Co-operative Development Society Limited (202117248)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202117248

Co-operative Development Society

15 February 2022

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 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 response to:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The resident’s request for repairs to her windows.
3. The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.

Background and summary of events

Policies and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As per appendix 2 of the landlord’s repairs policy, it is responsible for roofs, kitchen units and drawers, and window handles. The resident is stated to be responsible for mould, unless it is caused by a building defect.
Section 10 of the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that if the resident is unable to reduce the problem of condensation and mould following its advice it will visit the property to determine the cause and take action accordingly. This usually involves applying a mould wash to remove the existing mould. It states it is the resident’s responsibility to redecorate, and replace personal items damaged by mould.
The landlord’s tenant handbook confirms that urgent repairs, such as minor roof repairs, will be completed within five working days. It also confirms that it does not maintain a property transfer waiting list and advises residents to contact the local authority to apply for their waiting lists.
As per appendix 2 of the landlord’s repairs policy, it will complete routine repairs within 28 days, including repairs which do not pose an imminent safety risk. However, it will use its discretion to prioritise some work which may become more unsafe if not dealt with quickly, for example moderate leaks.
Section 12 of the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that the average expected life of a kitchen is 20 years.
Section 8 of the landlord’s repairs policy confirms that unless it caused damage while carrying out a repair, it will not pay to replace personal possessions following a leak because the resident’s contents insurance should cover this.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the cooperative landlord.

Summary of events

On 23 December 2020, the landlord raised a repair request to repair three window locks in the resident’s property and inspect and overhaul all the kitchen units. The target completion date for the job was 20 January 2021.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident, who had reported concerns over a leak which was causing damp and mould in her property. Additionally, her kitchen sink had come away from the wall, and she felt that her kitchen needed a full inspection as it was “old” and “falling apart”. She also confirmed that it had previously attended to inspect her windows and recommended new locks, but nothing had happened since.
On 13 January 2021, the landlord raised a repair request to inspect a leak in the walls, ceiling, bedroom, bathroom and windows which was said to have been the cause of the damp and mould in the resident’s property. The target completion date for the job was 10 February 2021. This repair was ultimately completed following the contractor’s visit on 28 May 2021, when it replaced the mushroom vent on the roof which it had identified as being the cause of the leak into the resident’s property.
On 25 January 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had spoken with the resident, who had explained that the leak was getting worse.
The landlord has confirmed that there was no evidence of any additional actions being taken until 10 March 2021.
On 10 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm it had received the resident’s stage one complaint about the delay in the completion of the repairs to address the leak, the damp and mould reported by the resident, and her window handles which would not lock properly.
On 18 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had requested an update from the contractor on the work to address the damp and mould in the resident’s property. It also requested the contractor additionally inspect her kitchen and ensure that the operatives wear face masks.
On 19 March 2021, the landlord raised a repair request to repair three window locks in the resident’s property which would not lock properly. The target completion date for the job was 16 April 2021.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response to the resident.
1. It acknowledged that the resident had reported that the contractor had attended to take photographs, following the work orders raised on 23 December 2020, and 13 January 2021; additionally, the contractor failed to wear a face mask, which was a requirement during the Covid-19 pandemic. However, the resident was not aware of any further progress having been made on the repair. It had arranged for the contractor to re-attend on 23 March 2021, to replace the window handles and fully assess her bedroom walls.
2. It upheld her complaint and apologised for the inconvenience it had caused her as a result of it not adequately managing these repairs, which could have been prevented by the contractor communicating with it regarding the repairs. Additionally, it offered her £100 compensation in recognition of the delay in resolving these issues.
3. It would ensure that the contractor provides a more efficient service to its residents in the future and consider whether further action was required. It would further ensure that its contractors followed government guidance in the future.
4. In respect to the condition of the resident’s kitchen, it confirmed that there was currently no programme in place for kitchen replacement; therefore, it would not be replacing her kitchen at this time. However, it would arrange for the contractor to additionally assess her kitchen for the repair or replacement of her kitchen units it required.
On 23 March 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the contractor had attended the resident’s property. It had identified the source of the leak to be linked to the mushroom vent on the roof, which it needed to replace. It additionally completed the repairs to the resident’s windows.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it raised a request to repair or replace the resident’s kitchen base units and two kitchen drawer fronts.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord’s records also confirm that it had reviewed the status of the repair which had been raised on 13 January 2021; although this was showing as complete by the contractor, this was not the case.
On 7 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the resident had declined the repairs to her kitchen, as she wanted a new kitchen. It subsequently closed the repair request on 8 June 2021.
On 10 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it spoke with the resident to confirm that a new mushroom vent was needed to address the leak. It was expected to take nine days to receive and install the new mushroom vent.
On 27 May 2021, the landlord issued its final stage complaint response to the resident, which is summarised as follows:
1. It supported the decision to uphold her complaint, as the length of time it had taken, and its communication was “not up to [its] standards”. In recognition of these failings, it increased its goodwill gesture offer to £150.
2. In respect to her reports of a leak and damp and mould in her property, it apologised for the delay in replacing or repairing the mushroom vent and would arrange for this to be completed.
3. In respect to the resident’s kitchen, it agreed that it needed to carry out repairs, and the contractor would contact her “in the next few days” to schedule the completion of the repairs. However, its records confirmed that her kitchen had been installed in 2004. Therefore, it would contact her at the end of its expected life expectancy of 20 years to inspect her kitchen for it for replacement.
4. It recognised that the resident had reported personal possessions including shoes and baby clothes had been damaged; however, she would need to submit a claim under her home contents insurance for this damage.
On 28 May 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that the work to install the new mushroom vent was completed by the roofing contractor.
Subsequent to the completion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the resident has raised additional concerns in relation to a curtain rail, the electrical wiring to the oven, the kitchen flooring, her radiators and intercom.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord’s records confirm that it had inspected the resident’s kitchen and raised a repair request for a new kitchen door, base unit and drawer front, and an extractor fan. This was completed on 2 October 2021.
The resident subsequently referred her complaint to this Service, as the leak had returned, and the landlord had failed to return her call about the issue. Additionally, she was unhappy as more of her personal possessions had been damaged due to the mould in her property. She had requested a property transfer as she felt it would be “safer and more suitable” for her and her children to move due to the mould, especially as she was also pregnant; however, the landlord had “refused” her request.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The Ombudsman accepts that Covid-19 has had a major impact on the services a landlord is able to provide, and therefore that some normal services will have been significantly and unavoidably disrupted during the pandemic and going forwards. In considering complaints related to Covid-19 the Ombudsman will consider the impact of the pandemic on the decisions and actions that a landlord has had to undertake during the period and take this into account when investigating complaints from residents.
The resident has previously raised concerns over the effect of the damp and mould on her and her children’s health and wellbeing. The Ombudsman does not dispute her comments regarding her health, but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing or to award damages for these. Only the courts or insurers can award damages for any reported impact to health following a personal injury claim.
The resident has also requested that the landlord compensate her for her damaged personal belongings following the damp and mould in her property. However, it is not within the scope of this investigation to determine the landlord’s liability for the resident’s damages from the damp and mould, in the way that a court or insurer might. As above, only the courts or insurers are able to determine liability for damages where that liability is disputed. Nevertheless, we have considered whether the landlord’s handling of the resident’s associated complaint was appropriate, and whether it acted in accordance with its policies, procedures and other obligations.
The resident has additionally raised concerns in relation to a curtain rail, the electrical wiring to the oven, the kitchen flooring, her radiators and intercom. As these are separate issues to the complaint raised with the Service, this is not something that this Service can investigate at this stage, as the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these issues through its complaint procedure first. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property

Following the resident’s reports of a leak resulting in damp and mould in her property on 13 January 2021, the landlord was obligated under its policy to arrange to visit her by 10 February 2021.
Although the resident confirmed on 13 January 2021, that an operative had visited her property to take pictures, it had yet to carry out the repair. As no further progress had been made on this repair, the resident submitted her stage one complaint on 10 March 2021. This was not fair on the resident, who should not have felt it necessary to raise a formal complaint in order for the repair to be progressed. The landlord subsequently confirmed in its stage one complaint response on 22 March 2021, that it had arranged for the contractor to re-attend on 23 March 2021.
The contractor attended on 23 March 2021, and had identified the source of the leak to be a faulty mushroom vent on the roof which needed to be replaced. The landlord followed up on this repair, as its records suggested the repair was completed, though this was not the case. Subsequently, it contacted the resident on 10 May 2021, to confirm that it would take nine days to receive and install the new mushroom vent. This was installed on 28 May 2021, which was 136 days after it had received the report of the leak from the resident and is therefore significantly in excess of its 28-day target timescale.
Repairs involving leaks can be more complex and can additionally be difficult to diagnose. In such instances, this Service would reasonably expect the landlord to keep the resident informed of the progress of the repair, and its expected timescale for either the completion of the repair or a revised date for a further review to be provided to her.
Although the landlord had evidenced its actions to address the source of the leak which resulted in damp and mould in the resident’s property, it has not evidenced its due consideration to the treatment of the damp and mould in her property. In line with its policy as detailed in paragraph 4, this would usually involve washing off the mould. Furthermore, the landlord’s final stage complaint response fails to address the resident’s concerns over damp and mould in her property. The landlord had taken action following her reports of a leak, as it had identified the source and eventually completed the repair to replace the mushroom vent. However, it did not address the damp and mould within its complaints procedure.
In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its final stage complaint response on 27 May 2021, that it had not communicated effectively with her during the repair, and her associated complaint. In addition to apologising to the resident, it offered a goodwill gesture of £150 for all the issues covered. This compensation was not sufficient however to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repair.
In the resident’s referral to this Service, she has raised concerns that the leak had returned. As with the other repair issues, this recurrence of the leak (and the landlord’s response) has not been investigated through its complaint procedure. Therefore, the landlord should ensure that it fully investigates any reports it receives from the resident (if it has not already), and the resident can submit a new complaint about the response if she remains dissatisfied with it.

The resident’s request for repairs to her windows

Following the resident’s request for the repair of three window locks on 23 December 2020, the landlord was obligated under its policy to carry out an inspection of the work required and repair (if necessary) the window locks by 20 January 2021.
Although the resident has confirmed on 13 January 2021 that an operative had visited her property to take pictures, it had yet to carry out the repair. As no further progress had been made on this repair, the resident submitted her stage one complaint on 10 March 2021. This was not fair on the resident, who should not have felt it necessary to raise a formal complaint in order for the repair to be progressed.
The landlord’s records confirm that the contractor attended the scheduled appointment on 23 March 2021, and it completed the necessary repairs. This was 91 days after it had received the resident’s request for the repair of her window locks, which is significantly in excess of its target timescale of 28 days. This was acknowledged by the landlord, in both its stage one complaint response on 22 March 2021, and on 27 May 2021. In addition to apologising to the resident, it offered a goodwill gesture of £150 (for both the window and leak delays).
The £150 goodwill gesture was insufficient to acknowledge the distress of the various repair delays. It is a reasonable response, together with the eventual repair, to the inconvenience of the 3 month delay to the window repair including the need to pursue the repair through both the repair and complaint processes.

The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen

The resident raised concerns about their kitchen in December and January. The landlord did not follow these up until its stage 1 response at the end of March 2021. The landlord explained how it did not have any plans for a full kitchen replacement (as the resident had requested). The landlord’s final response would ultimately explain how the kitchen was not expected to reach the end of its lifespan until 2024.
Kitchen replacements are considered an improvement and so are not part of the landlord’s repairing obligations. Landlord’s may choose to replace a kitchen as a cost-effective way to maintain its properties. However, on the basis of the information available to the landlord and given its obligations under the tenancy and its policy, it was reasonable for the landlord to explain it would not replace the kitchen.
However, while it was reasonable to not agree to a full replacement, the resident had raised concerns in December 2020 and January 2021 that were repair issues. The landlord did not arrange any raise any repairs until April 2021 (after the stage 1 response.
Although the resident then declined the repairs on 7 May 2021, the repairs had been outstanding for 115 days at this point, which is significantly in excess of its 28-day target timescale.
The landlord has supplied information to this Service which confirms that it had completed the repairs in the resident’s kitchen on 2 October 2021. The delay from May was not specifically the landlord’s responsibility as there was the ongoing dispute over whether the kitchen would be repaired or replaced. Furthermore, any delay after the landlord’s final response has not been investigated through its complaint procedure, and so cannot be considered in this assessment.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in way it responded to:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould in her property.
2. The resident’s request for a replacement kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaints about:
1. The resident’s request for repairs to her windows.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Pay the resident an additional £550 within four weeks, comprising of:
  1. £250 to acknowledge the distress of the repeatedly delayed repair to the leak.
  2. £150 to acknowledge the distress of the landlord’s failure to respond to the reports of the resulting damp and mould (for example whether a mould wash or repairs to walls or fixtures/fittings were required).
  3. £150 to acknowledge the inconvenience of the time taken to offer the required repairs to the kitchen.
It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Contact the resident to understand the current situation about the leak, whether it has returned and what the impact may have been (if it has not already). The landlord should then arrange any required investigations and repairs as a matter of urgency.