Stafford & Rural Homes (201914039)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201914039

Stafford & Rural Homes

26 February 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

The Complaint is about the landlord’s response to residents’ reports about:
1. The level of compensation provided for acknowledged repairs failures at the property.
2. Inappropriate conduct and attending the property without notice.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured shorthold tenant of the landlord at the property, a one bedroom flat. The resident is subject to the terms and conditions contained in the agreement. The landlord is a local authority.
The landlord provided a copy of the assured tenancy agreement. Section 2.6 of the agreement highlights the landlord’s responsibilities during the tenancy to repair and maintain the structure and outside of the property. The agreement states that the landlord will repair and maintain ‘the roof, outside walls’ as well as ‘Internal walls and ceilings’.
Under Section 2.1(b) of the tenancy terms and conditions it states that the landlord ‘will not interfere with your right to occupy your home peacefully except when access is required as set out within your tenancy terms and conditions’.
Under Section 2.6 of the agreement the landlord agrees to keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided or adopted by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity, including water pipes, water heaters and heating installations.
Under Section 2.6.4 of the agreement the landlord agrees to keep the ‘common entrances, halls, stairways, lifts, passageways and any other common parts, including their electrical lighting, in reasonable repair and fit for use by the tenant and other occupiers and visitors to the premises’.
Under Section 5.5 of the agreement the resident ‘must allow the landlord’s employees, contractors and agents access to your home to inspect the condition and use of your home, carry out repairs, service or improvement work to your home or to neighbouring property’.
The landlord’s repairs policy highlights the timeline that it must follow in order to complete repairs. The landlord has three repairs categories; emergency, urgent and routine repairs. The policy states that emergency repairs would be attended and made safe within 24 hours, urgent repairs within five days, routine repairs within 21 days.
The landlord’s compensation policy highlights that the landlord may consider a discretionary payment of compensation for ‘prolonged loss of the use of part of the dwelling, through no fault of the occupants, due to avoidable circumstances and as a result of action or lack of action by the landlord’. Payment can be made for ‘damage to possessions, loss of amenities and inconvenience caused’.

Summary of events

On 25 October 2019, the resident reported to the landlord that the stoptap by the water meter would not turn off. The landlord’s repairs log shows the repair was complete on 31 October 2019, the resident would later raise this repair was not completed until 1 July 2020.
The landlord repairs logs show that there was a report on 3 December 2019 in relation to a communal leak in the ceiling in the communal hallway area. The repair was marked as completed on 23 January 2020.
On 22 January 2020, the resident reported an issue with the brickwork at his property and subsequent damp that was being caused. It noted that an anti-fungal treatment was to be carried out in the bedroom on 3 February 2020.
On 4 February 2020, the resident contacted the Ombudsman and stated that he was having issues progressing his complaint through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure. The resident highlighted the following issues:
1. That he was unhappy with the way the landlord’s operative dealt with the complaint, and its behavior towards him.
2. That it had breached numerous parts of Section 2 of the tenancy agreement which related to its repair obligations.
3. There were substandard repairs to a leak in a communal area that lead to further issues. There was also issues with the brickwork on the outside of the property causing damp, and damage to his belongings in the property.
4. That its operative attended the property without prior warning and had poor communication.
5. It failed to comply with its complaints policy and procedures.
On 7 February 2020, this service wrote to the landlord and asked it to issue the resident with a formal stage one response within 10 working days regarding the issues highlighted by the resident on 4 February 2020.
On 10 February 2020, an operative attended the property and confirmed that there was a leak in the communal ceiling causing a stain. It identified that there was damage to the masonry on the outside of the building and was cosmetic rather than anything detrimental to the structure.
On 17 February 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and asked for his complaint to be escalated to stage two of its complaints process. It stated that it would not as it is still being dealt with at stage one of the complaints process.
On 24 February 2020, the landlord contacted the resident to clarify his stage one complaint in order to establish if it had identified all of the issues. It advised that the asset surveyor wanted to attend the resident’s property on 26 February 2020. It highlighted the following issues as being a concern to the resident:
1. A complaint about an individual member of its team and the service provided.
2. That it had not taken ownership of the complaint and it was being passed from one department to another.
3. That it was in breach of the residential tenancy agreement in regards to its failure to fix the external ceiling, mould and mildew in his bedroom and the heating and stoptap.
4. That its operatives attended the property without prior notice.
5. Its complaints handling.
On 3 March 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its formal stage one response. It addressed the issues outlined in paragraph 17 above.
1. It stated that the resident’s complaint had been dealt with by the staff member’s manager. It said that staff are provided with training to deal with complaints and past complaints will not affect future service.
2. It acknowledged that the resident’s concerns had been passed among its internal team “with nobody taking ownership” and this could have been managed more efficiently in retrospect. It confirmed an agreement that had been made between the landlord and resident. This agreement was an offer of a 25% rent reduction starting from 6 January 2020, which would then be calculated at the point of resolution.
3. It responded to the resident’s claims that it had breached parts of section 2 of the tenancy agreement which related to the landlord’s repair obligations. It stated that it had organised for a surveyor and an operative to visit the resident’s property on the same day as this response was issued to conduct a further inspection of the property and a specialist damp survey. It would then review the reports and respond to this element of the resident’s complaint.
4. It highlighted that under Section 5.5 of the tenancy agreement there are situations where the resident must allow the landlord access to their home. Given the previous concerns raised by the resident about the property condition, it was not unreasonable for the operative to attend in order to “ascertain the nature of the issue”. It stated that a contact note has been placed on the residents file to contact the resident before any visits.
5. It addressed the resident’s concerns that it had not followed its complaint procedure. It apologised that it had not contacted the resident within one working day of the complaint being raised as stated in its complaint policy. However, it stated that it did contact the resident on 17 February 2020 and 20 February 2020 to discuss matters. The landlord acknowledged that even though it had initially failed to meet its timescales, it had taken “proper consideration of the issues raised”.
On 4 March the resident contacted the landlord and asked for a review of the complaint and raised the following points:
1. That it should issue a formal apology for the way that the staff member dealt with his complaint. The resident stated that the staff member had “arrogance, impertinence and lack of basic manners”.
2. The amount of compensation offered was too low and it omitted compensation that was agreed for decor, furnishing and any costs incurred.
3. The resident wanted further explanation for why it used Section 5.5 of the tenancy agreement as a way to justify the operative attending the property without prior notice. The resident also asked for a note to be placed on his file for no operative to attend without prior notice.
4. The resident raised that there was an eight-day delay in providing an acknowledgement to his stage one complaint. The resident stated that the landlord said that it would not escalate his level one response despite him asking it to do so.
5. The resident raised that all of these issues were having severe negative effects on his mental health.
On 18 June 2020, there was a collapsed ceiling in a common area of the property related to the leak. The resident contacted the landlord explaining his safety concerns with falling debris, slipping on water and a potential for fire due to water on the electrics. It advised the resident that repair work would be carried out within three days’ time and that over the weekend, visits would be conducted to continually assess the situation.
On 22 June 2020, the resident contacted the landlord and stated that he had not received a stage two response from it in relation to ongoing issues at the property.
On 24 June 2020, the landlord organised a meeting with the resident to discuss the issues that the resident was experiencing at the property and to seek the most appropriate resolution. On 26 June 2020, it provided the resident with a detailed complaint response to the issues discussed including:
1. Failure to adhere to its complaints policy as it did not meet the response timescales accordingly – it acknowledged that it had fallen outside of its guidelines in regards to the resident’s complaint and apologised for the delays experienced. It stated it was in the process of reviewing complaints policies in order to prevent these types of delays from occurring in the future.
2. That the complaint has been escalated to stage two of its complaints process – It advised that the complaint would be reviewed at stage two and it would investigate why point three of the complaint was not investigated and why the cost of redecoration was not included in the compensation amount.
3. Repairs completed at the property- repairs to the common ceiling had been completed and would be monitored. Further works had been arranged for internal repairs to the areas affected by the leak and the resident would be notified when these are carried out.
4. Damp and mould issues in the resident’s home – The landlord and a surveyor agreed to visit the property on 1 July 2020 to view the extent of the problem. It would carry out moisture tests and would take inventory of the items that have been affected to in the stage two review.
On 26 June 2020, a local MP contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf, the MP highlighted a number of complaints previously raised by the resident. The landlord responded and acknowledge that there have been some failings on its behalf in relation to the resident over the last few months, it apologised for the inconvenience and any affect that this has had on the resident’s wellbeing.
On 26 June the landlord completed repairs to the roof at the property that it had identified as the cause of the leak.
On 1 July 2020 the surveyor attended the resident’s property. The surveyor concluded that there was an “unacceptable level of moisture found present within the fabric of the property”.
On 2 July 2020, the resident contacted this service and stated that he was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one complaint response. The resident highlighted that it failed to address aspects of the complaint including:
1. A planned visit / inspection by a surveyor and asset manager.
2. The delay in repairing a leak into a communal stairwell / hallway which had since resulted in a ceiling collapse on 18 June 2020.
3. The resident’s mental health issues.
4. The landlord’s failure to progress his complaint through its complaints procedure.
On 2 July 2020, this service contacted the landlord and asked it to provide the resident with a stage two complaint by no later than the 16 July 2020. The landlord responded on 3 July 2020 and stated that the resident was contacted regarding the complaint on 26 June 2020 and visited by the landlord on 2 July 2020, and a response would be provided in due course.
On 9 July 2020, the landlord issued the resident with its stage two response. It provided a detailed response to a number of issues raised in the initial complaint as well as subsequent issues. It addressed the following:
1. Failure to adhere to its complaints policy – it apologised for failing to meet the time scale in responding to the stage one complaint. It also acknowledged that it failed to provide an escalation confirmation at stage two. It highlighted that the COVID-19 pandemic has affected service delivery and apologised for the lack of communication with the resident. It stated it was in the process of reviewing its complaints policies in order to prevent these types of delays from occurring in the future.
2. Compensation that was offered as part of level one complaint –it made a new offer of a 25% rent reduction from 6 January 2020, up until the works are complete, compensation for a damaged wardrobe (receipts to be provided), redecoration of the bedroom, carry out a deep clean of the carpet and pay for the cost of the resident’s dry-cleaning.
3. It attended the property without proper notice and failure to add contact note –it highlighted that under Section 5.5 of the tenancy agreement there are situations where the resident must allow the landlord access to their home. However, it accepted that it should have attempted to contact the resident and apologised for any distress caused and stated that a contact note has been placed on the resident’s file to contact the resident before any visits. It stated that it would review its policy around booking appointments.
4. Failure to complete repairs in the communal hallway – it acknowledged that there had been a service failure in resolving the issue and apologised for the distress and health and safety risk that it posed. It highlighted that external repairs to the roof had been completed and an inspection carried out. It would inspect further to ensure the issue was resolved and to paint the ceiling.
5. Outstanding repairs – it apologised that the repairs to the mould in the resident’s bedroom, heating and stoptap had gone unresolved. It advised that following the visit on 1 July 2020 the following works would be carried out:
  1. Repairing the external brickwork
  2. Insert a new chemical injection as a damp proof course.
  3. Remove the contaminated plaster from the bedroom
  4. Introduce device to reduce or eliminate surface condensation.

An appointment to inspect the stoptap had been made for the 13 July 2020 and once the remedial works have been completed it would inspect the heating.

Compensation: in addition to the compensation offered in Paragraph 18(b) above it offered the resident £150.00 compensation for failing to adhere to its complaints policy and £150.00 compensation for the inconvenience caused to the resident on top of the 25% rent reduction. It stated that it would continue to monitor the repairs through to completion and if the resident had any questions, to contact it.

On 10 September 2020, the landlord agreed to the below compensation in addition to that offered in the stage two final response.
1. £350.00 for two wardrobes (£175.00 each)
2. £100.00 for the computer desk
3. £150.00 for 4 boxes containing personal items
4. £50.00 for feather topper
5. £80.00 to replace the wooden slats for the bed.

The landlord advised that it was able to source a mattress and would pay for the service of a sewing machine. It stated that it felt that it responded appropriately to the resident’s complaint, and that the offer of 25% rent reduction and £150 for the inconvenience caused and £150 for complaints handling failures was a fair offer. It informed the resident that if he remained dissatisfied with the £730 on top of the 25% rent reduction and the £300 for inconvenience and complaints handling, he could contact the Housing Ombudsman.

On 22 October 2020, the resident signed a memorandum of agreement in relation to the compensation offered above in Paragraph 26. The landlord agreed to pay the resident £730 within 2 weeks.
This service spoke with the resident who acknowledged that all the repairs at the property were completed by 24 December 2020.

Assessment and findings

The level of compensation provided for repairs failures at the property.

The resident raised issues of damaged outer brickwork that was causing mould and mildew in his flat, a leak in a communal ceiling and a broken stoptap. The landlord had an obligation under the tenancy agreement to make the appropriate repairs at the property. It is clear from the evidence provided and the landlord’s own admissions that it failed to take a resolution focused approach in fixing a number of the issues at the property.
The landlord’s repair logs show that on 22 January 2020 an order was raised to fix brickwork at the residents property, the works were still outstanding when the stage two response was provided on 1 July 2020. The evidence provided demonstrates that there was an extensive delay during this time and the resident has reported that he was unable to sleep in his bedroom due to the mould and mildew present. The landlord failed in its obligation to fix the issue within a 21-day time period as highlighted in its repairs policy. However, the landlord appropriately apologised that the repairs had “gone unresolved for so long”. It also acknowledged that the resident should have been notified about the progress of the repairs and a more proactive approach should have been taken. The landlord took reasonable steps and agreed to carry out a further assessment on the heating of the property once the repair work was completed inline with its complaints policy.
The landlord acknowledged that there was a failure and took appropriate steps to remedy the situation in an attempt to put the resident back into the position before the failure. It offered the resident a 25% back dated rent reduction from 6 January 2020 at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord apologised for the inconvenience caused and for the delay in getting the issue regarding mould and mildew remedied. The landlord reviewed this amount at stage two of the complaints process. It increased its offer to a 25% rent reduction from 6 January 2020 to 24 December 2020, plus £730 for the damage to the resident’s belongings due to the mould as well as a new mattress and service of his sewing machine as highlighted in paragraph 26 above. The 25% rent reduction plus the £720 for damaged items was a sufficient offer of redress to put right the significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by this failure.
The landlord’s repairs logs show that it sent an operative to fix a leak in the communal hallway ceiling on 21 January 2020. The resident made further complaints about the leak to the landlord and this service on two different occasions. On 18 June 2020, the ceiling in the communal hallway collapsed causing evident distress and inconvenience to the resident. The landlord appropriately acknowledged that there had been a service failure on its behalf in handling the repair and apologised for the distress caused. It competed the subsequent repairs in line with its repairs guidelines and there was no indication of further water ingress. The landlord acknowledged its failure but did not provide specific compensation for the inconvenience or a discretionary payment under its compensation policy.
The landlord’s repair logs show that there had been an issue with the stoptap on 31 October 2019. The landlord failed to complete this repair until 13 July 2020, this represents an 8-month gap in the landlord completing the repair. The landlord’s repairs policy states that routine repairs should be completed within 21 days. The landlord failed to offer the resident any compensation specifically for the delay in repairs to the stoptap or the communal ceiling but as these repairs had only a minor adverse effect on the resident the offer of £150 was appropriate for the overall inconvenience caused.
The landlord’s compensation policy does not set out awards for the delay in repairs however it can consider discretionary payments where there has been delay or inconvenience caused. Accordingly, the 25% rent reduction plus the £720 for damaged items and £150 for inconvenience as well as a new mattress and service of his sewing machine offered by the landlord was sufficient offer of redress to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for all the repairs failures assessed above.

The resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct and attending the property without notice.

The resident raised that a member of the landlord staff acted with ‘arrogance, impertinence and lack of basic manners’ towards him. The landlord appropriately undertook a review and the matter was delt with by the staff member’s manager. This was communicated to the resident in the landlord’s stage one response in line with its complaints policy. The landlord appropriately reassured the resident that staff members are provided with training and that a past complaint from the resident would not affect future service. Accordingly, the landlord took reasonable steps to deal with the reports of inappropriate conduct.
The resident stated that the landlord was in breach of Section 2.1(b) of the tenancy agreement as the landlord attended his property without prior arrangement. The landlord did not deny that it attended the resident’s property and highlighted that it was only in order to complete a specialist damp survey at the property. Under Section 5.5 of the resident’s tenancy agreement the landlord is not required to give the resident notice to carry out ‘repairs, service or improvement works’. The landlord acted in accordance with its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement when communicating with the resident and did not need to give notice in this situation to attend the property. It ensured that a note would be placed on the resident’s file to ensure he was contacted before any future visits. It apologised for any distress or inconvenience caused which was fair and proportionate to remedy the situation and ensure it wouldn’t happen in the future.

The landlord’s complaints handling

The landlord operates a two-stage complaints policy, if the resident makes a complaint at the first stage the landlord should acknowledge within one working day and highlight the timescales within which it would respond. The documentation provided shows that this did not occur, the landlord became aware of the formal complaint through this service on 4 February 2020 and was asked to provide a stage one response by 24 February 2020. The landlord failed to provide a response within the allocated period and did not provide a stage one reply until 3 March 2020. The landlord failed to provide any explanation other than an apology for the delay and the resident had to chase up the response.
The resident asked for the issue to be escalated to stage two of the landlord complaints procedure on the 4 March 2020. The landlord failed to progress the complaint and had to be asked by this service to provide a stage two response by the 16 July 2020. The landlord provided its response on 9 July 2020 however this represents a significant delay of four months at stage two of the complaints process. The length of time that passed was not appropriate as the landlord is expected to operate a timely and efficient complaints process that complements its overall service delivery. The landlord however appropriately made an offer of reasonable redress of £150 for the delay and failures in its complaint handling. The amount offered by the landlord was proportionate to its delays throughout the internal complaints procedure and sufficient to put right this part of the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord made an offer of reasonable redress to the resident in relation to:
1. The level of compensation provided for repairs failures at the property.
2. the landlord’s complaint handling
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the resident’s reports of inappropriate conduct and attending the property without notice.

Reasons

The landlord had an obligation to repair the leak in a communal ceiling, the stoptap and damage to the outer brickwork which appeared to be causing damp and mound at the property. It was made aware of the issues by the resident and failed to have them properly rectified within a reasonable timeframe as per its repairs policy. The landlord’s offer of redress was however sufficient to put right the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident for this part of the complaint.
The complaints handling by the landlord was not in line with a timely and efficient complaints procedure at either stage of the process. It failed to provide a formal response within the correct time frame highlighted by this service at stage one of the complaints process. The landlord also failed to progress the complaint and issued two stage one responses within a reasonable period. The landlord however acknowledged the failure, apologised and offered the resident a reasonable £150 compensation which was proportionate to its delays throughout the internal complaints procedure and sufficient to put right this part of the complaint.
An investigation was performed into the officer’s conduct and the matter was delt with by the staff member’s manager. The landlord reasonably offered an apology to the resident and ensured it would not affect future service. In relation to the landlord attending the property without prior warning, under the tenancy agreement it was not required to give notice to the resident when attending the property to carry out repairs. However, the landlord ensured that a note would be placed on the resident’s file to be contacted in the future in any such circumstance.

Recommendations

That the landlord re-offers the 25% rent reduction backdated to 6 January 2020 until 24 December 2020, as well as the £720 for the residents damaged items as well as £150 for inconvenience and £150 for complaints handling failures (if not already paid).
If the landlord has not already done so provide the resident with a mattress and pay for the service of his sewing machine and dry-cleaning.
The landlord should review its complaints policy – earlier this year, the Ombudsman published a Complaint Handling Code which provides a framework for high-quality complaint handling and greater consistency across landlord’s complaint procedures. This applies to all members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It will enable landlord’s to resolve complaints raised by their residents quickly and to use the learning from complaints to drive service improvements. It sets out good practice for the sector that will allow landlord’s to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. The Code will help residents in knowing what to expect from their landlord when they make a complaint and how to progress their complaint. Non-compliance with the Code could result in the Ombudsman issuing complaint handling failure orders. The Code can be found here: https://hos.dev.civiccomputing.com/wpcontent/uploads/2020/07/ComplaintHandling-Code.pdf