Selwood Housing Society Limited (202338152)

Background

1. The resident reported a leak from the roof and issues with damp in her property in December 2023. The landlord arranged roofing repairs and a damp inspection which identified repairs within the property. The resident made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs related to the damp in mid-December 2023.

What the complaint is about

2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and the associated repairs.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and the associated repairs.
5. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

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

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp, and the associated repairs

6. The landlord accepted there were delays in its handling of the repairs. It apologised and offered an appropriate amount of compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused by the delays. Its position in relation to the resident’s claim about damage to her carpet caused by the leak, was unreasonable.

The landlord’s complaint handling

7. The landlord sent its complaint responses within the timeframes set out in its complaints policy, and our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).

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.

8. The landlord said in its complaint response it was on notice about the roof leak from 15 December 2023. The records for the original repair are not present within the information the landlord provided us. This is a shortcoming in its record keeping. Given the resident did not dispute its version of events it is reasonable to conclude there was a missed appointment around this time. The resident was inconvenienced by its operative failing to attend, and the need to complain in order for it to progress with the roof repair. The landlord completed the roof repair on 18 January 2024. Considering it needed to erect scaffolding in order to do the repair this was within a reasonable period from when it was on notice.
9. We have seen evidence the landlord attempted to gain access to install new extractor fans on 14 December 2023. The landlord’s notes indicate it was unable to gain access to the property and left a card. We are not commenting on the resident’s reasons for not being available for the appointment, but this impacted on the landlord’s ability to respond.
10. On receipt of the resident’s reports about damp issues on 15 December 2023, the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the resident’s property on 10 January 2024. This was within a reasonable period of the resident’s report.
11. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response accepted errors in its handling of the repairs (missed appointment). It appropriately apologised but failed to offer redress for the delay. It missed an opportunity to put right the inconvenience caused. Its stage 2 complaint response to put this right by offering compensation. This showed learning.
12. Both the landlord’s complaint responses failed to apply its claims, goodwill and statutory payments policy. The policy states “if damage has occurred to a person’s property/belongings as a result of a defect” the landlord is responsible it would refer such claims to its insurer. The resident was inconvenienced by its failure to apply its policy and give her claim due regard. It must do so now. We acknowledge the landlord agreed to pay towards carpet cleaning at the resident’s request. However, we consider its overall position unreasonable. The resident’s request for help with cleaning costs only arose as a result of the landlord stating the carpets were the resident’s responsibility to replace. It should have referred the matter to its insurer, as per its policy.
13. We have extended our investigation beyond the landlord’s final complaint responses to assess its handling of commitments it made in the response (extractor fan repairs and decorating). The landlord completed the fan repairs on the date it committed to in its final response. This was reasonable in the circumstances. It completed the painting works on 20 February 2024, this was within a reasonable timeframe of it replacing the fans.
14. The resident told us the delays in dealing with the repairs impacted on her health and wellbeing. It would be fairer, more reasonable and more effective for the resident to make a personal injury claim for any injury caused. The courts are best placed to deal with this type of dispute as they will have the benefit of independent medical advice to decide on the cause of any injury and how long it will last. We’ve not investigated this further. We can decide if a landlord should pay compensation for distress and inconvenience.
15. The resident reported that the situation meant she had to move out of the property, and wanted compensation for the financial impact this had. We do not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the complaint about financial impact is better dealt with by the court because the courts are best placed to determine matters of financial liability. For these reasons, we have decided not to investigate the complaint about financial costs to the resident.
16. The landlord offered the resident £200 for its handling of the repairs. We note it also offered her £60 towards carpet cleaning and £36.50 for a doctor’s note. As these payments were offered as a result of a specific request the resident made, and the landlord agreed, we have not considered as part of the redress offered for distress and inconvenience
17. In respect of inconvenience caused by the delays, we consider the landlord’s offer of compensation reasonable in the circumstances. However, the landlord failed to refer the claim about damage carpets to its insurer. Our remedies guidance sets out our approach to compensation. It says compensation up to £100 may be appropriate where this a minor failing which may not affect the overall outcome of a case. Such a situation applies to the above error. We therefore order the landlord to pay an additional £100 in compensation to the resident, taking the total order for compensation to £300.

18. Our Code sets out our expectations of a landlord’s complaint handling practice. It says stage 1 complaint responses must be sent within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses within 20 working days. The landlord sent its complaint responses at both stages within the timeframes mandated by our Code.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping) & Communication

19. The records around the original roof repair visit are not present, this was a shortcoming in the landlord’s record keeping. Its other repair records were adequate to enable us to complete our investigation. There were errors in it communication around the initial roof repair visit. Thereafter its communication about the repairs was appropriate and kept the resident informed.