One Housing Group Limited (202006035)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006035

One Housing Group Limited

24 May 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 request for remedial repairs to his property.
2. The issues relating to the resident’s rent account and portal access.
3. The associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began on 29 March 2021. The property is a one bedroom flat situated on the third floor of the block. The block is a grade II listed building.
The resident lived in the flat as an occupant prior to the death of the previous tenant in 2019. After the tenant died, the resident applied to succeed the tenancy. The landlord refused the resident’s application on the basis that he had no statutory or contractual rights to succession. However, in March 2021, the landlord granted a discretionary assured tenancy.

Policies, procedures and legal obligations

Section 9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (LTA 1985) implies a statutory obligation on the landlord to ensure that the resident’s property is fit for human habitation at the start of the tenancy, and throughout the term. Fitness for human habitation is measured by reference to the matters specified in s10 LTA 1985. Freedom from damp and ventilation are listed within the Act. The Act states that a property shall be regarded as unfit if it is so far defective in one or more of those matters that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
The landlord must ensure that the homes it provides meet the Decent Homes Standard. Section 5 of the Standard says that the landlord must ensure that its properties are free of category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action. Damp and mould and excess cold are listed as potential hazards.
The resident’s tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property and keep in repair and proper working order any installations for space heating, water heating and sanitation, and for the supply of water, gas and electricity. This is in line with its statutory obligations under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states:
1. Emergency repairs will be attended to and made safe within 24 hours. Any follow up work will be raised as a new job under the appropriate category.
2. Urgent repairs will be attended to within three working days and completed within five working days.
3. Routine repairs will be attended to within five working days and completed within 20 working days.
4. Window and door repairs will be completed within three months of issue, with the exception of those repairs which are larger or more complex in nature that can be scheduled as part of a programme of works.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints process. Stage one complaints are responded to within 10 working days. Stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days. The landlord also considers complaints at an informal stage, prior to its formal process, for less complex complaints that require little or no investigation. Resolution must be completed within three working days. If the informal process is not suitable or where a customer remains dissatisfied, the complaint is escalated to stage one.
The landlord’s compensation and other payments policy states that it would consider paying compensation to its residents when:
1. It has been negligent in its service delivery.
2. It has failed to meet its service targets.
3. It has not acted reasonably.
4. The complainant has suffered loss or inconvenience.
5. No other form of redress is suitable.

Summary of events

The resident informed the landlord of the tenant’s death on 27 March 2019 and, as an occupant of the property, he applied to succeed the tenancy. From this date, up until the date the discretionary tenancy was granted in March 2021, the resident says that the landlord refused to complete any repairs at the property. Gas safety checks were completed by the landlord on 31 January 2020 and again sometime in September 2020.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord in March 2021 as it had been two years since the death of the tenant and his tenancy status, and the condition of the property, remained unresolved. The complaint was about:
1. The resident’s succession application.
2. The resident’s enquiries about use and occupation charges.
3. The resident’s repair requests.
4. The length of time it had taken to resolve the issues.
The landlord provided a stage one complaint response on 18 March 2021. The landlord partially upheld the complaint as it accepted that it had failed to make clear what the correct use and occupation charge was for the property. It said:
1. It had decided to grant the resident a discretionary succession, which meant that a new assured starter tenancy would be issued to him.
2. A property surveyor would be in touch to discuss any outstanding repairs.
3. The use and occupation charge for the property was applied incorrectly, as only the service charge element was apportioned to the account. Once the error was corrected on 1 February 2021, it resulted in a large debit on the account. Therefore, a review of account transactions would be undertaken to establish payments due by the resident.
The landlord granted the resident an assured starter tenancy on 29 March 2021. The arrears on the account at the time of the grant were charged to the deceased tenant’s estate.
The landlord’s contractors attended the resident’s property on 1 April 2021 to complete a survey of the front door, so that it could be replaced. The landlord’s door contractors confirmed that once the survey was complete, an order would be sent to the manufacturers and delivery would be approximately 8 to 10 weeks later.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 April 2021 as he had not been given a tenancy account number which meant that he had not been able to pay any rent. The landlord offered to take a one off payment from the resident, which would be placed in a suspense account and allocated to his rent account as soon as he had a reference number.
The resident chased the landlord’s contractors on 23 and 28 April 2021 to see whether the order for his new door was with the manufacturer. The contractor responded on 12 May 2021 and said that the order was with the manufacturer and as soon as they had a delivery date, they would contact him to arrange installation.
The resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team on 11 May 2021 to escalate his complaint to stage two. He told the landlord that his online portal account had not been set up correctly and there was an error message when he attempted to pay his rent. The resident also informed the landlord that his front door repair was still outstanding, and his flat was still insecure. He also referred to other outstanding repairs and the surveyor visit promised in the stage one complaint response, which had not yet taken place.
On 22 June 2021, the resident received an email to arrange a survey of his front door. He contacted the landlord’s contractors to query this as the door had already been surveyed. The contractors said that there had been a discrepancy in the manufacturing and that some of the details needed to be checked. They apologised for the delay and confirmed that the door had been made, however the panels were bigger than those on the existing door, and so they wanted to attend to remeasure before arranging to install the door.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 July 2021 and provided a rent statement, standing order form and direct debit form. The resident was asked to either complete and return the direct debit form or complete the standing order form and take it to his bank. The resident agreed to set up a standing order to pay his rent and the arrears that had accumulated.
On 15 July 2021, the resident chased the outstanding door again. The contractor responded and sent the resident an image of the door to be fitted. Given that the building was listed, and the door was not in keeping with the architecture of the building, the resident contacted the contractor to confirm that they were aware that the building was grade II listed.
The contractor contacted the landlord on 23 July 2021 and asked for clarification as to what parts of the building were listed. The contractor told the landlord that they had a door ready to install at the resident’s property, however they were unaware of the building listed status.
The resident sent the landlord a list of outstanding repairs and images of defects on 3 August 2021. These were:
1. Bedroom – window does not open, loose plug socket and water damage to the ceiling.
2. Living room – cracked paint, damp, mould, hairs and mushroom growth to the walls and ceiling.
3. Kitchen – broken strip light, smoke alarm cover missing, and issues with the water pressure.
4. Bathroom – cracked paint, mould and damp to the walls and ceiling, broken extractor fan, rotten integrated cupboard, and issues with the water pressure.
5. Hallway – damage to front door (wood splintered, glass shattered, insecure), and indent to smoke alarm.
6. Roof garden – broken glass in the fire exit door.
On 4 August 2021, the landlord confirmed in an internal email that the following work was required:
1. Bedroom window to be eased and adjusted as painted shut.
2. An electrician to attend as the property had missing smoke alarms, issue with light switches turning on lights in different rooms, and the light in the kitchen was not working.
3. Since work completed to block water tank, the tenant had no water pusher – it said a plumber was needed to check this.
4. Mould growth on the walls and property was in a bad way.
The resident contacted the landlord’s door contractor again on 8 September 2021 as he had not received any updates from the landlord. The contractor said that they were still chasing the landlord, who had not responded to their enquiries.
On 9 September 2021, following contact from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord to request a stage two response as the resident remained dissatisfied.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage two response on 6 October 2021. It said:
1. It apologised for the length of time taken to resolve the issues and thanked the resident for his patience.
2. It apologised that the resident was unable to set up a direct debit on its portal and had difficulty making a payment.
3. It apologised that the direct debit mandate sent out did not have the resident’s reference number on and asked the resident to let it know if he would like to change his payment from a standing order to a direct debit.
4. It had instructed its door contractor to replace the front door with a standard composite fire risk assessment compliant solid front door as the current front door was beyond economic repair. However, as the property was grade II listed, it had written to the council’s planning department to enquire whether a bespoke door was required, or whether it could fit a standard door and it was awaiting a response.
5. It had asked a manager to contact the resident that day to arrange a convenient time for a survey to be completed.
6. The complaint was upheld and it offered the resident £50 compensation.

Events since the stage two response

The landlord confirmed in internal emails on 15 October and 18 October 2021, following an inspection, that the resident’s bathroom needed immediate attention and the resident’s property needed an upgrade. It said that the property needed a lot of work done and that repairs were required to every room.
The landlord contacted the council on 4 November 2021 to see whether it could remove the resident’s existing front door and replace it with a fire door blank, as a temporary measure, whilst it considered whether the original door could be upgraded and repaired. The council confirmed that the listed status of the building included the internal spaces and so the removal of the door would require listed building consent. The council also said it was likely that the door should be retained and upgraded to meet fire regulations, rather than be removed and replaced.
The landlord informed the resident on 18 November 2021 that it had consulted a specialist in relation to the structural integrity of his existing front door, and a decision had been made that the door could not be repaired. Therefore, a new door would have to be manufactured. The landlord said that it would try to get a temporary replacement door installed as quickly as possible.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email dated 20 December 2021 that the existing front door was a copy, as the original door was damaged approximately 4 or 5 years previously. The landlord said it could not do anything further until the listed building consent form had been submitted, although it could attach boarding to the existing door to give it extra strength.
On 17 February 2022, the resident contacted the landlord again and asked for an update on his front door. He also told the landlord that other repairs to his flat remained outstanding. The landlord responded on the same day and apologised for the delays. The landlord said that a joiner would attend his property as soon as possible.
On 23 February 2022, the resident contacted this Service and requested that his complaint be escalated as none of the issues he had complained about had been resolved by the landlord.
The landlord provided the resident with an update on 1 March 2022. It said that it had attended his property on 28 February 2022 and it now had all the measurements needed to provide a full specification for submission to planning. The landlord said that it would not need to trouble the resident further until the new door was fitted. The landlord could not give the resident a date for the final fit, however it confirmed that once approved by planning, it would take approximately six weeks for the door to be constructed.
On 28 March 2022, the resident contacted the landlord and said that he had not received a rent payment card. The landlord said that, as he had not made a payment over the phone or received a rent payment card, a payment reference number had not been generated. The landlord concluded that this was possibly the reason for the difficulties he had experienced when attempting to pay via the portal. The landlord sent the resident a rent payment card and told him that this had generated a payment reference number which would now enable him to make a payment on the landlord’s portal and set up a direct debit.
On 15 February 2023, a survey was carried out by a specialist surveyor as part of the pre-action protocol for housing condition claims. The report states that the resident’s property was found to be affected by dampness, significant damp disturbance and disrepair, and was therefore unfit for human habitation.

Assessment and findings

Handling of the resident’s request for remedial repairs to his property

The resident’s legal status between March 2019 and March 2021 is unclear. The landlord has not provided any evidence to suggest that the previous tenancy had been terminated once it had concluded that the resident had no statutory or contractual rights of succession. Therefore, the landlord’s obligation towards the tenant during this time, with regards to its repairing responsibilities, is also unclear.
However, the Ombudsman will determine complaints by what is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case, and in this case, the landlord was aware that the resident was living in the property and it did not take any action, or issue legal proceedings, to recover possession. The landlord also attended the property on at least two occasions in 2020 to carry out gas safety checks, and it contacted the resident on both occasions to make arrangements for access.
In addition to this, the landlord informed the resident that he must pay ‘use and occupation’ charges whilst he was living at the address, which the resident agreed to pay. Although there was no formal tenancy agreement in place, the landlord was fully aware of the resident’s occupation of the property, and so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure that at least basic repairs were carried out so that the property remained in a secure and habitable condition. It was unfair and unreasonable of the landlord to leave the resident living in disrepair for a prolonged period of time whilst it considered the succession application.
From 29 March 2021, the landlord had a statutory obligation to provide the resident with a property that was fit for human habitation and free from category one hazards under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). The landlord told the resident, in its March 2021 stage one complaint response, that a property surveyor would be in contact to discuss any outstanding repairs.
Although the landlord’s contractors attended the property to complete a survey of the front door on 1 April 2021, the landlord did not complete an internal survey of the property until October 2021, which was six months after the resident had been granted the tenancy. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescales set out within its repairs and maintenance policy and there were no apparent reasons for the delay, which was unreasonable.
The records show that the landlord was aware in August 2021 that the property required substantial repair. The landlord’s email of 4 August 2021 confirmed that work was required and referred to the property as being ‘in a bad way’. Further internal emails in October 2021, following the inspection, confirmed the need for an upgrade as repairs were required to every room. The landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the work even though it was aware that the resident was living in damp and mouldy conditions and the property was insecure.
There were significant failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s door replacement. The landlord had instructed its contractors to replace the door in April 2021. Based on the timescales set out in its repairs and maintenance policy, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to raise an emergency repair to ‘make safe’ the door whilst the replacement door was manufactured. The resident had already endured living in an insecure property for two years, and so it would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this a priority once the resident had been granted the tenancy.
The landlord had not considered the buildings listed status when issuing the work for the replacement door. It is unclear whether the buildings listed status was apparent on the property records or whether the landlord’s records were insufficient, however it is clear that the landlord failed to instigate the correct process for consent to complete the work from the outset. This led to unreasonable and significant delays. Even when the landlord was informed by its contractors in July 2021 that the building was grade II listed, there was still confusion as to whether the existing front door was the original door. It was only discovered in December 2021 that the door was in fact a copy.
The landlord informed the resident on 18 November 2021 that it would try to install a temporary replacement door, however, as far as this Service is aware, this did not materialise. It was only in December 2021 that the landlord considered attaching board to the existing door to give it extra strength and security. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to consider this option following the stage one response.
Although the landlord was aware of the listed building status in July 2021, and it had clearly been through this process previously, the landlord took until March 2022 to gather the necessary measurements and information to submit a listed building consent application to change the door. There are no apparent reasons for this unreasonable delay and again the landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the situation. Not only was the resident’s door insecure, but it was also non-compliant with fire regulations, which caused the resident considerable concern.
In its stage two complaint response, the landlord did apologise for the delays and did recognise that the delays had caused inconvenience to the resident. However, the landlord’s offer of £50 compensation failed to fully consider the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the lack of any final solutions to the issues raised.
Throughout this process, the landlord has failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated. The resident has had to make frequent contact with the landlord and its contractors for updates and responses. This was unreasonable and would have contributed to the resident’s frustration, distress and inconvenience.
In summary, the landlord delayed unreasonably in completing urgent repairs even though the resident was living in a damp, mouldy and insecure property. The landlord failed to consider the living conditions of the resident whilst it considered the succession application. Once the tenancy had been granted to the resident, the landlord failed to comply with its own repair and maintenance policy and its legal obligations to ensure that the property was fit for human habitation and free from category one hazards, and as far as this Service is aware, the damp and mould is still affecting the property to date.

Handling of the issues relating to the resident’s rent account and portal access.

Once the resident had been granted the tenancy, it was reasonable for him to expect that his rent account and access to the landlord’s portal would be set up at the same time. The resident made the landlord aware that there was an issue with his rent account, and that this was affecting his ability to pay rent, in April 2021. Given that the resident could not pay his rent, he fell into rent arrears. This was understandably concerning for the resident and should have prompted the landlord to act with more urgency.
A temporary solution was offered and agreed in July 2021, when the resident said that he would set up a standing order to pay his rent. However, it was not until March 2022 that the landlord realised what had caused the problem with the resident’s rent account and the resident’s access to the portal was rectified.
Although the delays in resolving and rectifying the issue with the resident’s rent account were unreasonable, it should be noted that the landlord did provide the resident with the option to pay his rent over the phone, which would have reduced his overall rent arrears. The resident declined this option, as he wanted to have the same access and options to pay his rent as other residents of the landlord.

Handling of the associated complaint

The resident contacted the landlord’s complaints team by email on 11 May 2021 to escalate his complaint to stage two. Although the email did not specifically state that he wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two, the landlord should have recognised that this was the action required. This is a failing on the landlord’s part and resulted in the resident contacting this Service for assistance.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 6 October 2021 which was almost five months after the resident’s initial escalation request in May 2021. This was significantly outside of the landlord’s timescale set out in its complaints policy which states that stage two complaints are responded to within 20 working days.
Although an apology was given to the resident, the landlord’s stage two response failed to fully address the residents concerns as it did not provide any solutions to the issues raised. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to commit to a date for the survey to take place and to offer a temporary solution to the front door that could have been implemented immediately. The landlord also failed to address the delay in the stage two response and provide reasonable redress.
It should also be noted that the landlord’s complaint process is not fully compliant with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s policy says that it will consider less complex complaints at an informal stage, prior to its formal process. The landlord states that, in these cases, a resolution must be completed within three working days and where a customer remains dissatisfied, the complaint is then escalated to stage one. This means that customers whose complaints are considered at the informal stage and then escalated to stage one are subject to a delay of three working days.
Although this is not a considerable period of time, the Code states that it is not appropriate for landlords to have extra named stages, such as a pre-complaint stage, as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one and must be responded to within 10 working days. Although this issue has had no effect on the outcome in this particular case, a recommendation has been made below in this regard.
In summary, the landlord’s complaint handling was poor. There were significant delays in the stage two response and a clear lack of resolution. The landlord did not adequately recognise the difficulties experienced by the resident and the distress and inconvenience caused by its failure to address the resident’s concerns.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s request for remedial repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its handling of the issues relating to the resident’s rent account and portal access.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord behaved unfairly and unreasonably by not completing basic repairs during the resident’s occupation of the property prior to the grant of the tenancy. Once the tenancy had been granted to the resident, the landlord delayed unreasonably in making the property secure, surveying the property and completing necessary repairs. The landlord failed to recognise the urgency of the required repairs and the affect the delays were having on the resident. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated. The resident has had to live in an insecure property, with significant damp and mould, for a prolonged period of time.
There were unreasonable delays in resolving the issues with the resident’s rent account and portal access. The landlord failed to adequately investigate and resolve the issues for the resident within a reasonable period of time. However, the landlord did offer solutions to the resident to ensure that he could still pay his rent and avoid falling further into arrears which reduced the impact on the resident.
There were failings and delays in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord did not adhere to its policy and failed to offer reasonable redress.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must pay the resident total compensation of £1,300 (this is inclusive of the offer of £50 previously made) comprising of:
1. £1,000 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the delays in the completion of repairs to his property.
2. £100 for distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the issues relating to the resident’s rent account and portal access.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the failures identified in its handling of the associated complaint.
Within four weeks from the date of this report, the landlord must:
1. Confirm to the resident and this Service the current position in relation to the required remedial works, including a full schedule for completion.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures highlighted in this report.
The landlord should reply to this Service with evidence of compliance within the timescales set out above.

Recommendations

The landlord should complete a review of its processes when considering applications for succession to ensure that a decision is made within a reasonable period of time and appropriate actions are taken promptly if succession is refused.
The landlord should review its complaints policy against the Code and consider removal of the ‘informal’ stage.
The landlord should reply to this Service within four weeks of the date of this report to advise of its intentions in regard to the above recommendations.