Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (201915903)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201915903

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

28 June 2021

Our approach

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

Both the 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. Application of the single person discount in respect to the resident’s water bill.
2. Handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
3. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
1. Application of the single person discount in respect to the resident’s water bill.
The resident’s complaint to the landlord and to this Service about the application of the single person discount in respect to his water bill concerns the level of his service charge for water and the amount that this has increased. Paragraph 39(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern the level of rent or service charge or the amount of the rent or service charge increase”. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Agreement, policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement obliges the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of his property in repair, including the ceilings, walls and windows.
As per the landlord’s interim responsive repairs policy, priority level one or two jobs have a timescale of 24 hours for completion, and priority level four jobs have a timescale of 90 days for completion. Examples of these types of works include uncontrollable leaks for priority level one or two and plastering, and internal joinery work taking over 30 minutes to complete, for priority level four.
The same policy also confirms that the landlord is “committed to continuing the provision of a cost-effective repairs and maintenance service to homes”.
The landlord’s compensation scheme and guidance suggests that it has discretion to make compensation awards of up to £500 where it has failed to deliver a service resulting in severe inconvenience to the resident, such as by failing to carry out a reported repair. It also has discretion to make reimbursements of up to £1,000 to replace damaged items, minus a reasonable deduction for fair wear and tear, where it or its contractors’ repairs or lack of repairs or maintenance have caused damage, seeking advice from its insurance and risk team for claims of over £1,000.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord, residing in a two-bedroom, twelfth-floor flat.
The occupants of the resident’s building are due to be rehoused, to allow for its demolition and the regeneration of the area.

Summary of events

On 24 January 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to raise concerns over outstanding repairs to his windows, which he described as having been reported to it “years ago”. He acknowledged that, during its previous visit for this, it had fixed a window handle and had explained to him that “there was not much [it] could do” about the air and wind entering the property, and that it would not pay to fix the windows. This reportedly resulted in the resident spending more money on electricity to heat that property that did not stay warm as a result of this, and causing health issues for him and when his child visited. He therefore requested compensation from the landlord in the form of a rent rebate for the outstanding repairs.
On 13 March 2020, the landlord responded to the resident to explain that the windows in his property were “rather old fashioned and require complete replacement.” It was unable to consider doing this, however due to the planned demolition of his building “in the near future.” The landlord therefore suggested that it could arrange for a joiner to visit the property to inspect the windows, to see if the fittings could be altered to improve the situation with draughts coming through these, and it requested confirmation from the resident to arrange this.
On 20 March 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that he was eligible to bid to be rehoused by it and its housing association partners, under priority band A on its choice-based lettings scheme.
On 18 December 2020, the landlord’s records confirm that it made a visit to the resident’s property. It noted that the windows there were “very old and worn”, and that the window frames were still draughty after it had adjusted the keepers as best it could.
On 14 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it made another visit to the resident’s property. It noted that it had assessed that there was “nothing wrong with the windows” there. This visit was recorded by the landlord as ending in a dispute with the resident, and so its operative left the property.
On 21 January 2021, the landlord responded to an undated email from the resident to inform him that it was unable to complete the property’s window repair, as it was presently only carrying out repairs to windows that were insecure.
On 8 February 2021, the resident emailed this Service his stage one complaint to the landlord, which is summarised as follows:
1. In addition to the information detailed in paragraph 11 above, he reported that its operatives had committed “fraud” by “not doing the correct job and [reporting] false information on legal documents” when carrying out repairs at his property. This included an instance in December 2020, when a job had been reported by an operative as having been completed despite the repair not having been done, with the property’s window repairs reportedly being a “health hazard”, but remaining outstanding for “approximately [five] years” as it would only repair insecure windows.
2. He also reported concerns over its visit in January 2021, when its operative “threatened and intimidated” him, which caused the resident mental health issues including anxiety.
3. There were also issues with mould and condensation on his kitchen ceiling. The landlord had reportedly attended and painted half of the ceiling; the other half had not been painted by it and now had mould with water droplets falling from this due to condensation. The resident’s bathroom ceiling additionally had mould, which was “not getting better”, together with his storage room.
4. On 5 January 2021, a plumber had reportedly attended his property following a leak from a neighbouring property. The resident disagreed with the plumber’s assertion that the damp and mould smell there was “normal”, and instead felt that “someone should have fixed it.”
5. On 9 January 2021, there was reportedly a further leak from a neighbouring property, which entered his property through his living room ceiling, resulting in this becoming wet and damaging his furniture, carpet and personal possessions.
6. It had attended to address the mould in his property; however, it reportedly did not address the mould on his living room walls that had “very noticeable stains”, and had spread to his personal possessions, which he had to remove.
7. He also reported that, when damp readings were taken at his property, “all the rooms have read 13+”, with the acceptable threshold believed to be 4 for such readings. The resident therefore felt that the property was “not safe” to live in due to the risk to his and his young children’s health from this, the mould, bacteria and insects there, particularly in light of the corona virus pandemic.
On 16 February 2021, the landlord’s records confirmed its findings from the inspection of the resident’s property, which is summarised as follows:
1. The store cupboard was noted by it to be dry after being checked with an electronic protimeter, however he was dissatisfied about the mould smell there. The landlord therefore suggested removing some of the stored items from the area, whose material held moisture, and to allow for better air circulation there more frequently.
2. In the kitchen, black spot fungus was seen by it on the ceiling and the corner of the external wall. This was considered by the landlord to be due to poor ventilation, as the windows had not been opened regularly to help reduce the moisture, and a lack of consistent heat there as the heating was not on.
3. In the lounge, penetrating damp was found by it, along with staining to the ceiling from either the property upstairs or possibly the inaccessible external brickwork. This room also was noted by the landlord to not have a consistent level of heat.
4. Black spot fungus was also seen by it in the first bedroom, due to the window not being opened. The resident had reportedly taped the window to seal the opening, preventing cold air from entering the bedroom.
5. There had additionally been a build-up of moisture observed by it in the second bedroom, with him being unable to open both of the windows in the room that were jarred shut and had a defective handle, respectively, which resulted in the moisture.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It apologised for the delay in its response.
2. In respect to his concerns over the outstanding repairs to his windows, it confirmed that the joiner had found on 14 January 2021 that the windows were secure, and that they were unable to carry out any further repairs to these. The landlord also stated that it had explained to the resident during this visit that, given the nature of the aluminium window frames, it was limited to the types of repairs that it could undertake to these.
3. It requested that he provide documentary evidence and the legal documents that he had referred to in support of his report of “fraud” by its operatives, for it to review and investigate these.
4. It had found evidence of water penetration in his lounge from either the upstairs property or the brickwork. This was “difficult” to repair, however, as the resident’s property was on the twelfth floor, and therefore it had requested that he now be contacted to be considered for a move to a “like-for-like” property, as his building had been earmarked for redevelopment.
5. It had investigated the conduct of its operative, who had visited his property in January 2021. However, they had denied the resident’s claims of “threats and intimidation” from them. The landlord had therefore attempted to obtain further information on this when it visited him again in February 2021. However, the resident had not provided it with any further details about this, although it apologised that he had felt that it had failed to show respect towards him on the above occasion.
On 16 March 2021, the resident asked for his complaint to be escalated to the final stage of the landlord’s complaints procedure and so, on 23 March 2021, it issued its final stage complaint response to him, which is summarised as follows:
1. In response to his concerns about the condition of his windows and the conduct of its operative in January 2021, it reiterated its position as detailed in paragraph 19 above.
2. In respect to the leaks at his property damaging his personal belongings, it confirmed that it had attended on the same day to fix these leaks on 5 and 9 January 2021, which were not related incidents. The landlord therefore did not consider itself to be liable for any damage to the resident’s personal possessions. However, it offered him a goodwill gesture of £40. The resident had reportedly also already informed the landlord that he did not have home contents insurance, which it stated would have enabled him to make a claim for the damage.
3. In response to his concerns over the damp and mould in his property, an inspection was scheduled for this by it on 26 March 2021 to assess the time required to carry out the work, with the date for the treatment for this to then be arranged by it with him.
The resident nevertheless complained to this Service that the landlord had not addressed the condition of his property’s windows due to their age and his building being due for demolition, for which he asked that it resolve the windows in some way and pay a contribution to the increased cost of his electricity bill. It subsequently provided us with the above information about his complaint in response to our request for this, and it confirmed that he had subsequently accepted an offer of alternative accommodation from a partner housing association, after he previously declined such an offer from a different housing association.
The landlord also explained to this Service that it considered that there were no outstanding works for the resident’s windows. It stated that this was because it had fitted new handles to these and the window frames were as draught-proof as it was possible for it to make them from the inside of the property, with it not being practicable for it to replace the windows on a building earmarked for demolition.

Assessment and findings

It is noted that the resident has raised concerns over his and his children’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding his family’s health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This because we do not have the authority or expertise to do so in the way that a court or insurer might. However, we have considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused him.

Handling of repairs to the resident’s windows

In response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his windows, the landlord was obliged by his tenancy agreement above at paragraph 5 to inspect the nature of the repairs.
In the resident’s letter of 24 January 2020, as detailed in paragraph 11 above, it was acknowledged that the landlord had already inspected the windows at the property. It had reportedly found at that time that it was unable to fix the issues experienced by him with air and wind entering his property, other than by repairing a window handle, for which he requested compensation for reasons including his increased electricity bills to heat the property that did not stay warm as a result of this.
It was nevertheless appropriate that the landlord then responded to the resident’s above report within its interim responsive repairs policy’s 90-day timescale for it to do so, above at paragraph 6. It did so by contacting him on 13 March 2020 to offer to arrange for a joiner to visit his property to inspect the windows, to see if the fittings could be altered to improve the situation with draughts coming through these, if he confirmed his agreement to this. The landlord explained that this was because it could not consider replacing the older windows due to subsequent demolition of his building.
In view of the planned demolition of the building, and in line with the above policy’s commitment to deliver cost-effective repairs, above at paragraph 7, it is reasonable that the landlord would not carry out the resident’s window replacements. It did, however, arrange for him to be assigned priority band A for rehousing on 20 March 2020. This was a fair action for the landlord to take, and demonstrated its desire to address the resident’s concerns about the condition of the property’s windows, as it sought to resolve the window replacement works that it could not carry out by seeking for him to be moved to alternative accommodation instead.
As there is no evidence that the resident arranged the above joiner’s visit for his windows with the landlord until 18 December 2020, it was suitable for it to have attended his property on that date and to adjust the keepers as best it could, when it found that these were still draughty but that it could take no further action for them. Its subsequent visit to the property on 14 January 2021, and its correspondence to him of 21 January 2021, also reiterated this together with its stage one and final stage complaint responses to him of 1 and 16 March 2021, respectively. This further meant that the landlord had inspected and considered the condition of the resident’s windows appropriately, and that it was reasonable that it did not replace them.
This also means that it is not possible for this Service to order the landlord to pay the contribution to the resident’s increased electricity bills that he has requested, which he has attributed to the condition of his windows, because there is no evidence that it was required to replace or further repair these. However, as its compensation scheme and guidance above at paragraph 8 gives it discretion to make reimbursements to residents for damages from its repairs or lack of repairs, including via its insurance and risk team, it has been recommended below to provide him with details to enable him to make a claim for this, and for his family’s health.

Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in his property

The resident’s tenancy agreement required the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of his property in repair, including the ceilings and walls. As per its interim responsive repairs policy, it was obliged to carry out suitable repairs to these items within 24 hours for works such as uncontrollable leaks and within 90 days for works such as plastering.
Following the resident’s stage one complaint on 8 February 2021, the landlord arranged for the inspection of the damp and mould that he had reported at his property within the above 90-day timescale by 16 February 2021, as per paragraph 18 above. The damp and mould was assessed by it to have been largely as a result of poor ventilation, with the windows shut to prevent the property from getting colder. The exception to this was the penetrating damp found in the resident’s lounge.
As it was difficult to complete this repair, and in view of the planned demolition of the building, the landlord requested in its stage one complaint response of 1 March 2021 that the resident now be considered for another “like-for-like” property. This was a reasonable action for it to take in view of the acknowledged issues with the property, as it addressed his concerns about damp and mould there that might be complex and time-consuming for it to remedy by instead resolving this with an offer of alternative accommodation.
Although it is noted that the landlord failed to address the presence of the damp and mould at the resident’s property in the meantime in its stage one complaint response, it did take the opportunity to arrange a further inspection of the property and treatment for this. It did so as detailed in its final stage complaint response of 16 March 2021, in paragraph 20 above.
It was reasonable for the landlord to do this, in order to seek to address the resident’s concerns as best it could, prior to him vacating the property. These actions were also in line with its interim repairs policy, which it further confirmed that it had complied with by attending the leaks at his property within the policy’s 24-hour timescale for it to do so by doing so on the same day on 5 and 9 January 2021.
In respect to compensation, the landlord has offered £40 as a goodwill gesture to the resident in settlement of the complaint. As per its compensation scheme and guidance, it was only permitted to offer him compensation if it had failed to carry out a reported repair or if its repairs or lack of repairs had caused the damage to his furniture, carpet and personal possessions that he had reported. However, neither this Service nor the landlord has been provided with evidence to support that this was the case.
Accordingly, the landlord’s offer of £40 compensation to the resident was fair and reasonable, in response to his concerns about this aspect of the complaint to try and resolve these with a goodwill gesture. It has therefore been recommended below to re-offer him the compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already. Although the below recommendation for the landlord to provide the resident with details to enable him to make a claim to it for damages has also been made to allow him to submit a claim for the above items.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to the resident’s windows.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint in respect of its handling of his reports of damp and mould in his property satisfactorily.

Reasons

The planned demolition of the building restricted the landlord’s ability to carry out the required repairs to address the resident’s windows and damp and mould in the property. Therefore, it arranged for him to be in a position to bid for a “like-for-like” property. The landlord also scheduled mould treatment to the property in the interim, and offered him £40 compensation to try and resolve his complaint.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £40 compensation that it previously awarded him, if he has not received this already.
2. Provide the resident with details to enable him to make claims to it for reimbursements for damages from its repairs or lack of repairs, including via its insurance and risk team, for his increased electricity bills, his family’s health, and his furniture, carpet and personal possessions.
The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks of this determination to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendations.
The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the time of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in light of Government guidance, regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.