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

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited (202002793)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202002793

Rochdale Boroughwide Housing Limited

10 March 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 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. repairs to the electrical installations.
    2. damp in the kitchen.
    3. the installation of a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit and the cost associated with running the same.

Background and summary of events

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.  His property is as two-bedroom house.
  2. On 4 February 2015 the resident emailed the landlord requesting that it install a ventilation fan unit due to damp conditions in the property.  He requested that the unit be heated as he wished to keep the internal walls warm to prevent dew point.
  3. The landlord has provided evidence to this Service confirming that a PIV unit was originally installed in April 2015 to remedy condensation which, according to a survey carried out at that time, was found to be present in parts of the bedrooms, bathroom and hallway/landing.  The unit cannot be changed to run only when required; only the temperature and speed can be regulated.  The landlord has advised that the PIV unit includes a warm air facility, as requested by the resident.
  4. According to the correspondence on the file, on 19 December 2019 the resident reported that the washing machine electrical socket had blown three washing machines.  The landlord in response inspected with its contractor on 7 January 2020 and checked the electrics, the gutters at the property, whether there was rising damp and whether the cavity wall insulation was wet.  At the inspection the use of the PIV unit was also discussed.  The landlord has advised this Service that at the inspection it found that the cooker had been switched off and the plug to the washing machine had been fitted with the incorrect fuse, (3amp instead of 13 amp).
  5. On 30 January 2020 the resident made a formal complaint.  He advised that he had reported several electrical problems over the previous years and several items had short-circuited. He advised that on one occasion a contractor had replaced the light switch and on another occasion no fault could be found.  The resident also described a visit, although the date was not provided, where an electrician removed the removed the socket behind the washing machine and saw water dripping inside, then the landlord’s contractor inspected and found a leak behind the kitchen.
  6. The resident further described how the contractor removed a wall vent to inspect the wall cavity and found no damp.  He advised that the vent had not been refitted or the rubble cleared. He advised that the contractor had stated it would carry out the works on 11 February 2020 but requested that all works to be completed by the electrician were completed beforehand.
  7. On 5 March 2020 in response to the resident’s concerns raised about the PIV unit, it arranged a quotation from the manufacturer to service the PIV unit, to upgrade the system to an automatic control for the heating element and to reset the ambient temperature from 12ºC to 15ºC to eliminate the draught issue the resident had described.
  8. In letters to the landlord sent on 2 and 11 March 2021 the resident reiterated his complaint stating that whilst the landlord had resolved the electrical fault it should have done this sooner.  He stated that a damp socket had rusted away, and a wrong fuse had caused short-circuiting.  The resident stated that “this fuse was part of the electrical circuit system of the Property and not a fuse on any appliance.”  The resident raised concerns about damp proof works that had been identified as he did not consider that there was damp in the kitchen. The resident also requested the removal of the PIV unit as he believed that there was no damp or condensation in his property, and he did not want to pay for the running costs.  He also stated that landlord had recently increased the speed of extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen, making the property colder.
  9. On 15 April 2020, the landlord sent the stage 1 response to the resident’s complaint, outlining its findings. The landlord noted that its specialist contractor had surveyed the property on 20 April 2015 and its report highlighted condensation issues.  The contractor recommended and installed the PIV unit, and, at that time, set the fan to 12 degrees.
  10. The landlord noted that following the resident’s report of 19 December 2019 that the washing machine socket had blown three washing machines it inspected on 7 January 2020.  It checked the electrics and gutters.  It found no evidence of rising damp but identified a leak under the sink which damaged the plaster.  The landlord stated that it had checked the cavity wall insulation which was found to be dry.  The landlord noted that works had now been completed, including redecoration works.
  11. The landlord noted that at the visit it noted that the PIV unit had been turned off and in response to concerns raised by the resident, on 5 March 2020 it asked its specialist contractor to service the unit, upgrade the system to an automatic control for the heating element and to reset the ambient temperature from 12 degrees to 15 degrees to eliminate cold draughts.  The landlord noted the resident had requested a written response before allowing these works.
  12. The landlord concluded by stating that the PIV unit was installed to protect the property from the build–up of mould growth and condensation. As there had been no further reports the unit should be left in place and the proposed works would eliminate the cold draught.
  13. On 22 April 2020 the resident escalated the complaint stating that the landlord had focused on his request for the removal of the PIV unit, not his substantive complaint about the electrics. The resident contended that the landlord had previously not dealt with his electrical reports appropriately as faults were not detected.  Furthermore, in response to his latest report, it had carried out damp proof works in the kitchen which caused inconvenience even though the landlord’s contractor had found that there was no damp and that there had been previous damp proof works to the front room.  It is not clear exactly when the damp proof works were completed but in the complaint the resident noted that the works took over a month and that decorative works “had recently finished”.  The resident contended that as there was no damp or condensation in the property the landlord had increased the PIV unit fan speed and the speed of fans in the kitchen and bathroom to cause him inconvenience.  The resident noted that the landlord was incorrected in stating that the PIV unit could be turned off and in fact only had a low or high switch.  The resident reiterated that the contractor had identified a leak behind the kitchen sink causing water to enter the electrical socket.
  14. On 22 May 2020 the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint. It advised that it had responded to the resident’s report that the washing machine had tripped and also that the cooker was no longer working.  It had found that the cooker was turned off at the switch and that the washing machine had a 3-amp fuse not a 13-amp fuse; there was no fault to the electrics and both appliances had been left working.
  15. With regards to the complaint about damp, the landlord advised that building regulations required it to have a functioning damp proof course.  The landlord confirmed that there was damp and black mould behind the washing machine and sink unit caused by two separate leaks.  After the leaks were repaired, it removed the kitchen units to repair the damaged plaster than refitted the units. It also tested the wall behind the washing machine to ensure there was no rising damp. The landlord further noted that it had carried out decorating as a goodwill gesture.  It concluded that it had followed the correct procedures and that it did not install the damp proof course to cause distress.
  16. The landlord advised that it had installed a PIV unit in 2015 at the resident’s request as a survey at the time had noted condensation in various parts of the property. It received no further reports of condensation but when a surveyor attended on 7 January 2020 about another matter, he noted condensation in the bathroom despite the extractor fan there being on and decided that the extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen should be checked.  The landlord further stated that the resident at the same time raised concerns about the PIV unit blowing in cold air, and that the surveyor advised him to use the heater element switch located on the landing.  The surveyor had also agreed that the PIV unit should be checked at the same time as the extractor fans. 
  17. The landlord concluded by stating that it had installed and serviced the PIV unit and serviced the extractor fans to ensure that the resident’s property was free of damp, mould and condensation, not to cause harassment.  The landlord stated that it could rectify the resident’s concerns about the cold draught by servicing and upgrading the fan controls, together with the increase in ambient temperatures. It asked the resident to confirm if he wanted these works to proceed.
  18. On 26 May 2020 the resident responded stating that he only agreed to installation costs, not running costs.  He advised that he had been reporting electrical issues for three years within which time two washing machines had blown.  He reiterated that the landlord’s surveyor had found a fault in the socket behind the washing machine – the socket was water damaged and the wiring from the socket to the switch was changed. The resident also queried the motivation for the installation of the damp proof course which he stated was carried out in response to him reporting electrical issues and when there was no rising damp in the kitchen. 
  19. The resident has reiterated to this Service that the PIV unit blows cold air (maximum of 12 degrees) all the time and as a result he has to turn the heating on.  He also expressed concerns about the running costs. 

 

 

Assessment and findings

Repairs to the electrical installations

  1. The landlord’s website states that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, otherwise agree repair timescales with tenants.  In this case it responded appropriately to the resident’s report of 19 December 2019 about electrical issues insofar as it arranged an inspection by a qualified operative. According to the landlord’s responses, it inspected the fuse for the washing machine which was above its responsibility and moreover demonstrated a commitment to resolving the issue insofar as the maintenance of domestic appliances are the responsibility of the resident.  This includes the changing fuses and ensuring that the correct fuses are in place. 
  2. However, the resident in his complaint made reference to previous reports of electrical issues and other damaged appliances, outlining the landlord’s responses at the time.  There is no evidence that the landlord sought to investigate the other reports of electrical problems complained about, despite the resident asking again the landlord to do so when escalating his complaint.  The resident also disputed the landlord’s finding that it was an incorrectly rated fuse to the washing machine appliance that was the issue, stating that the fuse was part of the property’s electrical circuitry and also that water had penetrated the electrical socket for the washing machine; however, the landlord did not address these points either. With these omissions it missed an opportunity to confirm exactly what actions it had taken, and also the obligations of both parties. It thereby missed an opportunity to possibly resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  3. It should be noted that the Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it can be increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.   The Ombudsman generally considers a 6-month period a reasonable period withing which to make a complaint from the time the matter complained of occurred. In this case, the resident did not specify in his complaint when the previous reports were made, simply referring to a three-year period.  Nonetheless, the landlord had a responsibility to consider the historical aspect of the resident’s complaint in the first instance, then decide to what extent it could address the reports he had referred to. It did not seek details of the previous reports mentioned or otherwise investigate the previous reports, therefore did not take the necessary steps to address this aspect of the resident’s complaint.  The previous reports provided the context to the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s failure to consider them evidently left the resident frustrated and feeling unheard.
  4. The Ombudsman has largely established the landlord’s actions from the correspondence on the complaint, not from contemporaneous repair and inspection records.   Landlords are expected to maintain adequate records that will provide an audit trail of actions and decisions taken.  Moreover, such records will allow the landlord to accurately respond to later queries and complaints about its actions on a case, and inform further decisions.  Had the landlord maintained adequate repair records, it could have been clearer about what findings it had reached and works it had carried out, with the relevant dates.  It would also have been better able to resolve discrepancies in the parties’ version of events, such as the electrical works that were carried out.

Damp in the kitchen

  1. The correspondence of both parties indicates that the landlord when investigating the resident’s report of electrical issues found dampness behind the washing machine and sink unit (and in the electrical socket according to the resident). It subsequently carried out investigations for damp and water ingress.
  2. It is not clear from the information provided what exactly what works were carried out or over what period, but the parties have not disputed that the landlord carried out damp proofing works in the kitchen by the time of the Stage 1 response of 15 April 2020.  The Stage 2 response indicates that the landlord installed a new damp proof course in the kitchen.  A damp-proof course would prevent moisture from the earth and soil rising up the walls through capillary action (rising damp).
  3. The resident has complained that there was no rising damp in the kitchen and that the damp proofing works caused him unnecessary distress and inconvenience.  However, the landlord has a statutory obligation to keep in good repair the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house which can be damaged by damp.  Furthermore, damp and mould can be considered a hazard under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System which the landlord would be responsible for.  It is also the case that building regulations require that new buildings have damp proof courses.  Therefore, regardless of whether rising damp was actually identified at that point in time, it was reasonable that the landlord, having inspected the resident’s property, decided to carry out damp proofing works that it considered were necessary.
  4. However, given the potential disruption caused by such works to the resident the landlord had a responsibility to clearly explain to the resident why it was carrying out the works.  For instance, it could have made clear to what extent the damp proof course was missing or broken.  The landlord also had a responsibility to manage the resident’s expectations about the inconvenience, such as advising what the works entailed and the likely duration.  Whilst the correspondence indicates that there were conversations about the damp proof works, there is no evidence that the landlord provided clear, documented information about the works to these ends.  Such action may have improved the resident’s trust and confidence in the landlord and prevented the complaint from escalating.

The installation of a PIV and the cost associated with running the same

  1. The information provided to this Service confirms that the landlord installed the PIV unit in 2015 as a way of resolving condensation within the resident’s property at that time.  It is not evident that the landlord determined at that time whether the condensation arose from issues falling under its own responsibility, such as structural problems, or from a life-style issue that the resident must resolve himself.  Regardless, the installation of the PIV unit was intended to resolve the condensation and indeed was at the request of the resident at that time. Therefore, the installation of the PIV unit with a warm air facility was reasonable and discretionary step intended to benefit the resident and in accordance with his wishes. The resident is obliged to pay for domestic electricity bills and therefore to pay for the cost of running the PIV unit.  He assumed this cost when agreeing the installation of the unit; the landlord has no obligation meet the costs.
  2. There is no evidence that the resident raised any concerns to the landlord about the operation or running costs of the PIV unit until a significant time after the installation, in 2020.  Having been notified of the resident’s concerns about the operation of the unit, in particular a cold draught being emitted, the landlord reverted to the manufacturer, asking it to service the unit, ensure that it was set to automatically warm the air, and increase the ambient air temperature.  The landlord also advised the resident of the proposed actions and asked for his agreement. It therefore took appropriate steps to resolve the particular concerns raised by the resident about a cold draught.
  3. There is no evidence that the resident agreed to the proposed works to the PIV unit; indeed, he requested its removal in his letters of March 2020.   However, the landlord an overarching need to prevent the growth of condensation and was entitled to rely on the professional opinion of staff with responsibility for repair issues and approved contractors.  The resident also has a responsibility to act in a tenant-like manner and therefore support steps to eliminate condensation within the property.   It is also noted that the proposed works to the PIV unit to address the resident’s initial concerns about the draught had not been completed, according to the correspondence on the case.  Taken together with the absence of evidence provided by the resident of unreasonable running costs that may have supported his request for removal, the landlord’s decision not to remove the unit was reasonable.
  4. However, it is noted that the resident is unable to control usage of the PIV unit by turning it on or off and has raised concerns about costs.  Should the resident raise concerns again about a cold draught and/or running costs, it is recommended that the landlord re–consider the feasibility of the removal or temporary deactivation of the PIV unit.  This may include considering the risk of condensation re–occurring and costs that it may incur should this be the case. The resident on his part may wish to allow completion of the servicing and proposed works to the unit in the first instance and provide evidence of the running costs and/or increased heating costs to support any such request.
  5. The landlord stated in its initial complaint response that the PIV unit had been turned off.  This was refuted by the resident. Again, the maintenance of adequate records of inspections, that could have been later referred to, may have prevented this discrepancy from arising.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to electrical installations.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of damp in the kitchen.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the installation of a PIV unit and the cost associated with running the same.

Reasons

Repairs to the electrical installations

  1. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to investigate the earlier reports of electrical problems complained about, despite the resident asking it to do so when escalating his complaint.  The resident also disputed the landlord’s finding that it was an incorrectly rated fuse to the washing machine appliance that was the issue, stating that the fuse was part of the property’s electrical circuitry and also that water had penetrated the electrical socket for the washing machine; however, the landlord did not address these points either. With these omissions it missed an opportunity to confirm exactly what actions it had taken, and also the obligations of both parties.  The previous reports provided the context to the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s failure to consider them evidently left the resident frustrated and feeling unheard. It thereby missed an opportunity to possibly resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
  2. There is no evidence that the landlord maintained adequate repair records.  Had it done so it could have been clearer about what findings it had reached and works it had carried out, with the relevant dates.  It would also have been better able to resolve discrepancies in the parties’ version of events, such as the electrical works that were carried out.

Damp in the kitchen

  1. It was reasonable that the landlord, having inspected the resident’s property, decided to carry out damp proofing works that it considered were necessary. However, there is no evidence that the landlord provided clear, documented information to the resident to manage his expectations, such as explaining why the works were being carried out, what they entailed and the duration.

The installation of a PIV and the cost associated with running the same

  1. The installation of the PIV unit with a warm air facility was reasonable and discretionary step intended to benefit the resident and in accordance with his wishes. The resident is obliged to pay for domestic electricity bills and therefore to pay for the cost of running the unit.  He assumed this cost when agreeing the installation of the unit; the landlord has no obligation meet the costs.
  2. Having been notified of the resident’s concerns about the operation of the unit, in particular a cold draught being emitted, the landlord took appropriate action to resolve these concerns.  The landlord’s decision not to remove the unit was also reasonable given its over-arching responsibility to prevent the build-up of condensation taken together with the fact that the works to resolve the resident’s concerns about a cold draught had not been completed and the absence of evidence provided by the resident of unreasonable running costs.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord pays the resident £75 compensation in respect of the inconvenience caused by its failure to investigate all aspects of his complaint about its handling of reports of repairs to electrical installations.
  2. The landlord writes to the resident listing the reports it received about repairs to electrical installations and the action taken on each report.  The landlord also writes to the resident to confirm what electrical fault(s) were identified after the report of 19 December 2019 and the action that it took to resolve the fault(s).
  3. The landlord pays the resident £50 compensation in respect of the inconvenience caused by its failure to provide clear, documented information to manage his expectations about the damp proofing works.
  4. The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service by 7 April 2021 that the above orders have been complied with.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord reviews its systems and procedures for keeping records on repair cases with a view to ensuring that reliable, contemporaneous records of inspections and works carried out are kept.
  2. The landlord, should it need to install a damp proof course in a property, provides the tenant with clear, documented information about the works to be completed, including the reasons for the work, the inconvenience that will be caused and the likely duration of the works.
  3. Should the resident raise concerns again about a cold draught emitting from the PIV unit and/or its running costs, it is recommended that the landlord re-considers the feasibility of the removal or temporary deactivation of the PIV unit.