Deptford Housing Co-operative Limited (202119624)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119624

Deptford Housing Co-operative

30 June 2023

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 repairs and upgrades at the resident’s property.
2. This Service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling approaches.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(n) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. This Service may not consider complaints which in its opinion relate to matters about the processes and decisions concerning a member’s governance structures.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord and has lived at her property since 1995. Her property is a one-bedroom flat on the top floor of a block. The landlord is a small mutual ownership housing co-operative, with 138 housing units within one development. From information received by the landlord, its staff are also resident’s.
The landlord has not provided this Service with any evidence to confirm whether the resident has any vulnerabilities recorded on its systems.

Scope of investigation

The resident has stated to this Service that she has been waiting for over 15 years for the landlord to carry out improvement works and repairs at her property. This was despite the landlord’s management committee approving a schedule of works following damage caused to the property by a flood in 2019.
This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from February 2020, onwards that were considered during the landlord’s complaint response. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred.
The landlord has confirmed to this Service that due to a change in the managing agent acting on its behalf in December 2021, it has provided this Service with limited evidence around the resident’s case. It has stated that much of the evidence was saved within email accounts of the managing agent’s staff and therefore does not have access to it. As such, this case has been assessed on the Iimited information received from the landlord.
In May 2022, having made repeated requests to the landlord for it to provide the resident with a stage one complaint response, this Service made the decision that the resident had exhausted its complaints process. Paragraph 32 of the Scheme provides the provision for this Service to take such steps to allow resident’s complaints to become duly made and available for investigation.

Summary of events

On 20 February 2020, the landlord’s then managing agents sent a letter to the resident which confirmed that works to refurbish the bathroom and kitchen areas of the property were being planned. It outlined that a visit would be required to her property so that a schedule of works could be completed, and also that the resident would have choices in terms of colours and styles of the upgraded components.
On 17 January 2021, the landlord wrote to all its resident’s and advised that an interim managing agent was being arranged due to a dispute with the agent it was using at that time. It stated that the dispute had left it in a “perilous” position with regards to its legal compliance with health and safety legislation.
The resident has stated that on 12 March 2021, the landlord’s chairperson and its maintenance co-ordinator attended her property to carry out an inspection and to discuss the required repairs and upgrades with her, however these were never completed.
The resident made a formal complaint to the landlord and its managing agent on 21 August 2021 in which she raised the following concerns:
1. It had failed to keep her updated on its planned repair works and upgrades to her property.
2. She confirmed that she had missed an appointment with a surveyor acting on the landlord’s behalf in March 2020, due to being out of the country at that time. She stated that the landlord did not rearrange this visit, despite her contacting it when she returned home.
3. She informed it that its staff and contractors had been rude and abusive to her when attending her property in March 2021.
4. She was unhappy with the landlord’s staff entering her property as they were also tenants of the landlord. She requested that a contractor attended instead.
5. She believed that the landlord’s failings were due to its mismanagement in providing a repairs service and she had waited over a decade for some works to be completed.
On 24 August 2021, the landlord’s then managing agents sent a letter to the resident in which they advised that they were no longer responsible for maintenance works. They referred the resident back to the landlord.
The resident first contacted this Service on 26 November 2021, with her complaint about the landlord’s handling of her case. She confirmed that she was very stressed and worried about the health and safety aspects of the disrepair in her property and noted the following:
1. Leaks and water damage due to flooding which had caused damp, mould, and rotten floors in her property.
2. Cracks in the walls.
3. A mouse infestation.
4. The central heating system was not working.
5. The sanitation system in the property was not working, including the toilet and hot water taps.
6. The kitchen window opened into the room and went over the cooker.
The resident has provided this Service with details of an inspection carried out at her property by an inspector from the local authority on 18 December 2021. The resident advised that the inspector took photographs of the interior of the property and would contact the landlord directly.
On 18 January 2022, this Service wrote to the landlord via its managing agents and asked for an update in relation to the resident’s complaint. The landlord was asked to provide the resident with a response to her complaint by 1 February 2022. The managing agent forwarded the letter to the landlord and advised this Service that they were no longer acting on its behalf.
The landlord responded to this Service on 8 February 2022 and confirmed that it was looking into the resident’s complaint. It stated that its housing management duties had recently been moved back in-house and it had completed a handover with its previous managing agents in January 2022. It stated that there was a small team managing its housing operations and they had no prior knowledge of the resident’s case and would need time to investigate.
On 14 February 2022, the resident contacted this Service and informed that she had not received a response from the landlord regarding her complaint.
On 8 March 2022, the resident contacted this Service and advised that the landlord had not attended an arranged visit to the property with the local authority’s enforcement officer that same day. A further visit to the property had been arranged by the local authority on 15 March 2022. The landlord and the local authority’s officer attended the property on 15 March 2022 as arranged.
On 22 March 2022, the local authority wrote to the landlord and provided a schedule of works to address the defects and hazards within the property. It requested that it started the works within fourteen working days and completed them within four weeks. It asked the landlord to respond within fourteen working days if it did not agree with the schedule of works. The local authority subsequently had to chase the landlord throughout March and April 2022 for updates.
On 29 March 2022, this Service contacted the landlord via letter and requested that it provided the resident with its stage one complaint response within ten working days.
On 14 April 2022, the landlord contacted this Service via email and provided a copy of an email it had sent to the local authority regarding the repairs at the property. It did not provide any copy of a formal complaint response to the resident.
Also on 14 April 2022, the landlord’s housing manager contacted the local authority’s enforcement officer and stated that the resident had consistently restricted access to its contractors and that she was very difficult to deal with. It was further stated that during the joint visit to the property on 15 March 2022 the resident would not listen. The landlord stated that it felt that the only way forwards with the repairs would be to use an independent contractor and for the local authority to assist.
On 22 April 2022, the landlord sent a letter to the resident in which it stated that it had agreed to instruct an independent contractor to carry out the schedule of repairs provided by the local authority. It stated that it would not provide her with new curtains, flooring, or white good such as cookers. It stated that it would carry out all other recommended works. It stated that it would like to arrange a visit to the property the following week and would attend with the local authority’s officer. This response was not a formal complaint response as set out in this Service’s complaint handling code. Subsequently this Service wrote to the landlord on the 25 April 2022 requesting that it provide the resident with a formal complaint response by the 4 May 2022, which met the requirements of the complaint handling code.
On the same day, the resident contacted this Service and advised that she was yet to receive a formal complaint response from the landlord. She advised the following:
1. Her flat was flooded around fifteen years previously due to a faulty water tank in the attic area above her flat. She stated that the flood caused damage to her carpets which she had paid for herself.
2. The landlord had not carried out repairs to her property but had done so in the flat underneath which was also damaged by the flood.
3. She stated that the flood had caused damp and mould issues in her property.
4. She stated that there was a mice infestation in her property.
5. She stated that the central heating system in her property did not work.
6. She claimed that the landlord had lost her previous letters where she had complained about its lack of action.
7. After the landlord’s management committee had approved the works to her property, in early 2020 they did not carry them out due to the covid-19 pandemic.
8. She had contacted the licensing and enforcement department of her local authority who had issued the landlord with a letter outlining the works required to improve the condition of the resident’s property.
On 12 May 2022, as the landlord had failed to provide the resident with its stage one complaint response, this Service issued a complaint handling failure order against it under paragraph 13 of the Scheme. The landlord was ordered to provide the resident with its stage one complaint response within five working days. The landlord was informed that a copy of the complaint handling failure order would be shared with the regulator of social housing.

Post complaints process

This Service wrote to the resident on 24 May 2022 and confirmed that as the landlord had not provided her with anyresponse to her complaint, as it had been ordered, it was decided that its complaints procedure had been exhausted. As such the resident’s complaint with this Service was formally accepted.
On 9 June 2022, the local authority provided the landlord with a schedule of the required works at the property, with a quote that it had obtained from an independent contractor. It listed the following:
1. Renew two radiators in the living room and a set of handles.
2. To fully redecorate the bathroom.
3. To renew the bathroom radiator.
4. To install a new bath, toilet, hand basin, taps and handles.
5. To renew handles in the kitchen.
6. It confirmed the total cost of the works as £3180.000.
On 6 July 2022, the landlord responded to the local authority via email, and sought clarification on what type of flooring would be required in the bathroom. It stated that it would only provide standard floor tiles. It stated that it was normally the responsibility of the tenant to replace floor tiling in living rooms. It also stated that it would not provide or replace white goods, this was the responsibility of its tenants. Also, within this email, the landlord stated that the original damage to the resident’s property was caused by the resident herself in that she had stuffed newspaper down the toilet which had blocked it. This then caused it to overflow and flooded the property below and caused the ceiling to collapse. It stated that it was not obliged to repair the resident’s property but had agreed to do so. It stated that its tenants were advised to have adequate insurance in place for such circumstances.
On 13 September 2022, the resident sent an email to this Service to advise that she had met with the landlord’s housing manager the previous day. She stated that the landlord’s housing manager had informed her that its management committee had concluded that she had in the summer of 2020 caused a leak in her property by allegedly blocking her toilet with newspaper. She stated that she had put some paper down the toilet which had blocked it, but it did not cause a leak and the landlord’s plumber had attended and fixed the issue. She stated that that she would give access to her property once the landlord had confirmed that it would carry out the works identified by the local authority. She voiced her concerns about the landlord’s lack of action in its handling of the repairs and her formal complaint.
The landlord has advised this Service in an email dated 14 June 2023 that it is willing to carry out the required repairs at the property and that it is waiting for the resident’s approval to start the works.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The resident’s signed tenancy agreement outlines her responsibilities and the landlord’s obligations in relation to repairs. It confirms that the landlord is responsible for the following:
1. Any facilities in the property used for heating, including boilers, radiators, and gas fires which it has installed.
2. Any facilities in the property used for sanitation including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, and the associated pipework.
3. It also states that it responsible for the making good of any damage resulting from its failure to meet its repairs obligations.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) 2006 outlines 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will assist landlords in determining a potential for harm, should a resident be affected by a particular hazard. The Decent Homes Standard 2006 further outlines that for a property to be considered decent, it should be free of any category one hazards as identified from a HHSRS assessment.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a two-stage process. It lists that its housing manager will respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and its management committee will respond at stage two within 20 working days. It confirms that it will pay compensation in reflection of any identified service failings.
Its complaints policy also states that applications for compensation will be considered on their individual merits. It states that its resident members will be expected to demonstrate that they have suffered financial loss or significant distress and inconvenience because of an avoidable service failure. When considering compensation, it will take into consideration:
1. The severity of distress and degree of inconvenience.
2. The duration of the service failure.
3. Whether the member took steps to minimise the impact of the service failure.
4. Compensation will not be payable where the management committee consider that the complainant (or other persons) caused or contributed to the problem which resulted in the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of repairs and upgrades at the resident’s property

The landlord’s inactions and that it did not complete any repairs left the resident in a property which was poorly maintained and hazardous. The landlord has also not carried out any of the upgrades specified by the local authority, despite it being clearly informed of what needed to be done.
This lack of action by the landlord is against its contractual repair obligations confirmed in the resident’s signed tenancy agreement. There is no evidence to show that the landlord assessed the risk to the resident at any point within this case, despite being informed by her that her property had damp and mould, a faulty heating system and the sanitary fixtures were not working. The landlord failed to understand that the resident was living in poor conditions and instead chose to place blame on her and labelled her as “difficult”.
The significant delays caused by the landlord’s inactions have caused severe detriment to the resident. Despite her having experienced time and trouble in having to chase the landlord for it to carry out updates on repairs and upgrades, it has not completed these. It communicated poorly with the resident and was unclear about its responsibilities in completing the required repairs and upgrades to the property. It therefore did not effectively manage her expectations.
It is clear that the relationship between the resident and the landlord has deteriorated significantly over a long period of time. the landlord has not provided any evidence which shows that it had tried to repair its relationship with the resident by communicating with her effectively.
The landlord’s failures to carry out the required repairs and upgrades has left the resident living in a sub-standard property for a considerable period of time which is a very serious failing.
Within the limited evidence considered by this Service as provided by the landlord, it is clear that it sought to place blame on the resident for the damage caused by a leak. It wrongly referred to a flood in summer 2020 as the original cause of the damage but did not reference at all the leak caused some 15 years earlier. Its position here further affected its deteriorating relationship with the resident. This was the first instance in which the landlord had made any suggestion that the resident was responsible for, or contributed towards the defects and the related repairs.
The landlord appears to have found the resident as an annoyance due to the content of its language in its emails to the local authority. Its position in this regard was inappropriate and not customer-centric. It only appeared willing to act when contacted by the local authority and this Service. Despite being subject to possible legal proceedings by the local authority in that it could be served with an improvement notice, it still failed to carry out the repairs and upgrades which remain incomplete. It did not show any consideration to the impact that its delays and poor communication had on the resident, which shows that it failed to take the customer’s concerns and the requirement for repairs and upgrades to the property seriously.
Whilst the landlord did refer in emails to the local authority that its resident’s should have home insurance in place, there is no evidence to show that it signposted the resident herself to make an insurance claim.
Whilst the landlord has informed this Service that it is willing to complete repairs and upgrades to the resident’s property, there is no evidence that it has sought to proactively arrange this with her. Its position is that it is waiting for the resident to confirm that she will allow access to the property although the resident has herself stated that she feels the landlord has deliberately delayed her case. Landlord’s should want to ensure that its housing stock is in good condition in order to prevent further damage, incurring expense from further repairs but also to ensure that its residents are not living in hazardous conditions.
The landlord’s record keeping was poor throughout the resident’s case. In this Service’s contact with the landlord it stated that it had very few records on its systems, stating that its previously instructed managing agents held the records.. This Service finds that the housing manager had very little knowledge of the resident’s case due to its poor recording keeping and information management methods. Additionally, this Service has not received any information or evidence to support its position that the resident had consistently denied it access to the property to complete the required repairs. This shows a further lack of regard for effective record keeping by the landlord. Landlords should have in place the correct IT systems in order to effectively carry out their housing management functions and to safely store its resident’s confidential data and this Service finds that the landlord’s lack of effective record keeping is a further significant failing in this case.
In light of the above findings, this Service finds that the landlord’s lack of action in carrying out repairs and upgrades at the property amounts to severe maladministration.

Complaint handling.

Despite being contacted numerous times by this Service and chased by the resident for updates, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any response regarding her complaint. This was despite being issued with a complaint handling failure order by this Service on 12 May 2022. It did not provide the resident with a complaint response at any point and this Service had to intervene and take steps to complete the complaints process on its behalf. This then allowed the resident to bring her complaint to this Service.
The landlord’s failure to provide any response to the resident’s complaint is a clear breach of its own complaints policy guidelines. It missed the opportunity to resolve her complaint at the earliest possible stage and instead left the resident having to chase it for a response which she has never received. It also missed the opportunity to put things right by acknowledging its failings and apologising to the resident. This may have gone some way to reassuring her that it was prepared to repair its relationship with her and address her concerns. It also missed the opportunity to offer her any redress in light of its significant failings in both its handling of the repairs and her associated complaint.
This Service therefore finds that the landlord’s communication with the resident and its handling of her complaint was poor. It failed to communicate with her the reasons for its delays and its inaction caused severe detriment to her which amounts to a finding of severe maladministration.
The landlord’s website shows that it has self-assessed against this Service’s complaint handling code and that in March 2023, it carried out a comprehensive review of its complaints policy. It states that the outcome of the review was that it has implemented a new complaints policy and also that its housing manager has prior training and considerable experience in handling complaints. These are positive steps taken by the landlord to try and improve its future complaint handling approaches.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs at the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not fulfil its duties and responsibilities to the resident as it failed to complete any repairs and upgrades at the property within a timely manner. This was despite being pursued by the local authority’s housing enforcement team who had identified a range of repairs and upgrades which were necessary at the property. The resident has advised that these repairs and upgrades remain incomplete.
The landlord’s complaint handling approaches fell well short of its policy position. It failed to provide the resident with a stage one complaint response meaning that this Service had to determine that its complaint process was completed following it being issued with a complaint handling failure order. It also failed to provide the resident with any reasons for its delays. The landlord’s delays and inaction in this regard prevented the resident from formally accessing this Service for a considerable period of time which unreasonably prolonged her complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is to:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for its failings in the handling of repairs at the property and for its failings in handling her associated complaint.
2. Arrange with the resident and the local authority;
  1. A date for an inspection of the property to be carried out.
  2. Agree required repairs and upgrades at the property.
  3. Agree timescales for the completion of all works required.
3. Provide the resident and this Service with a clear, time specific action plan regarding the repairs it will carry out.
4. Pay a total of £1700 in compensation which is comprised of the following:
  1. £1000 in recognition of the landlord’s failures in completing repairs at the property and to reflect the distress and inconvenience she has experienced.
  2. £700 in recognition of its failure to respond to her associated complaint.
The landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on knowledge and information management (KIM-report-v2-100523.pdf (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff and its management committee, including training where appropriate and to provide this Service with a report on its findings.
The landlord is to consider the findings of the Ombudsman’s spotlight on damp and mould (Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff and its management committee, including training where appropriate and to provide this Service with a report on its findings.
The landlord is to reassess its complaint handling approaches and to consider the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code (Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) – The landlord is to share the findings with relevant staff and its management committee, including training where appropriate and to incorporate the findings of this report in its management of complaints in future.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above orders to this Service.