One and Stage Two complaint responses that the resident had decided not to allow the repair as she thought the doors needed to be replaced.

It was up to the resident whether or not she allowed the repair to take place, however there is no evidence to support that the doors cannot be repaired (as the resident believes). It would therefore be appropriate for the landlord’s contractor to attempt the repair. If the resident continues to experience problems with the doors after that, then she should advise the landlord of that and it can consider the matter at that time. The landlord has confirmed to the resident that if she changes her mind about the repair, it will arrange this. This was a fair response in the circumstances. Having been unable to complete the repair due to an inability to access the property, the landlord’s repair obligations effectively ended. Nonetheless, the landlord remains aware of this issue and has confirmed that it will take appropriate remedial action when it can.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:

29.1. Service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to condensation and damp in the resident’s property, and

29.2. No maladministration by the landlord in response to the resident’s report of damaged front and back doors.

Reasons

It took around six months for the resident’s windows to be replaced after the landlord had agreed to do so, however, much of the delay was likely due to the windows manufacturer. Though the landlord did fail to complete the improvement to the windows by the date it had given the resident, and so there was around a three-week delay. Given how long the resident had already been waiting by that point, this would have caused additional inconvenience.

The landlord failed to act upon the ventilation specialist’s advice, which meant the installation of the ventilation system was delayed. This meant the resident continued to experience condensation in the property for longer than was necessary.

The landlord’s technical inspector did not recommend that the resident’s son’s window be replaced when it was found that the others needed replacing. Even though the ventilation specialist found that the resident’s son’s window did have mould and condensation. However, the ventilation specialist did not recommend that the window be replaced, and so it would not be reasonable to require the landlord to replace the window. Instead, now that the ventilation system has been installed, the landlord should carry out an inspection to check that the condensation issue in the resident’s son’s bedroom has now resolved. If not, it should consider replacing that window.

The landlord thought it could carry out a repair to the front and back doors. The resident refused to allow it to attempt this, but there is no evidence to support that a repair would not resolve the problems. The landlord has confirmed it is still willing to arrange the repair, which is a reasonable and proportionate response.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation for the three-week delay in installing the windows, as well as failing to promptly action the ventilation specialist’s recommendations.

The landlord to arrange a further inspection of the resident’s son’s bedroom window, to establish whether the condensation issues have now resolved. If not, it should consider replacing the window.

The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm that it has complied with the above orders.

The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the leaseholder and of the landlord’s staff.