Applications are open to join the next Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel – find out more Housing Ombudsman Resident Panel.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202215851)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202215851

Platform Housing Group Limited

29 September 2023 (amended at review)

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom floor.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned by the landlord.
  2. In November 2021, a leak caused damage to the resident’s bathroom. The landlord attended the property and fixed the leak. A job was raised on 6 December 2021 for follow-on works to the bathroom floor to repair the damage caused by the leak. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 22 December 2021. The bathroom floor was boarded so the resident could stand on it, however his foot went through the floor. The hole was fixed, but the resident was told that the floor needed replacing urgently as the floor could potentially collapse.
  3. On 28 January 2022, the resident contacted the landlord asking for an update on the follow-on works for his bathroom floor. Two jobs were raised on 8 March 2022 in respect of the floor.
  4. On 25 March 2022, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. He said that he had been advised that an inspector urgently needed to visit his home and look at his floor, but no one had been in touch since.
  5. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint on 31 March 2022. On 6 April 2022, the resident told the landlord how he worried every time he used the bathroom, as he had been told the sub-floor was soaking wet and would need replacing to stop it falling through. The landlord contacted the resident on 14 April 2022, which was the stage one complaint response deadline and requested an extension to 28 April 2022.
  6. On 29 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response. It accepted that following its attendance in December 2021, it had not contacted the resident regarding his bathroom floor. It stated that an inspection had been raised but that this had not been picked up by the planning team. The landlord offered £250 compensation, stating this was the maximum award for “failure of staff to take reasonable care”.
  7. An inspection was booked for 13 May 2022. The day before the appointment, the resident contacted the landlord to say he was no longer available that day and asked for it to be rescheduled. The landlord attended the resident’s home as planned the following day, but the resident was not available. On 19 May 2022, the resident emailed the landlord stating that he called earlier in the week to rearrange the appointment. He said he was assured someone will contact in three days, but he heard nothing back.
  8. The inspection was rearranged for 17 June 2022, but it is unclear whether the landlord communicated this to the resident. The resident was unavailable when the landlord attended the property.
  9. On 7 July 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage two of its complaint procedure. The landlord acknowledged this request on 11 July 2022. An inspection of the resident’s bathroom floor was carried out on 29 July 2022.
  10. On 8 August 2022, the landlord issued its stage two complaint response. It concluded following the inspection of 29 July 2022 that there were no works required to the floor and that it was safe to use. However, it offered to carry out some “preventative” works in acknowledgement of the resident’s concerns about using the bathroom. The landlord acknowledged the length of time it had taken to inspect the resident’s bathroom floor and reassure the resident of its safety. It offered £500 in financial compensation in recognition of the resident having to spend a significant amount of time worrying that his bathroom floor was likely to collapse.
  11. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of his complaint and the level of compensation offered. The works outlined in the stage two response were completed on 12 April 2023. On 13 April 2023, the landlord issued a further response to the resident, following the resident’s approach to this Service. It apologised again for the delays the resident experienced and detailed steps it has taken to reduce the likelihood of a repeat occurrence in future. It also increased the offer of compensation to £1500 to recognise the delays and the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. The resident felt that a higher award of compensation would be a more appropriate remedy for his distress and inconvenience and asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

  1. As the resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, it is the landlord’s legal responsibility to repair most issues that arise in the resident’s home. The relevant legislation states that repairs should be completed within a “reasonable” timeframe. Best practice in the social housing sector considers a “reasonable” timeframe to complete non-complex routine repairs to be approximately one month. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy does not give a fixed timeframe for completing its responsive repairs but says it will offer a “mutually convenient appointment at first point of contact where possible”.
  2. The landlord responded appropriately to reports of the leak and the leak itself was therefore not a problem beyond November 2021. However, there were significant delays in arranging an inspection and any follow-up works to ensure that damage caused to the resident’s bathroom had been repaired. The inspection did not take place until 29 July 2022, over seven months since the resident had been told his floor was likely to need replacing. This would not be considered a “reasonable” timeframe. It is clear that during the first few months of 2022, the landlord had not progressed the job that had been raised, nor was it communicating with the resident appropriately. This was poor service which would have caused distress and inconvenience to the resident as he was waiting for repairs for a long time.
  3. The operative who attended the resident’s home on 22 December 2021 made comments about the bathroom floor that affected the resident’s confidence to access and use his bathroom facilities, especially his bath. The operative completed a log of the appointment. Comments included “this needs inspection urgently. Floor is rotten and wet all way through. Lino is damaged where the tenant’s foot went through the flooring. I believe it needs a full new floor.” The resident stated that he was told that an urgent inspection was needed as the sub-floor was soaking wet and would need replacing to avoid the floor falling through.
  4. Whilst it is understandable that the resident was concerned about using the bathroom, there is no evidence that the landlord told the resident at any point that he was unable to stand on his bathroom floor or use the facilities in the bathroom. An email from the resident to the landlord on 28 June 2022 acknowledged that the landlord had performed a “temporary fix” in December 2021. The resident first contacted the landlord for the follow-up floor inspection on 28 January 2022, over a month later. An appointment was made for an inspection to take place on 13 May 2022; however, the resident cancelled this appointment the day before. The landlord also recorded that the resident was only available for appointments on Fridays. The resident is entitled to have limits on his availability. However, significant limits to the resident’s availability will impact the ability of the landlord to attend and resolve issues within a reasonable timeframe. Therefore, this Service does not consider that the eventual length of the delay had been entirely within the landlord’s control. Although as above, the landlord should have been more pro-active in arranging the repair sooner.
  5. Following the inspection of 29 July 2022, the landlord reassured the resident that his bathroom floor had been safe to use. It identified some works that may ease the resident’s concerns, but it stated these works would be “preventative” and not “required”. The resident pointed out that this was the first time since December 2021 that the landlord had reassured him of the safety of his bathroom floor. Despite promising the resident in its stage two complaint response that these works would be completed, there was further delay and they were not completed until 12 April 2023. The impact of the further delay would have been less significant as he had been reassured that his bathroom floor was safe to use and the works were not strictly necessary. However, the landlord should have carried out what it promised in its complaint response without further delay.
  6. This Service acknowledges that the landlord issued a further response and increased compensation offer to the resident on 13 April 2023, following the resident’s approach to the Ombudsman. While this Service encourages landlords to offer further remedy informally to residents if it believes necessary, the focus of Ombudsman investigations is on the landlord’s handling of the complaint for the duration of the internal complaint procedure. Therefore, this investigation’s determination will be based on whether the stage two complaint response adequately addressed and remedied the issues in the resident’s complaint. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s outcomes guidance and complaint handling code, which are published online.
  7. In its final complaint response, the landlord apologised for “the gaps in communication and the length of time it has taken for the inspection to take place”. It offered £500 in addition to the £250 already paid at stage one of the complaint process. This Service considers that this amount is an adequate remedy for the delays and distress and inconvenience caused. The £250 paid at stage one of the complaint process was the maximum award under the category of staff failing to take reasonable care, as outlined by the landlord’s compensation procedure. This demonstrated that the landlord had taken the resident’s complaint seriously. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards of £250 may adequately remedy complaints where there has been service failure resulting in some impact on the resident, which was appropriate at that time.
  8. The additional £500 offered at stage two of the complaint response to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by further delay following the stage one complaint response is an appropriate remedy. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that awards of £500 may adequately remedy cases where there has been failure over a considerable period of time to act in accordance with policy, causing distress and inconvenience. It is understood that the landlord increased its offer to £1500 following the end of the complaints process. This is more than the Ombudsman would have ordered if the landlord had not made an offer. However, as an offer has been made the landlord should honour it and should pay the full amount of £1500 which it offered, unless this has been paid already.
  9. The landlord has provided assurance to the resident and this Service that it has taken steps to reduce the likelihood of similar service failures occurring in future.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s bathroom floor.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to pay the resident to pay the resident, £1,500, unless it has done so already.