Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited (202310927)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202310927

Christian Action (Enfield) Housing Association Limited

7 May 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:
1. Response to repair issues.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy and has lived at the property which is a 4 bedroom purpose-built modern house since 2012. The resident lives with her 5 children who were aged 23, 22,14,8, 6 and 4 at the time of the complaint. The landlord does not have any vulnerabilities recorded for the resident however during the correspondence for this case, the resident advised the landlord that she has a heart condition and one of her children is asthmatic.
The landlord’ reactive repairs policy states as follows:
1. The landlord is responsible for keeping in good repair:
  1. The structure and exterior of the property.
  2. Installations in the property for the supply of water, heating, gas and electricity and for sanitation (including basins, sinks, baths and sanitary conveniences).
2. Pest control (including mice) responsibility generally lies with residents. The landlord is responsible if the infestation is of more than 3 dwellings within a block.
3. Each repair will be given one of the following priorities:
  1. Emergency P1 (make safe within 24hrs). This is a repair required to avoid any immediate danger to health or safety or serious damage to property.
  2. Urgent: Within 5 working days.
  3. Routine: Within 20 working days.
4. Where a resident is identified as vulnerable the landlord will inform its contractor to ensure that the repair is prioritised to the specific needs.
5. Its partnering contractor will carry out a pre-inspection to try to achieve a first time fix. The following items will be passed back to the landlord immediately for an inspection:
  1. Component/element renewals i.e. Kitchens.
  2. Major damp and condensation.
6. Work orders will be monitored and tracked by the landlord.
The landlord’s allocations and lettings policy states as follows:
1. It works across 4 London Boroughs. The authorities within which it works operate their own allocations scheme.
2. Its family accommodation consists of 2, 3 and 4 bed properties.
3. The Borough of Enfield and Haringey (where the resident lives) operate a choice based letting policy. Residents can ‘bid’ for properties they are interested in.
4. It will endeavour to match accommodation with residents according to their immediate housing need. It will ensure that that any allocation meets the social housing size criteria, avoiding overcrowding or under-occupation as set out below:
  1. One bedsit/bedroom for a person aged 16 or over.
  2. One bedroom for 2 children aged under 16 of the same sex.
  3. One bedroom for 2 children aged under 10 (boys and girls are expected to share a room).
  4. One bedroom for any other child.
5. The option to make a transfer application is available to existing residents who need to move from their property if it is no longer suitable for their needs. Each application is assessed, points are allocated and residents are placed on a waiting list.
6. The landlord actively encourages residents to seek mutual exchanges if they wish to move. It subscribes to the Homeswapper mutual exchange website.

Summary of events

On 6 April 2022 the resident advised the landlord that a kitchen unit was defective. No evidence of action taken at the time in respect of this report was provided to this Service.
The landlord visited the property on 23 March 2023 in respect of repair issues. This Service has not been provided with details in respect of the repair issues or what was concluded following this visit.
On 17 May 2023 the resident submitted a complaint and stated as follows:
1. The kitchen was 22 years old, the unit carcasses were rotten and it was “unacceptable”. She had to spend money on takeaways as she did not feel she could cook in the kitchen.
2. The back door had shifted which had left a hole and brickwork was falling apart. Mice had accessed the property through the hole and had nested under the kitchen units.
3. There was mould in the property. She had a serious heart condition, which her children could potentially also suffer from.
4. There were 8 people living in the property and it was overcrowded. The landlord had not helped her to move despite being on the transfer list for “years due to domestic violence and being gang attacked”.
5. The bath panel had been put back but it had broken and her 1 year old had gotten her fingers stuck.
6. The immersion water heater was broken, so she had to use gas to heat the water, causing an unnecessary expense.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 May 2023 and sent a stage 1 response on 30 May 2023. It stated as follows:
1. It had visited the property on 23 March 2023 and had authorised the following repairs:
  1. Ease and adjust the front door.
  2. Remove and replace sealant around the front door, patio door and window.
  3. Remove and replace bath panel, seal the hole and replace the sealant.
  4. Replace the shower cord and renew the shower hose.
  5. Repair the kitchen extractor fan.
  6. Mould wash windowsills and door frames.
  7. Ease and adjust kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts.
2. It signposted the resident to information on managing damp and mould.
3. Its surveyor had found that the kitchen was not due for replacement until 2027. It had also undertaken a recent stock condition survey (the date was not given), which did not report any concerns with the condition of the kitchen.
4. The resident had advised that she had 5 sons living at the property with her (not 8 occupants as stated and asked her to clarify this), aged 23, 22,14,8, 6 and 4. Based on that information, the resident would be assessed as needing a 5 bedroom house. It did not however have any 5 bedroom properties available. It had advised the resident to contact the Local Authority. Another option would be to consider rehousing one of the resident’s adult children into another property. It signposted the resident to her housing officer and the Citizen Advice Bureau.
5. It apologised that it had not communicated clearly what repairs it was going to undertake, when these would take place and for the time it had taken to raise the repairs.
6. It had tasked a member of staff with reviewing and improving its communication process with residents.
7. It concluded that the complaint was partially upheld as there had been delays in completing the repairs.
The resident escalated the complaint on 9 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. She reiterated that the kitchen carcass was rotten and there were mice under the kitchen cupboards which had entered the property via a hole near the door.
2. The landlord had filled the holes in the cupboard so that the mice couldn’t re-enter however they had scratched the plinth away.
3. She requested a copy of the survey report.
4. There was no extractor fan in the kitchen.
5. The radiators were thin, outdated and some did not work.
6. The toilet was blocked.
7. There was mould and condensation in bedrooms where her children slept.
8. She had made a complaint in January (the year is not stated) and only a “handful” of repairs had been actioned in May.
9. The landlord had not apologised or offered compensation.
10. She requested as follows:
  1. A new kitchen.
  2. The mice issue to be resolved.
  3. The mould to be treated.
  4. The “2 grown adults housed”, as the property was overcrowded.
The landlord responded at stage 2 of its complaints process on 26 June 2023 and stated as follows:
1. Some works had been carried out and pest control works had been completed on 19 June 2023.
2. It had advised the resident about her housing situation and had also formally written to her about this in January 2022. (This correspondence has not been provided to this Service). It reiterated that it did not own any 5+ bedroom general needs properties. In view of this, it had previously assisted with referrals to the council, options for supported housing for the resident’s son and discussed the option of home swaps on 20 April 2023.
3. It provided a copy of the stock condition survey for the property.
4. It would arrange for the following actions:
  1. A post-inspection to be carried out by mid-July 2023 to check that the repairs and pest control have been completed to a satisfactory standard. This would identify any outstanding works and review the damp and mould issue that had been reported.
  2. The kitchen was not due for replacement until 2027. It would however review the kitchen cabinets during the post inspection.
5. As a lesson learnt, it would advise its asset team to ensure post-inspections are carried out for repair works that involve multiple issues and are planned for future dates to confirm that works have been completed and to a satisfactory standard.
That same day (26 June 2023) the resident referred her complaint to this Service and stated as follows:
1. The matter had affected her mental health and that of her children.
2. The kitchen was ‘rotten’ and there was no ventilation fan in the kitchen.
3. There was mould in 2 of the bedrooms. She had to move out of one room because it was affecting her as she was disabled with a heart condition.
4. There had been mice present until pest control attended.
5. The property was severely overcrowded with 4 children sharing a room (the lounge).
6. External brickwork was falling apart due to “severe movement” from the back door.
7. It was “impossible” for her to gain access via the front door as she had to push it which she could not do due to her disability.
8. She was paying extra for electricity as the landlord had not put a pull string on the shower electric supply to turn it off.
9. Her 1 year old kept playing with the bath panel and hurting her finger.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

The resident contacted the landlord on 6 July 2023 and reiterated her dissatisfaction. She stated that the situation was “beginning to feel like racism”. She requested that the Chief Executive view the property.
A surveyor attended the property on 13 July 2023 to review the repairs. The surveyor advised the landlord on 17 July 2023 as follows:
1. The original works had been given to contractors, however the contractors had “never/hardly finished anything that they started”.
2. It had asked the contractor to attend and complete the outstanding works.
3. It would be raising some additional works that had been noticed during the inspection (these were not outlined).
On 21 July 2023 the surveyor advised the landlord that works to remove the under counter heater, overhaul the cooker hood and renew the plinths had been raised.
On 25 July 2023 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that none of the works had been completed. Her son was sleeping in a mouldy room and was woken up by the noise of mice.
On 31 July 2023 the surveyor requested that smaller jobs be arranged “(Wash done, Plinths, Fill in gaps on doors etc.)” and that a quote was needed in respect of the back door.
On 3 August 2023 a contractor advised the landlord that it had attended the previous day and noted as follows:
1. It had completed the majority of the works.
2. 1 plinth could not be changed due to the flooring.
3. There were some structural issues with the rear door.
4. It recommended replacing the kitchen units due to the poor condition.
5. It had scheduled a post inspection for the following week and the scope of the works for the structural items would be considered.
On 16 August 2023 the landlord noted internally that it had installed 2 kitchen cabinets, the sink unit and had fixed the bath panel.
The resident contacted the landlord on 21 November 2023 and stated that outstanding repairs had not been sorted and that the ground floor bedroom was still full of damp and mould. She requested to be moved to a different property.
On 24 November 2023 the landlord advised the resident that it had booked the following repairs:
1. Toilet repair booked for 27 November 2023.
2. Damp and Mould appointment booked for 30 November 2023.
On 21 December 2023 the landlord was contacted by an external organisation in respect of a MARAC referral. The landlord advised on 16 January 2024 that it did not have any suitable properties but that it would support the resident with her local authority application or a mutual exchange.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Following the completion of the internal complaint procedure on 26 June 2023, the resident subsequently raised further repair issues within her referral to this Service. As these issues did not form part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, these are matters that this Service cannot investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to have these matters resolved. The resident may then approach the Ombudsman if she remains dissatisfied. The repairs which do not form part of this investigation are as follows:
1. The usability of the front door.
2. The shower pull cord.
It is noted the resident raised the issue the impact of mould on her and her children’s health. She also stated that her child had been injured on the bath panel. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim. However, this Service will consider the landlord’s handling of repairs and any distress and inconvenience this may have caused. This Service would expect the landlord’s response to consider the resident’s reports on how the issues were impacting on the health of the household. Such issues reflect the detriment experienced as a result of potential failures by the landlord.
Within her correspondence with the landlord, the resident referred to the property having had outstanding repair issues for some time prior to her complaint. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords at the time the events happened. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Taking this into account and the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment has focussed on the landlord’s response to the repairs raised within the resident’s complaint (17 May 2023).

Response to repair issues

It does not appear that the landlord responded to the resident’s reports about the kitchen unit when this was first raised in 2022 as the landlord’s repair log states this was not completed until 2023.
The landlord attended the property in March 2023 in respect of repair issues. It is not clear what works were identified on this occasion or what action the landlord took in respect of these issues at the time. It is noted however that the landlord, in its stage 1 response (30 May 2023) acknowledged that the following works had been identified in March 2023:
1. The kitchen cupboard doors and drawer fronts required adjusting.
2. Sealant was required to a door and window.
3. Mould wash to windowsills and door frames was needed.
4. The bath panel required replacement.
5. The kitchen extractor fan required repair.
These repairs had not been actioned by 17 May 2023 when the resident submitted her stage 1 complaint. It is not clear why these had not been resolved or what action the landlord had taken in respect of them. The landlord however acknowledged its failure in completing the repairs within its stage 1 response (30 May 2023) and apologised. Its acknowledgement of its failure and its assurance that it was reviewing and improving its communication process demonstrated that it had taken its failure seriously.
It is noted that a kitchen unit was reported as defective in 2022, however it is not clear if this related to the rotten condition of the units as described by the resident in later correspondence. It was however reasonable for the landlord to rely on the opinion of its surveyor in March 2023 in respect of the condition of the kitchen which concluded that it was not due for renewal until 2027. It is noted that a stock condition survey had been undertaken (the date was not given), which also did not report any concerns with the condition of the kitchen. Given the resident’s complaint in respect of the kitchen units in May 2023, the landlord could have attended at the time to inspect their condition. Subsequent to the completion of the internal complaints procedure, and therefore not part of this investigation, it is noted that a contractor advised the landlord (3 August 2023) that the kitchen units should be replaced due to the poor condition. This was carried out on 16 August 2023.
In respect of the mice in the kitchen the resident raised this within her complaint on 17 May 2023. The landlord did not address this in the stage 1 response as it should have done. Within its stage 2 response (of 26 June 2023) it advised that pest control works had been completed on 19 June 2023. It did not provide details in respect of what this work was. It is noted that the landlord’s repairs policy states that the pest control of mice is the resident’s responsibility if the mice were not affecting 3 or more properties. It was however appropriate that the landlord take action in respect of this given the resident’s concerns that the mice had entered via a hole in the door and had contributed to the conditions of the kitchen units. In line with its repairs policy, the landlord would be responsible for a door repair. Despite carrying out pest control (within 22 working days), the landlord failed to repair the back door, which was how the resident believed the mice were gaining access.
Following the completion of the internal complaints procedure, a contractor advised the landlord (August 2023) that there were structural issues with the back door. The landlord failed to act in line with its repairs policy in securing the back door. This is something it should have responded to in a timely manner given that the resident had reported mice entering and causing damage in the property. There is no evidence that landlord prioritised this repair given the impact of the mice on the resident and the condition of the property. An order has been made below for the landlord to further investigate this matter.
The landlord acknowledged on 23 March 2023 that the bath panel needed to be replaced. This however was not done until 16 August 2023, over 5 months later. No explanation was given for this delay. The resident had also advised the landlord that her child had injured their finger on the panel. There is no evidence that the landlord considered this or any further potential risk of injury in carrying out the repair. This was not reasonable.
When a failure is identified, as in this case, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this, the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord acknowledged that it had delayed in carrying out the repairs and that its communication with the resident had not been sufficient. It also outlined lessons learn from the complaint. Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to advise how it would prevent such failures in the future, it did not offer any form of redress to the resident beyond an apology. It did not acknowledge the vulnerabilities of the household nor that it had been alerted to the issue with the kitchen units in 2022. This was not reasonable and was not a resident focused approach. This amounts to maladministration.
The resident suffered distress and inconvenience due to the repairs not being carried out in a timely manner. To acknowledge this, compensation of £300 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidance where a resident has been adversely affected by a landlord’s failure.

Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord advised the resident within both of its complaint responses that it considered her as requiring a larger (5 bedroom) property but that it did not have properties of that size available. This was in line with the information contained in its allocations and lettings policy which states that its family accommodation is between 2 and 4 bedrooms. It demonstrated a resident focused approach by advising her of alternative solutions and did as follows:
1. Signposted the resident to the housing officer, Local Authority and the Citizen Advice Bureau.
2. Suggested the option of rehousing one of the resident’s adult children into another property.
3. It had previously assisted the resident with referrals to the council (this Service has not had sight of this).
4. It had discussed the option of home swaps.
The landlord demonstrated that it had taken the resident’s concerns seriously and provided a number of appropriate options for her to consider in respect of the suitability of the property. There was therefore no maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to repair issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Reasons

The landlord acknowledged that it had not carried out repairs in line with its repairs policy. It however did not acknowledge the impact of this on the resident or offer any redress other than an apology. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the impact of the situation on the resident.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns and signposted her to a number of appropriate options for her to consider in respect of the suitability of the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks of this report and provide evidence of compliance to this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this case.
2. Pay £300 compensation to acknowledge on the resident of the impact of the failure to carry out the repairs in line with its policy.
3. Investigate whether the rodent issue has been resolved and provide evidence of the outcome of this to this Service.
4. Arrange for an independent survey of the whole property including the damp and mould. Any plan of works and the results of the survey is to be shared with this Service and the resident.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord clarify with the resident if there are any further aspects of complaint in respect of outstanding repairs to be responded to via its internal complaints procedure.