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

Together Housing Association Limited (202006550)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202006550

Together Housing Association Limited

5 May 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

  1. The complaint concerns:
  1. The landlord’s handling of refurbishment work at the resident’s property in 2016 and his claims for damaged goods that resulted from this.
  2. Outstanding repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and living room/bedroom window opening system in the resident’s property.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination by its staff.
  4. The landlord’s handling of the kitchen ceiling leak from the property above the resident’s.

Jurisdiction

  1. 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.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraphs 39(a), (e) and (i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of refurbishment work at the resident’s property in 2016 and his claims for damaged goods that resulted from this.
    2. Outstanding repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and window opening system in the resident’s property.
    3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of discrimination by its staff.
  3. In respect of the resident’s reports of damage caused to goods as a result of the landlord’s handling of refurbishment works at his property carried out in 2016, paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the following. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising”. Therefore, a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint because it was not brought to the landlord’s attention as a formal complaint until 3 August 2020, which was not within a reasonable period of the matters arising in 2016. This means that it is not practical for us to do so given the length of time that has passed and the resulting difficulty in obtaining records of this.
  4. In respect of the resident’s reports regarding outstanding repairs to the extractor fan located in the resident’s bathroom, along with the window opening system in his living room/bedroom, paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states the following. The Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. Therefore, this is not something that this Service can determine at this stage because these issues were mentioned by the resident after the landlord’s stage two final complaint response and there is no evidence that they have exhausted its complaints procedure. The landlord instead needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to this aspect of the complaint under the procedure.
  5. The resident has accused members of the landlord’s staff of being prejudiced and discriminatory towards him. However, in accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure”. This Service cannot determine whether discrimination has taken place, as we do not have the expertise or legally binding power to do so in the way that a court or tribunal might, and so a determination will not be made on this aspect of the complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord.
  2. The property is a ground-floor flat, situated in a building with similar properties.
  3. The resident advised the landlord that the repair issue concerning the leak coming through his kitchen ceiling from the property above his had been outstanding for four years. However, as per its logs, an issue with the paint on the property’s kitchen and bathroom ceilings was reported by him on 30 May 2019 and assessed by it on 3 June 2019. During the inspection, it was determined that the water ingress, coming from the property above, had caused the ceiling paint to “peel and bubble”, requiring scraping back and painting.

Summary of events

  1. On 6 August 2019, the landlord recorded that it was due to attend the property and remedy the issues caused by the leak in the kitchen ceiling; however, this was rearranged for 14 August 2019 by the resident. On 14 August 2019, the landlord’s decorator attended the property and started carrying out the remedial works. The decorator could not complete these works, however, because, upon their return from lunch, they could not gain access to the property due to the resident leaving. As a result, the landlord asked the resident to “rearrange this appointment for a convenient time”.
  2. The resident contacted the landlord in respect of this repair issue again on 30 June 2020, according to its records, and an appointment was arranged for 16 July 2020 to investigate a leak from above; however, this did not go ahead due to a lack of access to the property. Moving forward, the landlord noted that it advised the resident that it had subsequently carried out investigative works in the neighbouring properties, identified the source of the leak and was in a position to carry out remedial works, prior to completing the agreed repairs to his kitchen ceiling.
  3. On 30 July 2020, the landlord recorded that it wrote to the resident regarding a telephone conversation that took place on 28 July 2020, and its letter was comprised of the following:
  1. As the resident advised that he “had been living in a sewer for 4 years”, the landlord carried out an audit of the repairs and visits to the resident’s property to check if any service improvements were needed.
  2. The landlord advised that it had been carrying out investigative works, it located the source of the leak, and was taking action to remedy this, including by returning to the property to scrape back, stain block and re-paint once the leak had been stopped.
  3. The landlord also addressed other issues raised by the resident and asked him to use its official complaints process.
  1. The landlord issued a written complaint acknowledgement to the resident’s subsequent stage one complaint to it of 3 August 2020 on 6 August 2020, a holding letter on 14 August 2020, and a stage one complaint response to him on 24 August 2020. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord:
  1. Arranged an appointment with the resident and his local councillor to discuss all outstanding queries on 3 September 2020.
  2. Advised that it would be “willing to offer alternative accommodation” for the resident while remedial works were taking place, due to the restrictions imposed by the Covid-19 pandemic and to ensure social distancing in order to complete the works at the property.
  3. Furthermore, the landlord addressed the fact that multiple appointments could not go ahead due to a lack of access to the property, expressed its concerns regarding the resident’s behaviour and attitude, and advised him that it had allocated him a specific point of contact after outlining the above events in his case. It confirmed that it had identified a slow cold water main leak into the property, which had caused dark markings and bubbling and peeling decorations there, but that all the repairs for this were now closed with the exception of the above remedial works at the property.
  1. On 7 September 2020, the landlord issued the stage two complaint response to the resident’s escalated complaint to it of 25 August 2020, which was divided into areas of investigation including the following:
  1. Day to day repairs – in this section the landlord advised that it had reviewed all repairs reported by the resident between the start of his tenancy at the end of 2012 to September 2018. It advised that, following an inspection carried out in September 2018, it had offered to carry out all outstanding works reported and to redecorate the property. Subsequently, the landlord advised that, following its above stage one complaint investigation, it had found “that a number of efforts have been made to complete the repairs identified at the inspection that took place in 2018”; however, the resident’s “unwillingness to keep some appointments or allow access contributed to the delay in resolving these”. It confirmed that he did not attend the above meeting scheduled for 3 September 2020, and offered to arrange further contact that would allow him to discuss his concerns.
  2. Customer services – in this section the landlord investigated the resident’s claim of discrimination by its staff. Additionally, it addressed its concerns regarding his behaviour towards it.
  1. On 18 September 2020, the resident wrote to this Service regarding the following issues:
  1. The resident stated that he was told by the landlord that the windows in his living room/bedroom were not “fitted accordingly” and to not open these because “they might be irreparably damaged”. The resident advised that he had not opened his windows since, which left his living room/bedroom with “no proper ventilation”.
  2. Furthermore, the resident advised that there was a leak from the above flat, which caused a “pungent” smell that was made worse by the lack of ventilation in the property.
  3. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction with the support received and the amount of time taken by the landlord to put things right, and he advised that one of the inspectors who had visited the property on behalf of the landlord deemed the property to be “not fit for habitation”.
  4. The resident then stated he felt “neglected and discriminated against” by the landlord.
  1. On 7 October 2020, the landlord issued a stage three final complaint response addressing both the issues raised in its stage two response and also the points raised by the resident in his above letter of 18 September 2020. As a final outcome, it enclosed a voucher of £60 (as a goodwill gesture for the claim of damage to goods that resulted from the refurbishment works carried out in 2016), and advised him to, on 13 October 2020, “allow access (…) for an inspection [,] and any subsequent repair and decoration works that are identified”. Furthermore, the landlord provided advice to the resident on how to report future repairs or issues to it.
  2. On 13 October 2020, the landlord recorded that it visited the property to assess the outstanding repairs and found that the kitchen ceiling would “require stain blocking and two coats of emulsion” and found other similar issues in the hallway and bathroom.
  3. The landlord’s notes subsequently confirmed that the above works were completed on 27 October 2020. However, when carrying out a post-works inspection, it identified an area in the property’s kitchen that required similar remedial works and was initially missed.
  4. Moving forward, the landlord’s records showed that, on 4 November 2020, the resident reported a new leak, and an appointment was arranged; however, this was then cancelled by the resident.
  5. Communication between the landlord and the resident’s local councillor, dated 12 November 2020, stated that it was contacting the resident on a weekly basis to discuss any concerns that he might have, and it was also due to the send the resident copies of “all information (…) including copies of all repairs and inspection requests”.
  6. The landlord then wrote to the resident on 15 December 2020, to advise it would visit the property on 22 December 2020 to carry out the following works:
  1. remove pipe boxing and base units in the kitchen
  2. replace a leaking hot water feed
  3. clear any obstruction found in the waste pipe
  4. refit all boxing and base units back
  5. touch up any decoration in the kitchen area.
  1. The resident subsequently complained to this Service that remedial works for the leaks at the property nevertheless remained outstanding, and that the single point of contact that the landlord had given him for it was not usually available for him to be able to report and resolve this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s property management standards table and website

  1. The landlord’s property management standards table states that internal finishes are to be serviced and provide a sound base for decorations.
  1. The landlord’s website categorises repairs based on priority. In instances, including minor leaks, where a repair does not pose immediate risk to person or property, this would be completed within 28 days.
  2. The landlord’s website’s policy regarding appointments states that, if the resident cannot attend or has missed an appointment, then it is the resident’s responsibility to contact it and rearrange this.

The landlord’s handling of the kitchen ceiling leak from the property above

  1. As previously detailed in this report, the resident reported that the paint on the property’s kitchen and bathroom ceilings was peeling off on 30 May 2019, which the landlord assessed on 3 June 2019 and then attempted to remedy on 14 August 2019. Considering that during the inspection carried out on 3 June 2019, the landlord deemed that the issue had stemmed from a historical leak and that, at that time, it was mostly an aesthetic problem, the time took to carry out remedial works was reasonable and in line with its above property management standards table and website. This is because the landlord assessed the repair in a timely manner, categorised it and scheduled the works based on priority.
  2. The landlord’s decorator attended the property on 14 August 2019 and commenced the repair works; however, they were unable to complete these due to a lack of access and so it invited the resident to rearrange this with it at a more convenient time. As previously detailed in this report, the matter concerning the outstanding repairs to his kitchen ceiling was not addressed again until his further report to it of 30 June 2020, for which it landlord visited the property on 16 July 2020 but could not gain access. At that time, the landlord confirmed that it had carried out investigative works to neighbouring properties and identified the source of the leak. In respect of the above, there is evidence that:
  1. The repairs to the resident’s kitchen ceiling were left outstanding for an unreasonable amount of time from 14 August 2019 to 16 July 2020; however, this was due to reasons outside of the landlord’s control. It complied with its website’s above guidelines regarding appointments that state that, if a resident could not attend/missed an appointment, then it is their responsibility to contact the landlord and rearrange this. Because the resident did not do this during the above period until 30 June 2020, the landlord had adhered to its obligations in this regard.
  2. The landlord was reasonable and acted in line with its property management standards table by carrying out investigative works to neighbouring properties, identifying that this gave it the chance to remedy the cause of the leak prior to completing the repair works in the resident’s property. By doing the above, it ensured that matters would be put right, and the issue would not arise again.
  1. At the landlord’s advice, a formal stage one complaint was logged by the resident on 3 August 2020, which completed its complaints procedure on 7 October 2020. In its investigation, it addressed his concerns regarding the outstanding repairs to his kitchen ceiling by:
  1. Carrying out an audit of repairs to identify whether works were raised in a timely manner or if any service improvements were needed. In respect of this, it is noted that the landlord reviewed the appointments raised for the resident since the beginning of his tenancy, determined that it was satisfied with the level of service that it had offered him, and that a number of these could not go ahead due to a lack of access to the property.
  2. Offering alternative accommodation for the duration of the remedial works, to ensure that Covid-19 guidelines were met, and the risk of infection was diminished, in order to carry out the works.
  3. Arranging a meeting with the resident and his local councillor to discuss all outstanding queries and concerns.
  4. Advising the resident that he needed to allow it to access the property in order to complete the works.
  1. By taking the above into account, it is evident therefore that the landlord was attempting to identify all of the resident’s concerns so that it could address and resolve them, along with the issues already raised. It is also noted that it tried to ensure his safety, by offering alternative accommodation while the repairs were completed, and that it made an effort to learn from this situation by reviewing its previous actions to find if it needed to make any service improvements.
  2. Moving forward, it was confirmed to this Service that the landlord assessed the property on 13 October 2020 and completed the outstanding works on 27 October 2020. However, during the post-works inspection, further issues were identified, which it arranged to have remedied on 22 December 2020, in line with its repairs responsibilities under its property management standards table.
  3. By taking into account the events detailed above, the landlord took reasonable action to investigate the resident’s concerns, keep him informed throughout the process, and put matters right. It did so by not only completing the outstanding leak repairs, but also inspecting the property and identifying and carrying out additional necessary works to the interior and decorations.
  4. To conclude, this Service appreciates that the resident was unhappy with the amount of time taken by the landlord to complete the repairs to his kitchen ceiling. However, as detailed above, there is evidence showing that it took reasonable steps to put matters right and arrange remedial works that were delayed by a lack of access and subsequent timely requests to it to rearrange these.
  5. It is nevertheless of concern that the resident went on to inform this Service that remedial works for the leaks at the property were still outstanding, and that he had difficulty reaching the single point of contact that the landlord had given him for it in order to report and resolve this. It has therefore been recommended below to contact him again to arrange a further inspection for it to identify and remedy any outstanding remedial works for leaks at the property, as well as to provide him with an alternative to his single point of contact for it in the event of their unavailability.

Determination (decision)

  1. 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 kitchen ceiling leak from the property above his.


Reasons

  1. The landlord was effective in arranging appointments for the remedial works to be carried out, investigating and addressing the resident’s concerns and complaints, and completing the works once access to the property was granted, in line with its property management standards table and its website’s guidelines regarding appointments.

Recommendation

  1. The landlord to contact the resident to arrange a further inspection for it to identify and remedy any outstanding remedial works for leaks at the property, and to provide him with an alternative to his single point of contact for it in the event of their unavailability.
  2. The landlord should contact this Service within four weeks to confirm whether it will follow the above recommendation.
  3. The Ombudsman accepts that, because of the present restrictions due to the corona virus pandemic, the timing of the above actions will depend on what is reasonable in the light of Government guidance regarding the health of the resident and of the landlord’s staff.