Arhag Housing Association Limited (202345623)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202345623
Arhag Housing Association Limited
17 October 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 the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows and repairs to the external render.
- The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.
Background
- The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The landlord is a housing association.
- The property is described as a 3-bed terraced house.
- The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has stated that investigations are underway regarding a medical condition.
- The landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s property on 18 December 2022. They assessed that additional work was required to address window defects. The contractor informed the landlord that the living room bay window was draughty and replacement gaskets and an overhaul of side openers were required. Also, all windows required sealing with silicone. The landlord was informed on 9 January 2023 that the parts had been received and an appointment arranged with the resident.
- On 12 October 2023, the resident requested a surveyor inspection as render was cracked and water was entering the property.
- The resident made a further report on 26 January 2024 that the property had damp and mould. The resident provided pictures to the landlord showing damp in the bedrooms and living room. In addition, the resident said that the moisture absorber placed in the living room and bedroom was full after 4 weeks instead of the recommended 3 months. The following day, the landlord attended the property and agreed to install radiators to the hallway and master bedroom.
- On 8 February 2024, the resident reported 5 broken trickle vents and a broken handle to the toilet window. On 20 February 2024, the resident requested that the landlord paint the exterior of the property to remedy cracking.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 24 February 2024. The resident’s key concerns were:
- The windows were old and required replacement.
- The render was poor and causing water to leak into 2 bedrooms.
- The landlord had not considered her health.
- At the visit on 7 December 2023, pictures were taken of the windows and rendering.
- The landlord had failed to respond to her contact on 21 December 2023.
- An unannounced visit took place on 26 January 2024 which was inconvenient as, at the time, she was decorating the bedroom affected by damp.
- The preferred outcome was the replacement of the windows as it was cold even with the heating on.
- The landlord provided its initial complaint response on 26 March 2024. It explained that its stock condition survey had assessed that the windows were due to be replaced in the financial year 2026/2027. The resident said the windows were affected by condensation so it provided a leaflet setting out how this could be prevented. The landlord acknowledged that multiple staff had carried out inspections to assess whether additional window repairs were required. It recognised that some of those staff were no longer in its employment. The landlord apologised for its poor communication with the resident. Going forward, as the resident was aware of the date for the window replacement, it said less visits would be necessary. The landlord partly upheld the complaint as the windows would be replaced in line with its planned programme but its communication with the resident could have been better.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the next stage of the complaint process. The resident provided further evidence on 21 April 2024 to a review panel, showing pictures of the windows and cracks to the front and rear exterior of the property. The resident also provided information regarding the decorating costs she had incurred.
- On 25 April 2024, the landlord provided the review panel outcome to the resident. The key findings were:
- It intended to move from recruiting temporary to permanent staff.
- In the future, handovers would be completed before staff exit the organisation.
- It accepted that there were outstanding repairs required and requested that the director of property, building safety and compliance and the window contractor inspect the property. The review panel would be informed of the findings and the actions to be taken.
- It agreed a good will gesture of £200 towards the costs incurred by the resident in carrying out repairs and maintaining the property (credited to her rent account).
- The director of property, building safety and compliance visited the resident’s property on 30 May 2024. The resident was informed that the report from the window company was expected within 10 working days and the resident could expect an update by the end of June 2024.
- The following day, the resident contacted the landlord regarding the behaviour of the director of property during the visit. The resident maintained that the landlord had failed to consider the reported damp, draughts and energy efficiency. Also, the windows did not meet the current regulations.
- The windows contractor provided its report to the landlord on 12 June 2024. They informed the landlord that replacement hinges were required to some windows and gaps around the fames required sealing. The contractor also identified that window board to the living room and bedroom required renewal. In response, the landlord informed the contractor that the resident had advised that they had applied sealant to the windows so that work was no longer required.
- The landlord provided its follow up response to the resident on 24 June 2024. It confirmed that its window contractor had inspected the windows and repairs were required. With regard to the visit by the director of property, building safety and compliance, it explained that her focus was on carrying out the inspection which resulted in her back being turned towards the resident. The director apologised for any offence caused as it was not her intention to ignore the resident. The landlord listed the repairs required to the windows (supply and fit casement stays, supply and fit trickle vents) and elsewhere (renew roof to the porch, make good cracks and redecorate affected areas).
- On 6 July 2024, the resident requested a visit by the chief executive before giving her agreement to the window repairs.
- The chief executive and head of housing visited the resident on 31 July 2024. The chief executive advised that there was a review underway of the window replacement programme and agreed to undertake a further visit between mid-October and mid-November 2024 to inspect the window condition. The resident agreed to postpone the rendering works until the new windows were installed. The chief executive agreed to install a new roof to the existing porch and to speak to the resident’s neighbours about aligning their gutter.
- On 13 August 2024, the landlord received a quote to carry out works to the gutter.
- The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to this Service.
Assessment and findings
Scope of investigation
- The resident told this Service that the landlord provided its contractor with her personal contact information without her consent. If she has not already done so, the resident may complain to the landlord about the alleged data breach. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response to her concerns, she can escalate her complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office. This matter is not within the jurisdiction of the Housing Ombudsman.
- The resident complained about the conduct of the director of property, building safety and compliance during the visit on 29 May 2024. The landlord provided the resident with an apology from the director, advising that it was not her intention to cause offence. The resident told this Service that she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. If she has not already done so, the resident may register a formal complaint about this matter and bring it to this Service for investigation should she remain dissatisfied once the landlord’s complaints process has ended.
Replacement windows and repairs to external render
- The Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles are:
- be fair;
- put things right;
- learn from outcomes.
- This Service will apply these principles when considering whether any redress offered by a landlord is appropriate and proportionate for any maladministration or service failure identified.
- Each aspect of the resident’s property condition concerns have been considered in turn below. This includes consideration of the resident’s reports of damp which were linked to the window and render concerns.
Replacement windows
- Landlords have an obligation to maintain homes to a reasonable standard and respond to reports of repairs in a reasonable time frame. The landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property. Its repair responsibilities state that it is responsible for window frames, catches, hinges, locks and vents. Repairs should be completed within 28 days.
- The landlord reasonably responded to the resident’s concerns about her windows in December 2022. Its contractor carried out repairs to remedy the defects to the living room bay window, back doors and bedrooms, including sealing the windows to resolve the reported draughts. It is not disputed that the repairs were completed albeit the landlord’s records do not give the precise date that the repairs were completed which is a shortcoming.
- It was reasonable for the landlord to conclude that the repairs carried out were satisfactory as it did not receive another report regarding the windows until early 2024 – around 14 months later. The resident reported 5 broken trickle vents in the property in February 2024. The landlord took 65 working days to complete those repairs on 13 May 2024. This was unreasonable as the landlord did not meet its repair timescale of 28 days.
- The landlord explained its position regarding further window works in its complaint responses. It advised that it had carried out a stock condition survey and the replacement of the windows were planned for the financial year 2026/2027. It had visited to assess whether any interim repairs were required before the windows were replaced. This was reasonable as the landlord evidenced that it assessed the condition of the windows and agreed to complete any repairs that were required pending the planned programme of works.
- In addition, the landlord recognised that staff turnover had impacted the quality of service experienced by the resident in regard to communications following inspections. It outlined that it had learnt from her complaint as it intended to prioritise permanent recruitment and to ensure that staff exiting the organisation provided handover notes. This demonstrated that it had recognised the resident’s experience and introduced improvements to prevent the situation reoccurring.
- The landlord displayed its willingness to address the resident’s concerns further through the visit on 31 July 2024 by the chief executive and head of housing – 2 senior leaders of the landlord. This indicated that the landlord wanted to give reassurance to the resident that it was listening to her concerns and considering her reasons for requesting an earlier window installation. During the visit the landlord reaffirmed its position regarding the timing of the replacement of the windows, agreed to monitor their condition and to undertake a further visit. The landlord’s actions were reasonable and showed that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously.
- It was appropriate that the landlord decided it was not necessary to bring forward the planned programme for the replacement windows as the earlier report received from the windows contractor in June 2024 did not recommend replacement. This supported the position taken by the landlord that, although the windows were nearing the end of their life, interim repairs could be undertaken until the scheduled replacement date in 2026/2027.
- It is noted that the resident carried out repairs to reduce draughts from the window. The chief executive agreed to carry out a further visit to the property by mid-November 2024 to assess the amount of deterioration, if any, that has occurred. This is a reasonable approach to assess whether it needs to review its position regarding the date of the window replacement.
Render
- The first report that render defects were causing water ingress was made in October 2023. The landlord’s records show that an appointment was arranged for November 2023. However, there is no further information in its records about this appointment. This is not reasonable as the landlord’s records should evidence the actions it has taken to resolve repair reports, including inspection outcomes and communications with the resident.
- There is an unexplained gap in the landlord’s records between November 2023 and February 2024 when the resident made a new request for the property to be rendered to remedy cracks. The lack of evidence means it is not possible to assess whether the landlord acted appropriately in this period to address the resident’s concerns as the Ombudsman can only rely on the evidence provided.
- The landlord’s contractor did not inspected the render to until April 2024, around 5 months after the initial report and more than a month after the follow-up request. This is unreasonable as it exceeded the timescale of 28 days outlined in its repair responsibilities. The render was assessed as having hairline cracks, affecting around 25sqm of the front and rear of the property. The contractor noted that the resident did not agree to the inspection of the entire property as the landlord staff had previously attended and taken pictures. From what can be seen, the landlord did not review the pictures of the external render taken by its staff or arrange for its surveyor to attend. This would have ensured that its decision about the render was made using comprehensive information.
- The landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure of the building. It has decided that rendering repairs will be completed after it installs the new windows. This approach was agreed following inspections by 3 of its senior leaders – the chief executive, head of housing and director of property, building safety and compliance. The visits to the resident’s property, and the information provided by its contractor, have not identified that the current condition of the render is causing water ingress to the property. The landlord has agreed to monitor the situation which is reasonable.
Damp
- The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp by inspecting the property in January 2024. It assessed that the heating was inadequate and arranged for additional heating to be provided to the hallway and master bedroom. The contractor made contact with the resident within 3 working days to install the radiators. It was reasonable to address the resident’s reports of draughts in the property and the difficulty heating the property. The landlord has informed this Service that the property has an energy performance certificate of C which is an adequate rating.
- Concern was raised about a short notice visit to the resident’s property on 27 January 2024. It was reasonable for the officer who attended to recognise that his attendance at short notice had impacted the resident and to apologise for this.
- The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response acknowledged the resident’s report that the window had condensation and provided a leaflet to the resident giving advice on managing condensation. The landlord’s contractor who attended on 12 April 2024 provided a similar assessment to the landlord, with the warning that he had not been able to carry out a full inspection of the property. It is reasonable for the landlord to rely on the assessment it receives from its contractor and it is noted that the director of property, building safety and compliance attended the property in May 2024 and did not identify damp. There is therefore no evidence of service failure on the landlord’s part in this regard.
Summary
- Overall, the Ombudsman has identified that there were delays in the landlord completing interim window repairs and inspecting the condition of render. The landlord has also itself acknowledged communications failings.
- The landlord made a good will gesture to the resident of £200 towards the costs she incurred in carrying out repairs and maintaining the property. It also indicated that lessons had been learnt in light of the communications failings.
- The landlord’s compensation policy says that payments between £100 to £500 are made when residents experience a high level of disruption, distress or inconvenience over an extended period of time. In considering whether the landlord’s gesture of good will is reasonable, the Ombudsman has reviewed whether the redress offered is proportionate to the identified service failures.
- The landlord recognised during the complaint process that the resident incurred costs when carrying out repairs to seal the windows that it was required to do. However, it did not fully acknowledge the delays in window repairs and render inspection or award any compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused (the £200 was for costs incurred only). The landlord’s offer of redress was therefore insufficient given the circumstances of the case.
Complaint handling
- The landlord’s complaint procedure states that it will respond to complaints within 10 working days at its first stage and within 20 working days at its final stage.
- The resident complained to the landlord on 24 February 2024. Its records show that the Head of Housing was away from the office when the complaint was received and there was a corresponding delay in the complaint being identified. The stage 1 complaint response states that the complaint was received on 15 March 2024. This is not correct and the complaint response was therefore inaccurate as it did not record the actual date that the resident informed the landlord of her dissatisfaction.
- In its communication with the resident, it was appropriate that the landlord informed her that it has a generic email address available for customer contact. However, the landlord’s website complaint page does not provide the generic email addresses. If residents have a query about their complaint, they are instead signposted to contact an individual officer. An order is made about this later in the report. In this case, the resident experienced a delay in receiving the landlord’s initial complaint response as it was not sent until 26 March 2024 – 21 working days later.
- In its review of the complaint, the landlord did not identify that it had failed to meet its published complaint handling timescales.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for replacement windows and repairs to the external render
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Orders
- Within 4 weeks of the date of the determination, the landlord should:
- Write to the resident to apologise for the service failures identified in this report.
- Pay the resident £400 compensation for the service failures identified in this report, (including the £200 good will gesture awarded in its complaint response) broken down as:
- £150 for the delay in carrying out the window repairs and assessing the condition of the render.
- £50 for its complaint handling failures.
- If it has not already done so, review the contact details on its complaints web page and consider whether this should provide a generic email address for its residents.
- Within 6 weeks of the date of the determination, following its agreed meeting with the resident by mid-November 2024, the landlord should confirm whether the planned works to the window will take place in the financial year 2026/2027. It should provide this Service with a copy of the letter to the resident confirming its intentions.
- The landlord must reply to this Service with evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.