Havebury Homes (202307558)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307558

The Havebury Housing Partnership

20 August 2024

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:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s shower.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling and the amount of compensation it has offered.

Background

The resident has occupied a 2-bed flat under an assured tenancy with the landlord since 13 May 2022. He lives in the property with his daughter. The daughter has asthma, but it is not clear whether the landlord knew this prior to the complaint.
For a number of months investigations had been ongoing to try and assess the cause of an unexplained intermittent smell that kept occurring in the residents flat. CCTV was commissioned in February 2023 to inspect redundant pipework in a built-in cupboard in the residents flat.
Following this, further investigation behind the boxing-in, was required in the bathroom. Once removed some damp and mould was evident. The area needed to remain exposed to dry out, and then the landlord was to treat the mould and supply new boxing-in and tile. An operative attended to do this work on 12 April 2023.
On 13 April 2023, the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. In summary he said that the landlord had sent a “rogue builder” into his home, the day before, who had left a large patch of black mould behind the boxing-in, in his bathroom, which should have been treated and removed. He said he had tried to report this to a member of staff the previous day who was very unhelpful, and wrongly criticised has actions to record the works, as a breach of GDPR, which he also wanted to complain about. In addition when putting the shower back, the builder cracked the case, water could now get in the electric shower which was dangerous.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 27 April 2023, it upheld the residents complaint. In response it apologised and said it had:
1. Contacted the contractor concerned and was taking appropriate action.
2. Provided a different contractor, who had since attended, re-done the work and fitted a new shower. It acknowledged this had caused additional delay.
3. Retrieved the recording of the call between the resident and member of staff that the resident complained about, and agreed the service he received was below standard.
4. Offered for senior members of staff to meet with the resident to try and re-assure him that service provision could be improved.
5. Offered £70 compensation.
The resident was not satisfied with the response. He did not feel the landlord had appropriately considered and compensated for the seriousness of the deception, the inconvenience caused or the potential impact on his (asthmatic) daughter’s health.
The stage 2 review was considered by an assistant director in the organisation leading a panel of residents. The panel did not uphold the residents complaint. It felt appropriate action had been taken with the contractor for not carrying out the assigned works, the dishonesty and the damage done to the shower.
It agreed that the resident was inconvenienced, but were satisfied that the works were completed in in a reasonable timeframe. It was also satisfied with the action the landlord had taken in dealing with the member of staff directly and sharing the impact her actions had on the resident. The compensation amount offered remained at £70.

Post complaint information (ICP)

Information received post ICP indicated that the works completed did not fully resolve the problem of the intermittent smell, and the landlord continued to try and identify the cause including a full damp inspection and an examination of the neighbouring property. The landlords Assistant Director and Repairs Manager met with the resident at his home as was offered to discuss his complaint, repairs and moving forward.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident had concerns about the impact the lack of treatment of the mould behind the panelling in his property may have had on his daughter’s health. This was because she is asthmatic, and children with asthma can be at a higher risk of the health impacts associated with damp or mould.
The Ombudsman does not doubt the residents’ concerns, however, as this Service is an informal alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages.
The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider any personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint as these matters are better suited for consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. If the resident wishes to pursue this aspect of the complaint, they will need to obtain independent legal advice or contact the landlords’ insurers.
The resident has made a number of formal complaints to the landlord and has more than 1 complaint with this service. This investigation however will focus only on the complaint in relation to works carried out to boxing-in in the bathroom and resulting events (landlord complaint ref ending 131).

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.

The tenancy agreement requires the landlord to repair and maintain the structure of the property including any shared parts of the building which the home is a part of. This aligns with its repairing obligation at section 11 of the landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Repairs must also be completed within a reasonable period of time.
The landlords repairs policy considers a reasonable timeframe to respond to non-emergency repairs is 28 working days. There are some repairs however such as smells and leaks where the source of the problem is sometimes unknown. This requires the landlord to undertake a process of elimination until the source of the problem is identified, which can take time.
If the landlord continues to act on reports of the problem, or if a potential solution or investigation has failed to resolve the issue, even if it is not resolved within the timescale set, the response is considered reasonable.
In the residents case the landlord had been going through a process of elimination to try and identify the source of a smell, which was occurring intermittently in the residents property.
While this was time consuming, as well as inconvenient and frustrating for the resident, the landlord was acting in accordance with its legal repairing obligations as set out in its tenancy agreement, which was reasonable.
Following a CCTV investigation of redundant pipework in a cupboard, the landlord moved on to an area of boxing-in in the bathroom. The area behind the boxing-in had potentially become damp and could have been the cause of the smell.
It appropriately raised an order to remove the boxing-in. It was found to have some dampness and there was an area of black mould on the wall. It was recommended that the area be left to dry and then treat the mould and renew the boxed-in area which was reasonable.
When the operative came to do the work 12 April 2023, the resident was not present, but he was recording the works being undertaken. He found from his recording that the operative had failed to clean and treat the mould as the resident was expecting, and instead just boxed it in. They had also damaged the casing to the electric shower when refitting it. All of which was not reasonable.
The resident made a formal complaint and supplied the recording as evidence. On receipt of the complaint the landlord apologised and on the same day, a repair was raised for a different workforce to redo the work and treat the mould.
The resident had an arrangement in place for the landlord to access his property using a key safe, so was not inconvenienced by having to provide access, for any inspection or the replacement works.
The repairs records indicated that the work was completed on 24 April 2023, including a replacement shower. This was a timely and appropriate response to resolve the issue, and was in accordance with its legal repairing obligations and policy response times.
The landlord also took the appropriate measures with the contractor, raising the issue with them directly, removing them from further involvement with the job and considering the relevant penalties within the contract agreement.
The failure by the contractor to carry out the required works was outside of the landlords control. Once the landlord was aware of the issue it responded appropriately and quickly to put the matter right.

The landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s shower.

On receipt of the residents complaint about the operative cracking the shower casing, the landlord apologised and agreed to a complete replacement of the shower which was appropriate.
It suspected it was safe to use, based on its knowledge that the terminals were located “behind the internal removable water cover”. But as a precaution it raised an emergency order to inspect the shower to ensure it was safe to use while the new one was on order, which was reasonable.
The resident said he could not use the shower. As there was no recorded outcome from the inspection, it was not clear whether the resident was advised not to use the shower during this period. In the absence of any landlord records to the contrary it has been accepted he could not.
The electric shower had to be ordered and the replacement had to be carried out in conjunction with the repeat works to the boxing-in and treatment of the mould. Records indicated all works were completed by 24 April 2023 which was within 8 working days from receipt of the residents complaint.
This was a timely and appropriate response to resolve the issue, and was in accordance with its legal repairing obligations and policy response times.
Again the resident was not required to be present or to provide access, contractors accessed the property using the key safe.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.

Part of the residents complaint was in relation to a member of staff’s attitude and unhelpful behaviour in a telephone conversation on 12 April 2023, when he was trying to report that the contractor had not carried out the required work.
In response the landlord investigated by listening to the recording of the conversation which was appropriate. It acknowledged and accepted that the staff member had not delivered the level of service that the organisation would expect.
The manager apologised to the resident and advised that he would be following this up with the member of staff concerned, ensuring she understood the impact this had had on the resident.
He also alluded to the fact that customer service training was being rolled out for staff across the organisation, which meant that the member of staff concerned would be receiving additional training, which was appropriate.
The manager took responsibility for oversight of the actions in resolution of the complaint, and direct responsibility for communication which was reasonable.
The resident had however asked for an apology from the member of staff concerned. It is up to the landlord how an apology for its service failings is provided, and it chose to apologise through a manager.
While this was not unreasonable, in the Ombudsman’s view, it was a missed opportunity, for the landlord not to consider the residents request, if this was the outcome he was looking for. Had it done so, it may have gone someway to actual resolution as well as rebuilding any damage to the tenant landlord relationship caused by the incident.
However while this might have been a missed opportunity it was not a failing as an apology was provided.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the amount of compensation it has offered.

From December 2020, all member landlords were required to complete an annual self-assessment against the Housing Ombudsman’s newly published Complaint Handling Code. The Code became statutory in April 2024 which means that landlords are now obliged by law to follow its requirements.
The purpose of the Code was to enable landlords to resolve residents’ complaints quickly, and to use the learning from those complaints to drive service improvements.
To assist in achieving this the Code has set out timescales in which complaints should be acknowledged and responded to. The resident made his complaint on 13 April 2023. The Code requires that stage 1 complaints be acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 10 working days from acknowledgement. The landlord responded on 27 April 2023, a total of 11 working days. This response time was in accordance with its complaint handling policy and compliant with the Code.
The Code requires stage 2 complaint response time is also acknowledged within 5 working days and responded to within 20 working days from acknowledgement. The landlord responded to the resident on 31 May 2023, which was 22 working days, which also met policy response times and was Code compliant.
The Code requires that any issues added to the complaint before the stage 1 is responded to, should be included as part of the original complaint. Those that are received after the stage 1 response has been issued, should be registered as a new complaint.
The landlord was aware that it increased the scope of the complaint, against the recommendations of the guidance in the Code. It explained that this was to be proactive and helpful to the resident, but it has since amended its practice, to ensure this does not happen moving forward.
The discrepancies in the logging of the complaint were to the resident’s advantage therefore causing no detriment, as the landlord has already recognised and now addressed this in the handling of future complaints this was not considered a failing.
The landlord advised in its complaint response that a new programme of customer service training was being undertaken and that a refresh of the compulsory staff GDPR training might be needed, for service improvement.
This was appropriate, as a key aim of the Code is to ensure a landlord learns from its complaints and takes action to improve its service to prevent the issue from happening again. This course of action demonstrated that the landlord had accomplished this.
The landlord also noted that this was not the only complaint that the resident had had to make, and offered for its senior staff to meet with the resident to provide some reassurance that he could receive a reliable service in the future.
This was reasonable, it demonstrated that the landlord was listening to the resident, acknowledging its shortcomings, and was making efforts to repair any damage that had been caused to the landlord tenant relationship.
The landlord’s efforts to put the matter right in total amounted to providing a sincere apology, putting in a plan of action that led to the works being re-done quickly, a new shower, a face-to-face reassurance visit and offering compensation of £70.
While the apology and actions taken to resolve matters by the landlord were fair and reasonable in the circumstances, the offer of compensation was not quite proportionate to the failings identified in our investigation.
Although the detriment to the resident was short term, the landlord had had to accept service failings in its repairs service, staff conduct, and incorrect information given about GDPR. Furthermore, the resident had the inconvenience of having the work done twice and said he was without the use of a shower for the duration (which totaled 12 days).
There were no failings in the landlords handling of the resident’s complaint, however, the £70 compensation offered to the resident was considered low and not reflective of the detriment experienced by the resident, which was a service failure.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repair to the resident’s shower.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the conduct of a member of its staff.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling and the amount of compensation it has offered.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that within 4 weeks the landlord:
1. Pays the resident the sum of £180, in addition to the £70 it previously offered (total £250).