Empowering People Inspiring Communities Limited (202119283)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119283

Empowering People Inspiring Communities Limited

24 June 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 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement.
    2. Response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his bedrooms.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two bedroomed ground floor flat.
  2. In December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord to say he was interested in being part of its bathroom and kitchen replacement programme. In February 2021 the landlord conducted asbestos tests in the resident’s kitchen and bathroom. In March 2021 the landlord replaced the kitchen. In June/July 2021 the landlord’s contractor inspected the resident’s bathroom and reported that it was generally in good condition and only a few minor repairs were needed.
  3. On 4 August 2021 the resident raised a complaint as he said that the landlord had promised earlier that year that the bathroom and kitchen would be replaced but only the kitchen had been replaced. He raised doubts about the contractor’s standard of work. In its stage one complaint response on 17 August 2021 the landlord said that the contractor had assessed the resident’s bathroom as being fit for purpose and only in need of minor repairs ( so did not require replacement) and that it was an approved contractor. In his escalation request the resident asked why an asbestos test had been undertaken in the bathroom if it was not going to be replaced. The landlord said it would provide a stage two response by 31 August 2021. On 1 September the landlord wrote to the resident to request an additional 14 days to respond.
  4. On 27 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord as he had received no contact from it. He said he was also waiting for the landlord’s contractor to return to fix damp issues in his bedrooms. He asked how to contact the Ombudsman and the landlord provided contact details for this Service, apologised for the delay and explained that the officer who was providing the stage two response had been absent since agreeing to send it. It offered to escalate the complaint, but the resident advised he would contact this Service instead. In an internal email on 21 October 2021 an officer noted that the Ombudsman had not contacted the landlord about the complaint and that a stage two complaint response should be sent, however, no response was sent.
  5. On 19 November 2021 the resident emailed the landlord as it had not contacted him about his complaint. He also said that he was not happy with its response to the damp issue as the contractors had just replaced the skirting boards and the damp was still there and it was affecting his health. He asked again for the Ombudsman’s contact details and asked that a senior member of the landlord ‘s staff contact him. Following contact from the resident that day, this Service wrote to the landlord to request it respond to the complaint by 17 December 2021.
  6. In its stage two complaint response on 15 December 2021 the landlord apologised for the delay in issuing a stage two complaint response and offered £50 shopping voucher as a goodwill gesture for the inconvenience caused. It said that an independent damp survey had found that further work was needed to the bedrooms, which it would arrange and would also provide the resident with a £200 decorating voucher. It said that it had found no record of any promise to replace the resident’s bathroom or confirmation that the bathroom was going to be included in the 2021/2022 bathroom replacement programme but that it had since suspended that programme. It said the asbestos survey may have been carried out to ensure it had a full asbestos report for the property. It confirmed that as the bathroom was fit for purpose and was still within its life expectancy it would not be replaced. It asked if the resident was happy for the minor bathroom repair works, previously identified, to be completed. On 23 December the landlord confirmed what minor repairs would be completed.
  7. The resident contacted this Service on 23 December 2021 as he felt the landlord should increase the compensation it had awarded and should replace his bathroom.
  8. In February 2022 the landlord agreed that although the bathroom was fit for purpose it would replace it to resolve the complaint. On 8 June 2022 the landlord advised this Service that it had completed all work to the resident’s satisfaction and had also increased the compensation by £250.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement.

  1. When the resident expressed his interest in the landlord’s 2021/2022 bathroom replacement programme, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for a contractor to inspect the bathroom to see if it needed to be replaced, as it is important that a landlord manages its budget responsibly. It was not unreasonable for the landlord to carry out an asbestos test of the bathroom first, as it was already carrying out an asbestos test in the kitchen at the property and this would mean the landlord had the results for the bathroom if it did decide to replace the bathroom in the future.
  2. Once the contractor had reported that the bathroom was generally in good condition and only needed minor repairs, it was reasonable for a landlord to rely on the expertise of its contractors reconsider the replacement. Once the resident made his complaint the landlord took reasonable steps to confirm whether there was any record of the replacement being agreed by it and also explained that the bathroom replacement programme had been suspended for 2021/2022 so only urgent repair were being completed. The landlord also acted appropriately by arranging for the recommended minor repairs to the bathroom be completed. There was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his bedrooms.

  1. It is not clear what date the resident originally reported that there was damp and mould in the bedrooms of his property, so it is not possible to assess whether the landlord responded within a reasonable time frame. However, it is evident that the landlord did take reasonable steps to investigate the damp and mould issue by arranging for its contractor to inspect the resident’s property in August 2021. Once the contractor had reported its recommendations to the landlord it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have contacted the resident to inform him when the recommended work would be carried out. However, there is no record of the landlord doing so, and on 27 September 2021, whilst emailing the landlord to chase up a stage two response for his bathroom replacement, the resident asked when the work in the bedrooms would be carried out. At this point it would again have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided an update but there is no record of it having done so.
  2. As the landlord failed to keep the resident updated or provide a schedule for when the repairs would be completed there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his bedrooms
  3. When the resident contacted the landlord on 19 November 2021 to confirm that contractor had only replaced the skirting board in the bedroom and that the damp problem remained, the landlord acted appropriately by adding the damp and mould issue to the resident’s existing complaint (about the bathroom replacement request) and arranging for another contractor to carry out a mould survey of the bedrooms. The landlord actions in replacing the skirting boards were not unreasonable as it is entitled to rely on the recommendations of its contractors, and the contractor who surveyed the bedrooms in August 2021 had recommended that the skirting boards be replaced. Once the resident made the landlord aware that replacement of the skirting boards had not resolved the damp issue, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging a second survey. When that second survey concluded that further work was required to resolve the issue, the landlord acted appropriately by arranging for that work to be completed. However, there was still service failure in respect of the landlord’s failure to update the resident following the first survey in August 2021.This Service considers the landlord’s £200 decorating voucher was reasonable redress for that service failure, given it went on to complete additional works.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

  1. The landlord’s complaint policy states that a complainant should receive a full written stage one complaint response to their complaint within ten working days from the date of the original complaint. If a resident escalates a complaint, they should receive a stage two complaint response within 20 working days from the request to escalate. If that is not possible, they should receive “an explanation and a date when the stage two response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason…Where a longer period of time is necessary to investigate the complaint fully, a letter will be sent to the complainant within the timescales outlining when a full response will be received, naming the officer responsible for dealing with it.”
  2. When the resident raised his complaint on 4 August 2021 the landlord acted reasonably by responding within 10 working days in line with its complaint policy. Its response on 17 August 2021 was also appropriate as it addressed all of the points the resident had made, although it would have been helpful to have stated that there was no record of the resident being told his bathroom would be replaced. Once the resident escalated the complaint on 17 August 2021, he was advised that he would receive a response by 31 August 2021, which was then extended by a further 14 days to 14 September, which was still within the 20-working day timeframe of the landlord’s complaint policy. However, the landlord failed to respond by the 14 September and failed to update the resident. Though the reason the landlord has given for this failure is the absence of the officer who was dealing with the complaint, it would be good practice to have a procedure in place to monitor complaint deadlines and keep the resident updated of any delays.
  3. On 27 September 2021 when the resident made the landlord aware that he had not received a response and requested this Service’s details, the landlord acted appropriately by apologising for the delay and providing the Ombudsman’s contact details. It is noted that the landlord did ask the resident if he would like the complaint to be escalated and the resident replied he would contact this Service instead. However, it would have been more appropriate for the landlord to have advised the resident that it would now escalate the complaint rather than asking him. This would have been appropriate action to take as, as the internal email in October 2021, quite rightly pointed out that a response should be provided in any event and that the Ombudsman would expect this. The landlord’s failure to escalate the complaint at this point led to further delays in resolving the complaint and amounted to a service failure, in respect of its complaint handling.
  4. Following the resident contacting the landlord and the Ombudsman on 19 November 2021, and this Service writing to the landlord to request it respond to the complaint by 17 December 2021 the landlord acted appropriately by escalating the complaint, and adding the additional information to the complaint about the damp and mould repairs and delayed stage two complaint response. Its stage two response issued on 15 December 2021 was reasonable as it addressed the issues the resident had raised; within the timeframe the Ombudsman had requested. It acted appropriately by apologising for its failures, clearly explaining why the bathroom had not been replaced, and agreeing to act on the recommendations of the second damp survey to address the damp issues in the resident’s bedrooms and to provide him with the £200 decorating voucher. However, the £50 voucher it awarded for its complaint handling failure was not proportionate to the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint and the inconvenience that caused to the resident.
  5. The landlord has since awarded the resident a further £250 compensation and has replaced his bathroom. This Service considers that to be reasonable redress for the complaint handling service failure as it above and beyond the level of compensation that this Service’s remedies guidance would have suggested, and was the outcome that the resident requested which showed a willingness by the landlord to deal with this complaint on a personal level that prioritised the resident’s needs.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to the resident’s request for a bathroom replacement.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of damp and mould in his bedrooms.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint about the landlord’s complaint handling.