Thirteen Housing Group Limited (202411250)

Background

1. The resident moved into a 3-bed bungalow in July 2023. She lives with her husband and 2 adult sons. Her husband is disabled, and her sons have autism. Shortly after moving in, she reported problems with uneven flooring, cracks in the walls, and damp and mould. She said the flooring was a hazard for her disabled husband. The landlord attempted repairs while the resident and her family remained in the property, then moved them to temporary accommodation in April 2024. The resident made multiple complaints about the condition of the property, how the landlord handled repairs, and the length of time spent in temporary accommodation.

What the complaint is about

2. This complaint is about how the landlord handled repairs to the property.
3. We have also assessed how the landlord handled the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

We find there has been:

4. Severe maladministration in how the landlord handled repairs to the property.
5. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

6. The landlord has not shown that it completed an adequate inspection of the property before the resident moved in, or that the property met its empty homes standard. The repairs needed were significant, and the landlord did not complete them within a reasonable time. Delays in the repairs prolonged the amount of time the resident had to stay in an unsuitable decant property. The compensation offered is insufficient for the level of failings and the impact they had on the resident and her family.
7. The landlord failed to comply with the Complaint Handling Code in various ways. It issued multiple stage 1 responses which were not compliant with the Code, ignored a number of new complaints and escalation requests, and only responded to part of the resident’s complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

Repairs – condition of the property when the tenancy started

8. The resident moved into the property on 3 July 2023. On 11 July 2023 she told the landlord that the floors in the kitchen, 2 bedrooms, living room, and hallway were so uneven she could not lay flooring, and it was a hazard for her disabled husband. She also reported a crack in the living room wall which went through to the room on the other side.
9. The landlord inspected on 17 July 2023. It has not provided any evidence related to that inspection. But it accepted that the floors were uneven and needed repairs, and that there was a hole in the kitchen wall. It raised works to address this.
10. The landlord’s empty homes standard sets out its minimum standard for its properties before letting. This includes ensuring that the floors are even, holes in plaster are filled, and walls are checked for damp and mould. It says that residents will be advised of any outstanding works during the viewing and sign up process. A void inspection is necessary to ensure a property meets the standard.
11. A void inspection should identify visible repairs. But it’s not intended to be a detailed survey of a property, and some repair issues may only become apparent after a new tenant has moved in. So we would only expect the landlord to have completed repairs to the floors and walls if these issues were evident while the property was empty.
12. The landlord’s internal emails show it completed some damp treatment and lifted the kitchen flooring before the resident moved in. So there was some level of void inspection. But it has not provided a copy of any inspection report, void checklist, or other evidence related to its inspection and findings, despite us specifically requesting it.
13. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said that floor coverings remained in place in several rooms, so any uneven flooring may not have been visible. It also said it’s not possible to identify every problem before letting. But it did lift the kitchen flooring, which was one of the affected areas. This should also have prompted it to check the flooring in other rooms. We have seen no evidence which explains why it did not identify the problems with the flooring, or a hole in the kitchen wall. And while it completed a mould wash, it has provided no evidence of investigating the cause of the mould.
14. In the absence of any inspection records or a void checklist, the landlord has not shown it completed a reasonable inspection of the property before the resident moved in. And since the resident reported issues shortly after moving in, it’s reasonable to conclude that a number of the repair issues were present at the start of her tenancy, and the property did not meet the landlord’s empty homes standard.

Repairs – after the resident moved in (excluding damp and mould)

15. The resident reported multiple issues with the property on 11 July 2023. This included a crack in a wall that extended to an adjoining room, uneven flooring throughout, and loose wiring. She said the flooring was a hazard for her disabled husband.
16. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy says it must complete routine repairs within 28 working days, and planned repairs (those needing specialist input or multiple visits) within 60 working days. In this case, it took until 23 October 2024 to complete all of the repairs, with the resident moving back into the property on 8 November 2024, following a decant. This was a serious and significant delay. We have therefore assessed the reasons for the delay, and how much of that delay was unreasonable or avoidable.
17. The landlord inspected the property on 17 July 2023, which was within a reasonable time. But it has provided no inspection notes or reports if its findings, so has not shown it completed a reasonable inspection. Its internal emails show it asked its contractors to complete works. But this is also missing from its repair records, which indicates poor record keeping.
18. The landlord attempted some repairs while the resident was still in the property. This included patching plaster in the kitchen around 10 August 2023, and attempting to screed the floor on or around 8 August 2023. But it also has not shown it handled those repairs appropriately.
19. The landlord screeded the floor 3 times, and each attempt failed. On each occasion the resident had to move all furniture out of each room herself for the works to go ahead, and then move it back afterwards. The landlord has not shown it considered the household’s vulnerability, and whether it should provide support (such as assistance in moving furniture for the works) as a result of that vulnerability. It would also have been reasonable for the landlord to complete a more technical inspection of the flooring after its initial repair attempts failed rather than repeatedly trying the same repair without success.
20. After the repairs failed, the landlord sent a surveyor on 24 August 2023. It has provided no reports or notes from that visit, so has not shown it completed a reasonable investigation. Following that survey, the landlord failed to complete any repairs or tests within a reasonable time. It also failed to update the resident, who had to repeatedly chase for information. It said in its stage 1 response that it had requested a soil inspection and placed all works on hold until it had the results. There is no mention of this in the repair logs, and it has provided no evidence it explained this to the resident prior to its stage 1 response. Its poor handling of the repairs was therefore compounded by poor communication.
21. On 11 October 2023 the landlord concluded it needed to move the resident to complete works. It has not provided any evidence of updating the resident, or taking any steps to find an alternative property at that time. It says it received a soil investigation report on 25 October 2023, and that this came back clear. But there is no evidence of this in the repair logs, and no evidence of related communication with the resident.
22. By 7 December 2023 the landlord had taken no further action regarding these repairs. On 13 December 2023 it discussed the repairs internally following another complaint. It said its soil analysis had already come back clear, and the flooring issues were due to poor workmanship. It said it was booking a joint visit, with works to start as soon as possible. It had taken no action with the soil analysis report it received on 25 October 2023 until the resident made another complaint, which was unreasonable.
23. The landlord inspected again on 3 January 2024, after the resident escalated a complaint. It found ongoing flooring problems in all areas, and said further investigation was needed. After this visit, the landlord started looking for temporary alternative properties. It considered multiple options, including a hotel, adapting a vacant property, or moving the resident to a new build property when one was handed over by a developer. But there were very few properties available which were suitable for the family’s needs. The resident and her family eventually moved to a temporary property on 3 April 2024.
24. Overall, while the landlord took some steps to mitigate the delays, most of the delays were unreasonable and avoidable. The landlord has not shown that it completed a reasonable inspection, managed repairs effectively, or communicated appropriately with the resident. So it did not handle these repairs reasonably after the resident moved in.

Repairs – damp and mould

25. The resident reported damp and mould from 4 August 2023 until 3 April 2024 (when she moved into temporary accommodation). She said her sofa, clothes, and bed linen were damp every morning, that there were no vents in the property, and that there was mould in 2 of the bedrooms.
26. The landlord completed a mould wash on 16 August 2023 and a survey on 17 August 2023. This was within a reasonable timescale. But it has not provided a copy of any survey report or inspection notes. So it has not shown that it completed a reasonable investigation into the cause of the damp and mould. It then took no action until 26 September 2023 and 13 October 2023, when it raised works orders for repairs. This was despite the resident chasing for updates on 22 August, 30 August, 1 September, 4 September, 11 September, and 14 September 2023.
27. It inspected again on 2 November 2023 (at the resident’s request) and 20 November 2023. It said there was mould in all bedrooms and the bathroom. It identified the following causes of damp and mould:
    1. The extractor fans in the bathroom and kitchen were extracting to the loft rather than outside. The kitchen fan had no ventilation pipe, and the bathroom fan needed repairs.
    2. The bath was dropping towards the back, allowing water egress into a bedroom.
28. The landlord raised works orders on 27 November 2023. The resident then reported on 6 December 2023 that her son had moved out because of the damp and mould in his room. She said she had to wipe the walls down every day.
29. After fixing the bath on 19 December 2023, and the vents on 22 December 2023, the landlord arranged another inspection on 3 January 2024. At that inspection, it identified rising damp in the resident’s son’s bedroom. It noted that all of the walls were wet and the floor, clothes, and a chest of drawers were ruined. Following that inspection, the landlord took no further action before the resident moved to temporary accommodation a few months later.
30. While the landlord booked the original inspection within a reasonable time, it has not shown it completed a reasonable inspection due to its lack of appropriate records. It also unreasonably delayed at a number of stages, and failed to resolve the damp and mould within a reasonable timeframe. This meant the resident had to live with ongoing damp and mould from August 2023 to April 2024 – a period 8 months. The landlord has not shown it carried out any habitability assessment during that time, or considered any vulnerabilities of the household.
31. Throughout that period, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates, and the landlord has not shown that it appropriately updated her. She has also confirmed that one of her sons had to move out of the property because of mould in his bedroom. Avoidable delays in resolving the damp and mould caused the resident significant distress and inconvenience, as well as losing the use and enjoyment of one of the rooms.

Repairs during the decant

32. The resident is unhappy with the amount of time she and her family spent in a decant property. She said the property was unsuitable for her disabled husband, and the landlord had agreed she would be moved for a maximum of 5-6 weeks. But she could not move back into her property until 8 November 2024 (7 months later).
33. It’s not disputed that the temporary property was unsuitable for the resident and her family. They needed a ground floor property due to disability, and the landlord moved them to a house spread over multiple floors. But there were no other properties available, the resident declined a hotel, and waiting for a suitable property would likely have caused extensive delays. So the resident agreed to move to the unsuitable property.
34. As the decant property was a new build, the landlord could not offer it to the resident until it was handed over by the developers. The developers handed the property over on or around 27 March 2024, and the resident moved into the property on 3 April 2024. This was the earliest available date, and the landlord took proactive steps to make this possible after initially being told removals could not attend until May 2024. The landlord took reasonable steps to mitigate the delays at that point.
35. The landlord was required to complete an asbestos refurbishment survey before starting the planned works to the floors. It could not do so with the resident and her family in the property, so could not have completed the survey before the decant. Its asbestos contractors attended on 5 April 2024 and found asbestos containing materials in the floor tiles and adhesive in all rooms other than the kitchen and bathroom. This meant it could not start the planned works to the flooring until it removed the asbestos. There was no landlord fault in this regard but it has not shown it gave the resident any updated timescale for the decant.
36. The landlord finished removing the asbestos on 29 April 2024. Its builders attended the same day, and identified faults with the concrete below floor level. This is not something that was apparent before the asbestos contractors removed the tiles, and therefore not something the landlord could have reasonably foreseen until this stage. This meant the landlord needed to remove the entirety of the ground floor concrete to identify the cause of the defect.
37. It booked the relevant works to start on 28 May 2024. This was the earliest available date. Its contractors were then delayed by 2 days after a late finish on another job. This was outside of the landlord’s control, so not a delay it was responsible for. The works started on 30 May 2024. But they took longer than planned as the contractors needed to dig further than expected into the concrete. They told the landlord on 15 July 2024 that they would finish the works in the middle of August. They then confirmed in the middle of August that they were due to finish the works on 28 or 29 August 2024. On both occasions the landlord updated the resident, which was reasonable.
38. However, when the resident went to the property on 26 August 2024 she found the mould was worse than it had been before. She told the landlord this, and it arranged an inspection. It found there was a poor finish to the floors, as well as mould in the property. The poor work by the contractors therefore caused a delay. After identifying the defective flooring and mould, the landlord scheduled works to fix the flooring and to hack the walls back to plaster. It completed all works on 23 October 2024, and the resident moved back in on 8 November 2024.
39. Overall, the works took around 5 months longer than the landlord’s original estimate (7 months in total). But the majority of the delays were unavoidable, and therefore not a failing on the landlord’s part. The landlord also tried to mitigate those delays by completing some works (such as a CCTV drainage survey) while awaiting asbestos removal. It also chased its builders for updates, tried to move appointments forward, and exhausted all other options for alternative properties. Nevertheless, there were around 6 weeks of delays due to poor workmanship on the part of its contractors, which had a knock-on effect on other works. And as the contractors were the landlord’s agent, the landlord is responsible for that part of the delays.
40. The landlord updated the resident on a number of occasions during the works. But it has not shown that it updated her towards the start of the works (when it knew there were delays due to the asbestos survey), or explained early enough that 5-6 weeks was an estimate for the decant rather than a set timeframe. Had it explained this, some of the distress and frustration could have been avoided.

Repairs – summary

41. As set out above, there have been significant and prolonged repair problems with the property since the resident moved in. Some of those issues would have been reasonably apparent during a voids inspection, and a suitable inspection of the kitchen and hallway flooring would have prompted the landlord to inspect the flooring in other areas.
42. However, had the landlord inspected the flooring properly, the evidence shows it would have arranged to screed the flooring in the first instance and then move the resident into the property. This would have been reasonable and proportionate in the circumstances, as the underlying defects with the concrete were not apparent at that time. So the resident would’ve needed to be decanted for flooring issues even if there had been an appropriate inspection. However, had the landlord appropriately inspected the cause of the damp and mould, rather than simply completing a mould wash, it could have resolved this before the resident moved into the property. It could also have saved the resident the time and frustration of one of the screeding attempts.
43. The landlord has accepted some of its failings, and offered the resident £450 compensation. This was £125 for delays in the soil test, £250 for delays in completing repairs, and £75 for delays in mould treatment. Its correspondence also refers to a verbal offer of £800 compensation to stop the resident raising a formal complaint. But when the resident decided to pursue that complaint, the offer appears to have been revoked and replaced with a £250 offer.
44. The resident does not believe the compensation is enough to make up for the impact the landlord’s failings had on her and her family. She said:
    1. They were unable to decorate or unpack because of the repair issues, meaning they had to live out of boxes and cases between July 2023 and November 2024 (a period of 15 months).
    2. The flooring was a hazard to her husband, and she was unable to lay any flooring to make things easier for him. The temporary property was also unsuitable for his disability as he needs crutches to get around, meaning they were living in an unsuitable properties for 15 months overall.
    3. Each time the landlord tried screeding the floor, she had to move all of the furniture out of each room, then move it back afterwards. She had to do this without support for each failed attempt, and on one occasion injured herself in the process.
    4. The situation caused significant numbers of arguments, and nearly led to the breakdown of her marriage.
    5. Her son had to live with mould in his bedroom constantly. He then moved out because of the mould. She had to repeatedly wipe the walls down.
    6. She had to repeatedly chase the landlord to fulfil its promises, for example with payments for the internet at the temporary property.
    7. Her belongings were damaged by mould.
45. Having considered all the circumstances of the case, we do not consider that the compensation is sufficient to put things right. There were various aspects of the repairs which were outside of the landlord’s control, and it made a number of attempts to mitigate the delays during the decant. Most of those steps appear to have involved the resident’s Housing Support Co-ordinator, who showed particular concern for the household vulnerabilities. But there were also multiple prolonged failings on the landlord’s part, which had a significant impact on the resident and her family. We therefore find severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs. We have considered what the landlord needs to do to put things right.
46. With regard to damaged belongings, the landlord believes it is not liable for the damage because it handled the damp and mould reasonably. But as set out above, it did not handle the damp and mould reasonably. The landlord must therefore reassess the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items. It must then either make an offer of compensation for the damaged items, or give the resident details of its liability insurer if it still disputes the damage was a result of its failings. For the avoidance of doubt, any dissatisfaction with the landlord’s decision or compensation offer would be a new complaint, not a continuation of this complaint.
47. With regard to loss of use or enjoyment of the property, the resident’s son moved out of the property on 6 December 2023 because of the mould in his room. The resident and her family therefore lost the use of that bedroom as a result of the landlord’s failings in handling the damp and mould. As such, the landlord must pay the resident compensation for loss of use of that bedroom at 20% of the rent from 6 December 2023 to 3 April 2024 (when they moved to the temporary property). This is calculated as follows:
    1. The resident’s rent at the relevant time was £116.46 per week. This gives a daily rate of £3.33 (calculated at 20% of the rent).
    2. The resident lost the use of the bedroom from 6 December 2023 until the decant. This is 119 days of loss of use.
    3. The total compensation for loss of use and enjoyment is therefore £396.27.
48. In addition to compensation for loss of use and enjoyment of the property, we have also considered compensation for distress and inconvenience.
49. Taking into account all the circumstances of this case, the landlord must pay the resident £1,500 compensation for distress and inconvenience up to 8 November 2024 (when she moved back in to the property). This is in line with our published remedies guidance for serious failings which have a significant impact on a resident. This is inclusive of the compensation the landlord offered in its complaint responses. The landlord must also issue a written apology for the failings identified in this report.

50. Under the Complaint Handling Code, the landlord must acknowledge a complaint or an escalation request within 5 working days. It must issue a stage 1 response within 10 working days of acknowledging the complaint, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of acknowledging the escalation request. The landlord’s complaints policy follows the same timescales.
51. The resident made her first complaint on 17 July 2023. The landlord acknowledged and responded to the complaint on 24 July 2023, which was within a reasonable time. But its response was not compliant with the Code. The Code (at the time of this complaint) required landlords to provide contact details for the Ombudsman throughout their complaint (paragraphs 2.7 and 2.8), and to provide a written response to the resident which included, amongst other things, how to escalate the complaint (paragraph 5.8). The landlord did not do either (it only provided a verbal response), and also failed to give details of how to escalate the complaint, which is a failing.
52. The resident contacted the landlord about her complaint on 8 August 2023. This was both an escalation request (of her original complaint) and a new complaint (as some new issues were raised). The landlord’s logs say it issued a response on 12 September 2023. But it has been unable to provide a copy of any such response. In the absence of that response, we can only reasonably conclude that its complaint handling failings continued.
53. The resident also made further expressions of dissatisfaction about repairs and the condition of the property on 14 September 2023, 15 September 2023, and 2 November 2023. The landlord did not either escalate the complaints (for the issues included in the previous complaint) or raise new complaints (for the new matters). This was not in line with the Code or its complaints policy, and was unreasonable.
54. The resident made another complaint on 6 December 2023. She raised dissatisfaction with the landlord’s handling of damp and mould. The landlord’s internal notes show it originally incorrectly concluded that this was not a complaint. Instead, it suggested this was a ‘miscommunication’, and some of its staff unreasonably criticised the staff member who had correctly logged it as a complaint. While it later logged the complaint and issued a stage 1 response, this indicates a wider lack of understanding about the definition of a complaint.
55. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 14 December 2023. While it responded to the complaint within a reasonable time of the resident’s latest attempt, its response was not Code-compliant as it included neither details of the resident’s right to contact the Ombudsman nor how to escalate the complaint. The resident sought to escalate the complaint on 15 December 2023. But again the landlord failed to do so and its previous complaint handling failings continued.
56. The resident made a verbal complaint to the landlord on 2 January 2024. The landlord again failed to log or escalate the complaint. On 3 April 2024 the landlord verbally offered the resident £800 compensation in response to a complaint. It has provided no evidence of which complaint it was responding to, but its notes say the resident was in the middle of a high level complaint, and it offered the compensation to stop her logging a complaint. When the resident did not accept, the landlord referred it to its complaints team, who failed to log a complaint. Throughout this time, the resident had to repeatedly chase a response from the landlord to try to escalate the complaint. The landlord did not respond until 7 May 2024, when it asked if the resident wanted to log a complaint.
57. The resident confirmed on 8 May 2024 that she did want a complaint logged. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 17 May 2024, and issued a stage 1 response on 23 May 2024. While this was within 15 working days of 8 May 2024, the resident made the complaint long before then. So this was unreasonably delayed.
58. The resident escalated her complaint on 29 May 2024, and the landlord issued its stage 2 response on 11 June 2024. This was within the timescales set out in the Code. But it then failed to respond to large parts of the resident’s complaint, and chose to only respond to concerns about the time in the decant property. It also failed to include the compensation it had verbally offered. This suggests that either the compensation was conditional on the resident not logging a complaint (which is unreasonable and not in line with the Code), or the landlord failed to review relevant complaint correspondence (which demonstrates a lack of appropriate investigation). So its poor complaint handling continued.
59. The landlord failed to follow its own policies or the Code at every stage of the complaints process. We therefore find severe maladministration in its complaint handling.
60. To put things right, the landlord must issue a written apology to the resident for its poor complaint handling. It must also pay her £250 compensation for time and trouble. This is in line with our published remedies guidance for failings which adversely affect a resident, but have no permanent impact.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

61. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was poor. It has been unable to provide any records of a number of inspections, and there is a notable amount of information missing from the repair records it provided. It has been unable to provide copies of some of its complaint responses, as well as its contact with the resident. Effective record keeping is essential not only for resolving complaints but also for ensuring transparency and building trust with residents. The landlord should strengthen its knowledge and information management systems to ensure that relevant records are readily accessible and accurately maintained.

Communication

62. The landlord’s records show that while some staff (such as the housing services co-ordinator) demonstrate good communication, other staff or departments do not. There was therefore a level of internal inconsistency in its communication. It failed to provide updates on the repairs on a number of occasions, leading to the resident having to spend time updating it after getting information directly from contractors. This inevitably caused frustration, and a lack of trust that the landlord was handling repairs competently. It also failed to communicate effectively or appropriately with regard to the complaints. Clear, timely, and proactive communication with residents is essential to maintaining trust and providing an effective repairs service.

Complaint handling

63. The multiple and repeated failings in the landlord’s complaint handling indicate either a lack of knowledge from its staff, or a lack of adequate resourcing to enable its staff to comply with the Code. The landlord should ensure that it has adequate resourcing in place to ensure that its staff are able to comply with the Code, and that its staff have sufficient training on its complaint handling obligations.