Places for People Group Limited (202201611)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202201611

Places for People Group Limited

23 November 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:
1. Handling and management of repairs to reinstate heating and hot water in the property.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs within the property.
3. Response to the resident’s reports that the property was inaccurately advertised as a ground floor property.
4. Provision of information about asbestos in the property.
5. Provision of information about carbon monoxide detectors in the property.
6. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints has also been investigated.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bed, first floor property in a block owned and managed by the landlord. The property was let under a starter tenancy agreement in December 2020 and the resident is an assured tenant.
The landlord does not record any vulnerabilities for the resident.
The resident experienced a fault with her boiler which was reported to have caused a release of carbon monoxide in the property. This Service is aware that the resident reported her concerns about the impact of carbon monoxide on the health of her and her family to the landlord. Furthermore, that the landlord asked the resident to provide medical evidence to confirm the effect this may have had on her health and her family’s health for it to consider the matter. However, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the boiler fault and the resident’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health or that of her family had been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.

Relevant policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 requires landlords to make repairs to installations such as boilers, pipes, and electrics and to carry out repairs within a reasonable amount of time once it has been notified of the problem.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement the landlord had an obligation to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for space heating and heating water.
The Smoke and Carbon Monoxide Alarm (England) Regulations 2015 say that landlords must ensure that a carbon monoxide alarm is equipped in any room of the premises which is used wholly or partly as living accommodation and contains a solid fuel burning combustion appliance. This regulation was amended from 1 October 2022 to include any room used as living accommodation which contains a fixed combustion appliance (excluding gas cookers).
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep in repair and proper working order:
1. The installations for space heating and hot water.
2. Windows and window catches.
3. Internal ceilings.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy says:
1. It will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours.
2. It will complete appointable repairs within 28 days (currently 60).
3. It will repair faulty switches/sockets, gas leaks from pipes and gas boilers, leaking boilers, total loss of heating and hot water, hardwired carbon monoxide detectors not working, roof repairs, walls, ceilings, and exposed asbestos.
The responsive repairs policy does not detail what types of repairs are classed as emergency repairs. However on its website the landlord says that emergency repairs include a complete loss of heating and hot water.
The landlord’s voids policy says:
1. It will complete a full inspection of all areas associated with the property including outbuildings, the property structure, fixtures, furnishings, and fittings, including heating systems, switches, and sockets.
2. At the completion of the void works/start of new tenancy, the gas supply will be recommissioned and tested to enable a new landlord gas safety record to be provided.
3. It will provide all door keys, fobs, and window keys for the property.
4. It will undertake an asbestos survey if no copy or record is available on the asbestos register.
5. Where the property has no smoke alarm, or battery-operated smoke alarm it will install a hard wired, mains operated, interlinked smoke alarm system.
6. All properties with solid fuel appliances (will be serviced on a 6 monthly basis) should have a carbon monoxide alarm fitted.
7. New tenants should expect:
  1. The electrics and gas supplies to have been safety checked and certified.
  2. The home to have a working smoke-alarm system.
  3. The boiler to be in good working order and to have a timer or programmer (or both) fitted.
  4. The internal doors and frames to be in working order, and open and close freely.
  5. The walls and ceilings to have been checked and free from large cracks and loose plaster.
  6. Housing staff to advise that if there is any known asbestos in the property the landlord will have inspected it and it will be contained, with a management plan in place.
  7. To be given an ‘Asbestos in the Home’ information sheet at sign up.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint procedure which says:
1. It will acknowledge a stage 1 complaint within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days.
2. It will acknowledge a stage 2 complaint within 3 working days and provide a response within 20 working days.
3. Normally a complaint must be made within 6 months of the event.
4. In exceptional circumstances it may be able to consider a complaint after the time limit.
The landlord’s compensation policy says it will consider compensation where:
1. It has failed to provide a service covered by a tenancy agreement to the agreed specification or standard.
2. There is an unreasonable delay in the landlord resolving a query or issue and the customer has not been kept informed.
3. It is responsible for a loss of facilities and has failed to put it right within its target timescale.
The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code says:
1. Under paragraph 5.1, landlords must respond to the stage 1 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged.
2. Under paragraph 5.3, landlords must respond to the stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
3. Under paragraph 5.7, where residents raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated in the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or if it would unreasonably delay the response the complaint should be logged as a new complaint.
4. Under paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16, landlords must confirm the following in writing to the resident at the completion of stage 1 and 2 in clear plain language:
  1. The complaint definition.
  2. The decision of the complaint.
5. Under paragraph 5.14, if an extension beyond 10 working days is required to enable the landlord to respond to the complaint fully, this should be agreed by both parties.

Summary of events

The landlord completed a servicing and commissioning safety certificate on 18 December 2020 which confirmed the gas boiler passed safety checks.
The landlord inspected the boiler of 26 October 2021 and identified it required replacement parts. The landlord provided the resident with 4 alternative heaters.
The landlord attempted to repair the boiler again on 29 October 2021 but had been provided with the wrong part and so had to reschedule the appointment for a later date. The landlord explained that there would be a delay in repairing the boiler to the resident during the appointment and its gas contractor called her later the same day to further explain that there would be a delay.
The landlord installed the replacement part to the boiler on 3 November 2021 but during the recommissioning identified that it needed to place an order for further faulty parts. The landlord completed a temporary fix to reinstate the hot water until the parts arrived and it could complete a permanent fix.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord by phone on 3 November 2021. The resident said:
1. There were outstanding repairs in the property which should have been completed before she took up occupation. She described these as:
  1. A leaking window in the living room for which 2 repair appointments had previously been cancelled.
  2. A missing living room door.
  3. A fault with the hallway ceiling which was sagging and was letting in grey dust and had not been repaired despite her reporting it several times.
  4. Missing shed keys which had not been supplied.
2. The property had been incorrectly advertised as a ground floor property and not a first-floor property.
3. She thought she had to accept the property because she had previously been living in temporary accommodation.
4. She had asked if there was a carbon monoxide detector in the property and had incorrectly been told there was one when there wasn’t.
5. There had been no mention of asbestos in the property prior to her moving in, and she had had later found out from a laminated certificate on a cupboard door that there was asbestos.
6. She would have refused the property if she had known the property had asbestos and did not have a carbon monoxide detector.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 5 November 2021 and advised it would provide a response by 17 November 2021.
The resident raised her concerns about the landlord’s handling of her boiler repair, the presence of carbon monoxide in the property and about missing CO2 meters in an email she sent to her MP on 6 November 2021. The resident said:
1. She wished to be moved into temporary accommodation and that the family had been unwell for around 3 weeks, which could have been a coincidence, but that the family felt better within 48 hours of the boiler being switched off.
2. The landlord had breached lettings law by telling her there was a carbon monoxide detector in the property when there wasn’t.
3. She had raised the matter with the environmental health department who had advised her to make a complaint to the landlord which she had done on 3 November 2021.
The MP redirected the resident’s concerns to the local authority’s environmental health team on 9 November 2021. The resident’s MP also sent an email to the landlord on the same day requesting a response to the resident’s heating repair and request for the installation of CO2 meters in the property.
The landlord completed the installation of a replacement boiler on 10 November 2021. The landlord’s gas contractor sent a letter to the resident the next day which offered her a compensation payment of £250 for inconvenience the delays installing a new boiler had caused to the resident.
The environmental health team emailed the MP on 15 November 2021 to confirm the carbon monoxide matter had been resolved by the landlord because it had installed a new boiler. The MP shared this advice with the resident on 18 November 2021.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 November 2021 to say she had not received a response to her complaint of 3 November 2021.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 November 2021 to apologise for its delay in contacting her. The landlord asked her to provide a convenient date for it to speak to her about her complaint and to provide further information about the nature of the outstanding repairs she had referred to. The resident replied to the landlord later the same day to provide information about her availability.
The landlord emailed the resident on 27 November 2021 to set out its understanding of the resident’s complaint. The landlord:
1. Listed the outstanding repairs as:
  1. The time it had taken to resolve the heating and hot water repair.
  2. A door that had been left in the garden had not been collected.
  3. A leaking window in the living room.
  4. No door in the living room.
  5. A defective hallway ceiling.
  6. No keys to the shed doors.
2. Apologised for missing its deadline for contacting the resident.
3. Asked her to provide any further information about her stage 1 complaint and to provide photos.
4. Said it would provide the resident with a payment in line with its compensation policy for the service failures the resident had experienced.
The resident replied to the landlord’s request for further information on 27 November 2021. The resident said:
1. The landlord’s handling of the boiler repair was “the straw that broke the camel’s back.”
2. No health and safety checks had been carried out and she had been left without heating and hot water for 2 weeks between 26 October 2021 and 10 November 2021 which was a breach of section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
3. The property had been incorrectly advertised as a ground floor property.
4. There had been no disclosure about asbestos in the property before she moved in. She had found out about it after she moved in from an asbestos certificate on the inside of a cupboard door and from a service charge statement she received at the start of the financial year which had listed asbestos management as a fee.
5. She had been told there was a carbon monoxide detector in the property which was not true.
6. There had been multiple failed repair appointments and poor communication.
7. She had requested to be placed in emergency accommodation, but her requests fell on deaf ears, with the exception of one staff member.
8. There were a number of additional repairs that she had not reported because she thought they should have been completed before she moved into the property. The resident listed these as:
  1. Cavity wall insulation.
  2. Broken window vents.
  3. Faulty window mechanisms
  4. Two cracked plug sockets.
9. Her daughter had become ill which she had yet to investigate to determine if it had been an effect of a lack of heating.
10. The family had been exposed to carbon monoxide for 3 weeks and their symptoms had disappeared within 48 hours when the boiler had been switched off.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2021 with reference to its compensation offer of £250. The resident asked the landlord if it would extend the time on the offer so that she could consider it and ensure that her acceptance of the offer would not conflict with its progress of the repairs.
The landlord emailed the resident on 8 December 2021 to notify her that it had extended her stage 1 complaint response date to 15 December 2021 because it required further information to incorporate into the complaint response.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 16 December 2021. The landlord said:
1. It had attended the property to inspect and repair the boiler on 26 October 2021, in line with its policies and procedures.
2. It had provided 4 temporary heaters the same day.
3. It had been required to order and install different parts before it could properly repair the boiler on 10 November 2021.
4. The boiler manufacturer had advised that it had changed its serial numbers and so had difficulty locating the correct parts which had caused the delay.
5. The landlord had completed the installation of the replacement boiler on 10 November 2021.
6. The landlord had subsequently provided a compensation payment of £250 for the boiler installation delays.
7. It appreciated that being told that there had been an escape of fumes would have been extremely worrying and that there had been delays reinstating the heating for which it apologised.
8. It had not breached section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 because it had acted promptly as soon as it had been notified of the issue and had resolved it within a reasonable time.
9. It apologised that the resident had not been notified about asbestos in the property but stated it had followed its void process and that there were no areas of concern raised in its asbestos survey.
10. It was sorry the property had been advertised as a ground floor property incorrectly, but that the resident had accepted it after viewing the property.
11. The housing officer did not recall holding a conversation about a carbon monoxide detector but offered an apology if there had been a misunderstanding.
12. It had reviewed its systems and identified that it had missed some repair appointments and would offer compensation payments for this.
13. It had requested repair appointments for the hole in the shed but suggested that the resident should report the other outstanding repairs herself.
14. It could not comment on the health-related matters the resident had raised but asked the resident to provide a doctor’s report that confirmed her illness was related to the boiler issue for it to investigate further.
15. The landlord offered £375 compensation which it itemised as:
  1. £25 for missed timescales in resolving the heating.
  2. £70 for a lack of hot water/heating.
  3. £150 discretionary payment for distress and inconvenience caused by the heating failures.
  4. £80 for 4 missed appointments.
  5. £50 for its communication failings.
16. The landlord offered an apology for the issues the resident experienced. It did not say if it upheld the complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2021 to say she was unhappy with the landlord’s stage 1 response and would send across her explanation in the approaching days.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s dissatisfaction with its stage 1 complaint on 4 January 2022 and advised that it would escalate the matter to stage 2 as soon as the resident sent in her reasons. The landlord did not receive a further explanation email from the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 10 January 2022 to say her previous response had been registered as a stage 2 complaint and that a stage 2 complaint response would be issued on 1 February 2022.
The landlord sent an internal email on 10 January 2022 that said it had acknowledged the resident’s complaint and assigned it with a due date of 1 February 2022. The email asked a member of staff to contact the resident about her complaint so as to understand her expectations of the outcome.
The landlord sent an internal email on 11 January 2022 which said it had spoken to the resident about the issues she wished the landlord to review and what she would consider as a resolution. The landlord said:
1. The resident wanted to be moved out of the property and had registered on Home Swapper, but her application had been rejected for an unknown reason which she thought was because of the condition of the property.
2. She would not have accepted the property if she had known there was asbestos and no carbon monoxide detector.
3. There had been a lack of communication about her complaint.
4. There had been ongoing failed appointments as well as a lack of communication about the appointments.
5. There was a list of outstanding repairs which had not been resolved. The resident said the repairs related to plug sockets, cracked windows and a missing door in the property.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 January 2021 that said it had until 1 February 2022 before it needed to respond to the resident. The landlord said:
1. The resident was looking for a transfer but that this might change if the repairs were all completed.
2. It would need medical evidence to investigate the resident’s mention of poor health due to the boiler issues.
3. It considered it had acted properly and safely when it had originally attended and isolated the boiler in an appropriate time frame.
The landlord sent an internal email on 14 January 2022 that said repairs to address window vents, a roof leak, the hallway ceiling, a hole behind the flue, a hole in the shed, a lock replacement, and the removal of a door from the garden had previously been raised on a number of occasions.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 14 January 2022 to summarise the discussion that it had held with the resident about her stage 2 complaint during its visit to the property the same day. The landlord said:
1. The outstanding repairs were:
  1. Broken window vents.
  2. A roof leak which had caused damp patches on the ceiling.
  3. A hole behind the flue behind the boiler.
  4. A hole in the base of the shed.
  5. A door which had been left in the back garden and needed to be removed.
  6. Leaking windows.
  7. A living room door had never been in place since the resident moved in.
  8. The ceiling in the hallway which was sagging.
  9. The sheds were locked, and the resident was never given a key.
2. It had looked into the advert for the property and could confirm that it had incorrectly described the property as a ground floor flat.
3. It apologised for the error on the listing and would contact the lettings team to ask that they check all details in future before listings went live so that it did not happen again.
4. It would ensure that the outstanding repairs would be completed.
5. It would assist her with her rehousing request and required evidence that confirmed that the property had caused her stress and anxiety to progress this.
6. It required further evidence in regard to any other health issues that the resident considered had been as a result of the property condition.
The landlord sent an internal email on 14 January 2022 that said it was supporting the resident with her request for rehousing and had asked her for medical evidence to support the application.
The resident replied to the landlord’s summary email on 15 January 2022 to say:
1. Some of the windows did not open and close properly.
2. She had not been told by the agent that she had to take the property but had found this information out when she did her own research.
3. She had not been promised carbon monoxide detectors but had been told that the property already had one.
4. The carbon monoxide leak had happened in October 2021, after she had moved in.
5. She was not after monetary gain but wanted the landlord to be held accountable for its failings which included:
  1. Leaving her family in a property for 3 weeks without a working boiler.
  2. Not completing any inspections which she considered was a breach of Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act.
6. She had made 13 phone calls asking for help with the situation.
The landlord held a multi-agency meeting on 17 January 2022 to discuss its response to the outstanding repairs the resident had raised in her stage 2 complaint. The landlord sent an internal email the next day to coordinate the landlord’s response. The landlord asked a member of staff to contact the resident to provide information about the requirement for progressing her rehousing request and to confirm:
1. That the compensation offer was still available.
2. Who would respond to her complaint.
3. Who would coordinate the outstanding repairs.
4. That the landlord would provide a carbon monoxide meter free of charge.
5. That a repairs plan would be arranged and shared within 5 working days.
6. That an inspection of the ceiling was required quickly as it was a concern.
The landlord sent an internal email on 20 January 2022 which said it had raised a job for a carbon monoxide detector to be fitted to its contractor who would arrange an appointment with the resident.
The landlord sent an internal email on 24 January 2022 that advised it had arranged for all the outstanding repairs to be completed on 28 February 2022, with the exception of a roof repair which required an alternative approach. The landlord confirmed it had notified the resident about the repair appointments on 26 January 2021 and that she had confirmed she was happy with the date it had provided.
The landlord sent an internal email on 25 January 2022 which said it was waiting for medical evidence to put a managed move in place for the resident.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 February 2022 to say she had checked the carbon monoxide detectors and had had another exposure within the previous 4 weeks. The resident advised the levels were not above the levels to activate the alarm. The resident emailed the landlord again the next day to say she had rechecked the meters and the readings were CO not CO2. The resident provided the landlord with photographs of the meter readings. The landlord arranged for an engineer to visit the property the next day.
The landlord’s engineer inspected the boiler on 4 February 2022 and found there to be no concerns. The landlord also inspected the property to verify that the carbon monoxide detectors had been installed in the correct place. The landlord also confirmed that the holes behind the boiler flue had been repaired in November 2021, but the resident had not been made aware at that time.
The landlord sent a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 7 February 2022, that was dated 4 February 2022. The landlord said:
1. It had met with the resident on 10 January 2022 to discuss her complaint and had subsequently apologised to her for incorrectly advertising the property as a ground floor property.
2. It recognised there had been some confusion about the boiler and there had been a lack of communication, and the resident had not been kept up to date.
3. It had held an internal meeting to discuss the outstanding repairs prior to providing its stage 2 response during which it was agreed the landlord would:
  1. Supply a carbon monoxide monitor free of charge.
  2. Inspect the hallway ceiling.
  3. Confirm the details of any outstanding window repairs.
  4. Investigate water leaks from the roof and windows.
  5. Repair the locks on the shed.
  6. Replace the living room door.
  7. Remove an old door that had been left outside.
  8. Inspect the boiler.
  9. Assess the house for damp.
4. It had made appointments to complete the outstanding repairs which it had previously communicated to the resident on 1 February 2022.
5. It could not find fault with its handling of the repairs during the stage 1 complaint but found that its communication had been poor.
6. It considered that its previous offer of compensation of £375 was reasonable.
7. It understood that the resident did not want compensation but wanted to move to a new property.
8. All outstanding repairs were “in plan with the resident’s agreement.”
9. It would support the resident with her rehousing request.
10. It wanted to offer her a further £50 compensation as an apology for its repair-handling timescales thereby totalling £425.
11. It had identified a number of lessons that it had learned from the complaint.
12. Its response at stage 2 of the complaint procedure was its final response confirming that the complaint had exhausted its internal complaint process.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling and management of repairs to reinstate heating and hot water in the property.

The landlord’s repairs policy says it will respond to appointed repairs within 28 days but also states that this was “currently 60 days” without explaining why there had been an extension of time. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have provided information about why it had provided an additional 32 days for the completion of this type of repair.
The landlord completed a servicing and commissioning safety inspection at the property and subsequently issued a safety certificate dated 18 December 2020 which was the day after the tenancy start date. The landlord’s safety certificate recorded that that boiler met the safety requirements. Completing gas and electricity safety checks prior to letting the property was an appropriate approach for the landlord to take to ensure it complied with its own voids policy and with the health and safety obligations contained with the tenancy agreement.
The resident reported a fault with the boiler in the property on 26 October 2021 and the landlord raised a works order and inspected the boiler same day. This was an appropriate response for the landlord to have taken to limit the impact any boiler fault could have had on the resident, furthermore, to ascertain if there had been any risk to the resident’s health and safety.
The landlord’s contractor identified the boiler fault and a requirement for the installation of replacement parts and so switched off the boiler and provided the resident with 4 alternative heaters within 24 hours. This was completed within the timescale the landlord advertises on its website for responding to emergency repairs.
It was appropriate for the landlord to have sent a specialist contractor to inspect the boiler and to rely on the qualified engineer’s assessment of the fault. It is not within the remit of this Service to interpret the conclusions its qualified operative reached. However, switching off the boiler was an appropriate action for the landlord to have taken in recognition of the boiler fault. Furthermore, by providing alternative heating sources the landlord also sought to limit the detriment the boiler fault would have had on the resident which was a reasonable action for it to have taken.
The landlord reattended the property 3 days later, on 29 October 2021, which was a reasonable timescale for the landlord to have taken to progress the repair. However, it had been provided with the wrong part and therefore had to reschedule the repair again which it completed a further 5 days later on 3 November 2021. The landlord explained the delay to the resident during the appointment, as well as over the phone later the same day. It is accepted that this would have caused time and trouble to the resident however, it was reasonable for the landlord to have ensured it had explained the cause of the delay to her. The landlord further explained the delay to the resident in its stage 1 complaint response in which it advised that the delay had been caused by a change of barcodes used by the supplier and which had been outside of the landlord’s influence.
The landlord reattended the property on 3 November 2021 to install the correct part but when it recommissioned the boiler it identified the requirement for further parts. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have identified the requirement for additional parts during the 2 previous appointments it had completed at the property. This further delay caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident in making a further appointment for the boiler repair to be completed. Notwithstanding the detriment living in the property during winter months without a working boiler would have caused.
It is not clear to this Service what arrangements the landlord had made to provide the resident with an alternative source of hot water, as it had done with space heating. The landlord confirmed that it had reinstated the hot water supply during an appointment it had completed 8 days later. This was an unreasonable amount of time for the resident to have been without hot water.
The landlord had to reschedule the repair again until it could order and install the additional parts it required which it completed 7 days later on 10 November 2021. The additional delays that the requirement for additional parts created caused further inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident which could have been avoided.
The landlord’s contractor contacted the resident the following day to offer her a payment for £250 for its repair handling failures and this was a reasonable offer to have made. Furthermore the landlord later recognised its failings with the boiler repair in its complaint responses. The landlord considered the impact the matter had had on the resident and provided an apology to the resident in its complaint response. It also applied appropriate dispute resolution principles by recognising its mistakes and seeking to put things right by referring to its own compensation policy. The landlord offered the resident additional £245 compensation payments which therefore totalled compensation payments £495 for its handling of the boiler repair. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to have taken in recognition of the detriment the matter caused to the resident.
When there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress, which included an apology, and an offer of compensation was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles; be fair, to put things right and to learn from outcomes. This Service is of the view that the total amount of compensation offered for delays incurred during the landlord’s reinstatement of the resident’s heating and hot water was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience caused. The amount of compensation also aligned with the landlord’s policy and the housing ombudsman remedies guidance and was therefore reasonable.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to repairs to reinstate heating and hot water in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs within the property.

The resident raised concerns about a number of outstanding repairs that the landlord had not completed prior to letting the property in December 2020. The resident listed 4 of the repairs in her stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2021 which related to repairs that were within the landlord’s voids standards. The resident added an additional 4 repairs when the landlord asked her for further information on 27 November 2021. The resident advised that she had expected the landlord to have completed these repairs itself and had therefore not reported all of them as separate repair requests prior to making the complaint. It is understandable that the resident would have expected the landlord to have let the property in a reasonable condition in accordance with its void policy and its own lettings standards.
The landlord recognised in its stage 1 response that it had not completed the repairs that the resident had reported. The landlord offered an apology and appropriately advised the resident that it would provide her with compensation for the missed appointments. However, the landlord did not address the handling of the repairs that it had failed to complete prior to letting the property and this was inappropriate. Neither did it advise the resident what it would do to put things right. Instead the landlord advised the resident to report the repairs herself. Whilst it is recognised that the resident had said that she had not reported some of the repairs previously it was unreasonable for the landlord not to have raised works orders to progress the matter given it had already been notified of the repairs. This would have caused time and trouble to the resident which could have been avoided.
The landlord contacted the resident on 14 January 2022 to record the details of her stage 2 complaint during which she referred to an additional 4 repairs that she had not raised in her stage 1 complaint. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have registered a new stage 1 complaint about these matters in line with paragraph 5.7 of the complaint handling code. Notwithstanding, the landlord incorporated a response to these repairs along with those that had been escalated to stage 2 in its final response on 7 February 2022.
The landlord held a multi-agency meeting on 17 January 2022 to coordinate its response to the resident’s repairs during which it confirmed it would plan the repairs within 5 working days. The landlord’s intention to progress the outstanding repairs in recognition of its repair handling failures was appropriate. Furthermore it was reasonable for it to assign the responsibility to address the repairs to individual staff members. However this Service has not seen any evidence to confirm that a repair plan was completed or communicated with the resident, and this was unreasonable.
The landlord confirmed in its final complaint response that it would address 8 repairs that remained outstanding on dates it had arranged with the resident that post-dated its final complaint response. The list of outstanding repairs included all of the repairs that the resident had initially raised in her stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2021. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have completed these repairs sooner given the landlord had been notified of the repairs 117 days previously. This represents a delay of 89 days beyond the landlord’s policy timescale of 28 days for planned repairs, and 29 days later than its extended target of 60 days.
The landlord recognised its failings in its handling of the resident’s repairs in its stage 2 complaint response and referred back to the compensation it had awarded the resident in its stage 1 complaint response. In the stage 1 response the landlord had offered the resident £80 as compensation for 4 missed appointments. The landlord also offered £50 for its communication failings, which is considered further below. The landlord considered that the amount it had offered the resident was reasonable but offered an additional £50 for further delays in its repairs handling.
As previously explained when there are acknowledged failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. It was fair and appropriate therefore for the landlord to have provided an apology for its handling of the resident’s repairs. Furthermore it was appropriate for it to have considered making an offer of compensation to the resident. The landlord’s offer of £80 for 4 missed appointments was reasonable. However, this Service is of the view that the additional compensation offer of £50 that it awarded in its stage 2 response was not proportionate to the detriment the matters had caused to the resident given the number of repairs the resident has raised and the landlord’s delay in completing them.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was inaccurately advertised as a ground floor property.

The landlord’s complaint policy sets out that it would not usually respond to complaints that are not made within 6 months of the occurrence of the event. Furthermore this Service may not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matter arising. However the landlord’s complaint policy also provides it with the ability to consider complaints after the time limit under exceptional circumstances. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have taken a solution focussed approach to the matter by considering the resident’s complaint about the advert that it had placed. For completeness therefore this report has assessed the landlord’s response to this element of the resident’s complaint.
The resident completed a viewing at the first-floor property prior to accepting the offer and signing the tenancy agreement in December 2020. It was ordinary practice for the landlord to arrange a viewing prior to starting a tenancy and it was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have invited the resident to view the property so that she could decide if the property was suitable.
The resident referred to the offer of accommodation in her stage 1 complaint on 3 November 2021 in which she explained that it had been incorrectly advertised as a ground floor property. The landlord subsequently reviewed the lettings information prior to issuing its stage 1 complaint response in which it confirmed that the property had been incorrectly advertised. It recognised that it was incorrect for the landlord to have advertised the property as a ground-floor property when it was located on the first floor, and it reasonably offered an apology to the resident. The landlord also indicated that it had learned from outcomes and sought to put things right by contacting the lettings team to ask that it check all details in future before listings went live so that it did not happen again. This was a reasonable approach for the landlord to have taken which demonstrated the application of best practice dispute resolution principles.
The landlord reviewed the matter again in its stage 2 complaint response in which it advised that the resident had chosen to accept the property after she had viewed it. The landlord did not comment on the resident’s view that she had thought she had to accept the property because she had been living in temporary accommodation. It is unclear to this Service why the resident had thought she had to accept the property. Furthermore where she received this advice, however the landlord would have been expected to have discussed this with the resident during the viewing, particularly if she had expressed at the time that the property was not suitable because it was not on the ground floor. This Service has not seen any evidence to confirm the details of the conversation that had been held during the viewing and therefore cannot draw any further conclusions about the circumstances that had led to the property being accepted.
The landlord offered the resident £50 for its communication failings in its stage 2 complaint response but did not say explicitly if this compensation award was related to the inaccuracy of the advert it had placed. The landlord’s compensation policy provided it with the opportunity to offer financial redress for its service failings. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to have considered offering compensation to the resident for its handling of the property advert. However it is the view of this Service that the level of compensation it offered, if indeed the offer was made for the inconvenience the advert caused to the resident, was low and did not appropriately address the detriment that had been caused to the resident. An increased offer of compensation is therefore awarded below.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was inaccurately advertised as a ground floor property.

The landlord’s provision of information about asbestos in the property.

The resident reported that the landlord had not provided her with appropriate information about the presence of asbestos in the property prior to her taking up occupation at the property. It is evident that the resident became aware of the presence of asbestos from a laminated certificate on a cupboard door and a service charge statement at the end of the financial year. The landlord’s voids policy says its housing staff will advise that if there is any known asbestos in the property the landlord will have inspected it and it will be contained with a management plan in place. Furthermore, that it will provide an ‘asbestos in the home’ information sheet to new residents during the tenancy sign up appointment. It was therefore inappropriate for the landlord not to have provided this information to the resident prior to her moving into the property.
The landlord’s voids policy says it will undertake an asbestos survey if no copy or record is available on its asbestos register. It is therefore reasonable to expect the landlord to have ensured the property met the required health and safety checks prior to letting the property. The presence of the asbestos certificate within the resident’s property was evidence that the landlord had completed an asbestos survey and therefore had assessed whether there were any health and safety concerns associated with the presence of asbestos.. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have notified the resident about the result of the asbestos checks it had completed prior to her taking up occupation at the property.
The landlord addressed the resident’s concerns in its stage 1 complaint response in which it apologised that the resident had not been notified about asbestos in the property. The landlord also took the opportunity to confirm it had complied with its own voids policy and to reassure the resident that there were no areas of concern raised in its asbestos survey. Providing this information to the resident was appropriate in recognition of the distress the matter had caused the resident. However, the landlord failed to consider offering an award of compensation for its service failure which its compensation policy allowed it to do. Making an offer of financial redress in its complaint responses would have been a reasonable decision for the landlord to take to put right its failing. This Service has therefore ordered and offer of compensation below in respect of the distress and inconvenience the matter caused the resident.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds service failure in the landlord’s response to the provision of information about asbestos in the property.

The landlord’s provision of information about carbon monoxide detectors in the property.

In the resident’s stage 1 complaint she reported that the landlord had not provided her with accurate information about the presence of a carbon monoxide detector in the property prior to her taking up occupation at the property. The landlord held a conversation with the staff member that completed the viewing with the resident prior to responding to the resident’s complaint. It was reasonable for the landlord to have investigated the matter so as to obtain information about the discussion that had been held when the resident viewed the property prior to replying to her complaint.
The landlord advised the resident that it had been unable to substantiate the details of the conversation that had been held about a carbon monoxide detector in the property when it had investigated her complaint. Notwithstanding neither the landlord, nor this Service dispute that there had been a conversation about the presence of a carbon monoxide detector in the property at the time of the viewing. The landlord apologised to the resident for any misunderstanding that may have been caused which was fair and appropriate.
The landlord’s repairs policy does not state that there was a requirement for it to install carbon monoxide detectors in the property, only for it to repair existing hardwired carbon monoxide detectors. Furthermore prior to 1 October 2022 there were no legal requirements for it to do so because the rooms did not house any appliances that burned solid fuel. However, the landlord subsequently recognised the distress the matter had caused the resident and took a resolution focused approach to the matter by agreeing to install a carbon monoxide detector in the property, free of charge, after it had fully repaired and recommissioned the gas boiler. This was a reasonable response for the landlord to have taken demonstrating that the landlord had applied appropriate customer care principles in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord attended the resident’s property again in February 2022 to ensure that the carbon monoxide detector it had installed was correctly placed and working prior to issuing its final complaint response. It was reasonable for the landlord to have taken this approach so as to reassure the resident that her health and safety concerns had been addressed and to rebuild some confidence in its repair handling services.
As previously outlined in this report the impact that the lack of a carbon monoxide detector had on the health of the resident is out of the scope of this investigation. This Service has however seen evidence that the landlord suggested it would consider any health impact the matter had on the resident if she provided it with medical evidence.
Taking all matters into consideration this Service finds reasonable redress in the landlord’s response to the provision of information about carbon monoxide detectors in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Failed to comply with its complaint policy by investigating a responding to the resident’s complaint about the incorrect advertisement of the property.
2. Failed to comply with its complaint policy by providing a stage 1 response to the resident within 10 working days, causing the resident to incur time and trouble in having to chase the landlord for a response on 17 November 2021.
3. Requested further information from the resident about her stage 1 complaint on 27 November 2021 which was 18 working days after she had initially raised the complaint.
4. Sent an email to the resident on 8 December 2021, which was 25 working days after she had made her complaint, to say that it had extended the complaint response target date to 15 December 2021. It is not clear to this Service if the extension of time had been agreed with the resident in line with paragraph 5.14 of the complaint handling code as would be expected.
5. Sent its stage 1 complaint response on 16 December 2021 which was one working day later than its own extension date and 31 working days later than its complaint policy target of 10 working days.
6. Did not provide a definition of the complaint in its stage 1 complaint response in line with paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code.
7. Did not provide information in its stage 1 complaint response that confirmed if it had upheld the resident’s complaints in line with paragraph 5.8 of the complaint handling code.
8. Failed to comply with paragraph 5.7 of the complaint handling code by raising a new stage 1 complaint to address the additional repairs that the resident had raised on 14 January 2022.
9. Issued its stage 2 complaint to the resident on 7 February 2022, which it had incorrectly dated 4 February 2021.
10. Issued its stage 2 complaint 4 working days later than its policy target of 20 working days.
When a landlord is at fault it needs to put things right by acknowledging its mistakes and apologising for them, explaining why things went wrong and what the landlord will do to prevent the same mistake happening again. The landlord offered the resident a compensation payment for its repairs failings. However, it did not consider its handling of the resident’s complaints. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have considered its own complaint handling failings so as to recognise that this also caused inconvenience, time, and trouble to the resident. Furthermore, this was a missed opportunity for the landlord to consider the impact its complaint handling delays had on the resident. A further award of compensation for the landlord’s complaint handling failings is therefore ordered below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the reinstatement of heating and hot water in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs at the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports that the property was inaccurately advertised as a ground floor property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the provision of information about asbestos in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the provision of information about carbon monoxide detectors in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord made arrangements to complete boiler repairs in line with its policy timescales and in doing so was required to turn off the boiler and order replacement parts. The landlord however did not order all of the required parts at the earliest opportunity which delayed the repair. However, the landlord recognised its failings and provided a reasonable level of compensation to the resident for the detriment the delay had caused her.
The landlord failed to complete repairs it was obligated to complete prior to letting the property. The landlord also failed to complete the repairs when they had been raised as a stage 1 complaint and/or prior to issuing its stage 2 complaint response 65 working days later.
The landlord incorrectly advertised the property as a ground floor property when it had been located on the first floor. The landlord was expected to ensure that the information it provided in its advert was an accurate reflection of the property characteristics.
The landlord failed to provide information about asbestos in the property in keeping with its voids policy by providing an ‘asbestos in the home’ information sheet. Furthermore it did not recognise the inconvenience and distress the matter had caused to the resident by making a reasonable offer of compensation.
The landlord was not obligated to provide a carbon monoxide detector in the property when the property was let. The landlord understood there to have been a discussion about the presence of a detector in the property during the viewing. The landlord recognised the distress and inconvenience the matter subsequently caused the resident and therefore installed a carbon monoxide detector in the property without charge.
The landlord failed to comply with its own complaints policy and the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code during its handling of the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s handing of the resident’s complaints caused unnecessary time and trouble to the resident who experienced delays in receiving appropriate responses from the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in managing the various repairs and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £945 in compensation made up as follows:
1. £425 previously offered by the landlord if this has not already been paid.
2. A further £220 for time, trouble, and inconvenience associated with the completion of outstanding repairs at the resident’s property.
3. A further £50 for inconvenience related to the advertisement of the property as a ground floor property.
4. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused in relation to the landlord’s provision of information about asbestos in the property.
5. £150 for time and trouble caused to the resident related to the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

The compensation is to be paid direct to the resident and not offset against any money that the resident may owe the landlord.

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs are required. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.