Golding Homes Limited (202208880)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208880

Golding Homes Limited

25 April 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

This complaint concerns the landlord’s response:
1. To the resident’s reports of a leak and mould in the kitchen.
2. To the resident’s reports of the conduct of one of the landlord’s operatives.
3. To the resident’s reporting of issues with the street lamp situated outside the property.
This report has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident resides in a one-bedroom bungalow under an assured tenancy which began on 5 February 2007.
The landlord has informed this Service that there are reported mental health vulnerabilities noted for the resident since May 2020.
Due to an internal repair and maintenance restructure as well as a system change the landlord has explained that it holds limited records relating to the events prior to December 2019.

Policies

The landlord operated a three stage complaints policy. This consists of stage zero, one and stage two. The stages are defined as follows:
1. Stage zero – “where there has been a service failure, we will always try and resolve the issue outside of our complaints process. If we cannot resolve it within one working day, or the customer is dissatisfied, it will be logged as a stage 1 complaint”.
2. Stage one formal complaint – “We will acknowledge a stage one complaint in writing within 5 working days of receipt. We will respond in writing within eight working days from acknowledging the complaint. All complaints will be assigned to a Team Manager”.
3. Stage two escalation- “– If a complaint is not resolved to the customer’s satisfaction at stage one, they can request for their complaint to be escalated to stage two. Stage two complaints will be reviewed by a Senior Manager (Head of Service / Assistant Director) who will provide a final outcome in writing no later than 21 days from date of escalation”.
The landlord’s complaints policy explains that if a resident “does not agree with a resolution or decision at any stage, they must set out within 14 days, why they disagree”. This includes what the resident would like the landlord to do to resolve the matter.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it has the following two priority categories:
1. Emergency repairs- “we will attend within 24 hours to make the repair safe. Some jobs may require a return visit at a later date to fully complete the repair”.
2. Routine repairs- “our target is to complete work within 20 working days”.
The repairs policy states “if you are elderly, disabled vulnerable or unable to carry out repairs yourself, please let us know when you report your repair. We can make exceptions to this guide in special circumstances”.
Under the repairs policy, lights come under the shared or communal areas and priority given would “depend on where the lighting is and the time of the year”.
In terms of leaks related to pipes inside the home, there are classified as an emergency priority by the landlord.
The landlord has a ‘compensation guidance note’ that shows it can award a percentage of rent as compensation if a resident experiences loss of facilities and can pay up to £500 where its service failure has caused severe distress or inconvenience.

Summary of Events

In April 2019 a surveyor acting under instruction from the landlord visited the property. The surveyor reported that there was a high moisture reading in the area of the sink which he suspected might be either a leak behind the base unit or spillage from the sink. He requested the sink base unit was removed to allow an investigation to take place.
The landlord explained that works to remove the base unit were scheduled for 18 July 2019. However it states the resident refused access to the property at the time to allow the work to be carried out. No details of what the “works” referred to by the landlord actually consisted of.
The resident raised a complaint about the matter on 20 August 2019. The landlord responded on 30 August 2019. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of the response letter. The resident has only provided the first page of the letter which explained that the landlord’s operatives had been unable to carry out a mould wash to the kitchen on 18 July 2019 as the resident had refused access. The letter added that if the resident still required the mould wash as well as some other work carried out that he should contact the repair team.
The resident has confirmed that the leak in the kitchen was resolved by the landlord’s contractor in October 2019 following on from a surveyor visit. Whilst the surveyor had instructed a mould wash be carried out at the time this was not done.
The landlord offered compensation of £200 on 23 December 2019 in relation to the time taken between the visit by the surveyor in April 2019 and the works to remove the base unit being scheduled, which had initially been for July 2019. It also explained in this letter that it would also arrange for a mould wash to take place at the property which it would schedule in January 2020.
The resident contacted this Service in August 2020 to explain that the mould wash had still not been carried out by the landlord. He explained that he had been to a doctor and considered that the delay in dealing with the leak and the mould wash had caused damage to his lungs as a result of breathing in the mould spores. He added that the mould had spread and that it was now in the bathroom, behind the radiator and it had spread to the bathroom floor underneath the radiator. The resident did not provide details of whether he had been in touch with the landlord between January 2020 and August 2020.
As the resident had been unable to provide a copy of a final response on the matter to the Service, he was informed that he would need to exhaust the landlord’s internal complaints procedure first.
The landlord confirmed to this Service in July 2021 that it was working with the resident to best support him however it had encountered issues engaging with him.
The resident contacted this Service on 2 October 2021 to explain that he had not yet heard back from the landlord. He also raised a new issue relating to his car which had been stolen.
The landlord confirmed to the resident on 19 November 2021 that it was looking into the issue of the street light outside the resident’s property and that it would be speaking to its electrical supervisor over the matter. The resident had contacted it about the matter in October 2021. It added that in relation to two other issues raised by the resident– relating to the landlord’s operative not wearing appropriate PPE and an out of hours appointment not being kept that it would look into those issues and respond by 26 November 2021.
In a further email sent on 20 November 2021 the resident explained he had yet to hear back from the landlord on three complaints he had raised. Two of these had been raised in 2021 and one relating to a missed appointment had been raised in November 2020. He explained that whilst the landlord had explained that it would respond to him over that complaint within 8 days he had never received a response from it over the matter. The resident did not set out the nature of the two further complaints which he had made. He also raised the issue of a street lamp outside his property where the direction of the light had been changed on two occasions. Whilst the direction had eventually been moved following his reporting the matter to the landlord the head alignment had not been returned to the original direction. Instead it had been turned to the opposite direction.
The landlord issued it stage one response on 6 December 2021.It offered £150 in terms of the distress and inconvenience caused by the delays in completing the outstanding repairs to the property including the mould wash and the replacement of the base unit. In terms of the specific issues raised by the resident it explained:
1. The electrical supervisor had previously attended the property and would be returning the following day (7 December 2021) when the lights were on. This would aid it in establishing where the lamp head could be repositioned to. It added it would like to access the property to determine how much of the light was actually shining into the property as it noted an earlier complaint from the resident concerned the volume of light shining into the property.
2. Having spoken with the resident on 19 October 2021 “you confirmed that all outstanding repair works were completed”.
3. In terms of the historic complaints which the resident had not received a respond to it would write to him separately by 17 December 2021. The landlord has not provided evidence that it wrote to the resident by this deadline however the resident has not raised this issue as part of this complaint.
The resident confirmed that he had telephoned the landlord on 17 January 2022 and asked that the complaint was escalated to stage two.
The landlord confirmed on 1 June 2022 that it had escalated the complaint to stage two. It noted that there were no outstanding repairs remaining to the property. In terms of the street lamp, it explained that it would visit the site on the week commencing 6 June 2022 at which point it would assess the light positioning. The landlord confirmed in respect of the particular contractor the resident had raised a concern with that it had agreed that he would not be attending the property for any further jobs. It explained that it would issue the final decision by 15 June 2022.
The landlord issued the final response on 21 June 2022. It explained in terms of the complaints raised by the resident to this Service that:
1. The complaint about the leak at the property had been raised on 20 August 2019. It had responded on 30 August 2019.
2. The complaint about operative conduct was received by it on 9 April 2021. It had investigated the matter and responded on 20 April 2021.
3. On 9 April 2021 the landlord had also received a complaint about the repair to an outstanding leak, operative conduct and the alignment of the street lamp.
The landlord’s final response noted that having discussed the matter with the resident the outstanding issues appeared to be:
1. That the street lamp alignment had not been moved back to its original position.
2. The level of compensation offered to the resident.
3. Confirmation that the landlord’s operative would not return to the property.
In terms of the street lamp alignment the landlord explained that it had attempted to contact the resident by phone and by attending the property but had been unable to speak to him. It noted that it had three contact numbers for the resident and it asked him to provide a preferred number and day in order for it to contact him about the matter. It added that whilst it had not been provided with evidence of the light facing the direction prior to the move but that this was in keeping with the other lights in the area. It added that it would complete the works to the street lamp no later than 22 July 2022.
The landlord apologised as the resident had “experienced poor service by one of our engineers”. It added that appropriate action had been taken with the individual and that the individual concerned would not be appointed any further jobs at the property.
The landlord explained in relation to the resident’s comments about the theft of his car which he had also contacted it about that it would not be responsible for this.
The landlord made an offer of £1,150 in the final response in relation to the various issues the resident had faced. This was comprised of:
1. £300 in “consideration of the appointment failure to fix the leak in a reasonable time, with various appointments being carried out unnecessarily”.
2. £700 in “consideration of the distress and inconvenience which you encountered as a result of the numerous visits, reporting of the leak and the failed repairs, together with the poor experience encountered with our operative”.
3. £150 with respect to the failure by the landlord to “re-align the street lamp”.
Following a conversation with the resident the landlord increased the amount of compensation offered to £1,500. This amount had been suggested as a more appropriate amount by the resident. This was set out in a revised final response letter to the resident on 22 July 2022. The landlord also confirmed that the electrical manager was on annual leave until the beginning of August 2022 and so the re-alignment of the street light would not be addressed until that time. The landlord confirmed that the work would be completed upon his return and no later than by 10 August 2022.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 5 September 2022 following a site visit. It explained that having spoken to the resident’s neighbours about the matter the electrical manager had taken the view the current positioning of the head of the lamp “best serves the entire area”. Therefore it would not move the light back to the original position. It offered the resident the option of his own personal external light which it would supply and install for him. This offer had not been accepted by the resident but the landlord confirmed that it remained open.
The resident accepted the offer of compensation which was paid to him on 12 September 2022. He asked this Service to consider the landlord’s actions in terms of the street lamp, the leak and mould and the actions of the operative.
The resident has recently contacted this Service to raise new issues. This relates to a fall outside the property which resulted in a bruised arm as well as a water leak from his loft. Whilst the leak had been resolved the resident explained that the leak had led to mould appearing in the bedroom ceiling. Following a visit by the landlord’s electrician to the property there had also been unresolved issues as a result of this such as electrical fittings and lights interfering with the opening and closing of doors.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident’s complaint partly concerns the impact on his health as well as a recent fall which he has linked to the street light issues outside his property. It is not the role of the Ombudsman to establish a causal link between health and a landlord’s actions or to order damages in the way a court might. We are also unable to investigate matters that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint or for which the resident has yet to complete the landlord’s internal complaints process. Therefore the issue of the fall that the resident had and the leak from the loft he has experienced in January 2023 are outside the scope of this investigation.
This investigation has reviewed the landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s property from April 2019 when the resident initially raised the concerns that were subsequently considered through the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leak and mould in the kitchen.

The site visit in April 2019 was by a surveyor who had taken a moisture reading. Based on this the surveyor had wanted access to the cold feed pipe by removing the kitchen base unit. The actions of the surveyor in undertaking a moisture reading did show that the landlord had taken the resident’s concerns about a possible leak seriously. There was a gap of several months until the base unit was removed and the leak was eventually tracked down and resolved in October 2019. The landlord acknowledged the length of time between the surveyor’s visit and the removal of the base until was unreasonable and it made an offer of £200 for this aspect in December 2019.
The landlord has confirmed that this amount was eventually paid to the resident in December 2020. In addition to this amount it had offered £300 for the numerous appointments required to fix the leak in the initial final response of June 2022. The landlord has not provided further details of when these further appointments had occurred. It also offered £700 for the distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident which it combined with the actions of one of its operatives who had attended the property without wearing appropriate PPE. The overall compensation offered had following a conversation with the resident been increased by a further £350 and this was put in a letter to the resident on 22 July 2022.
Although the landlord made an offer in relation to the issue of the leak, it has not specifically commented on the delay taken for the mould wash to have been undertaken in either the stage one or stage two responses. The resident stated that the surveyor had requested this at the time the leak had been resolved which was in September/October 2019 however the matter was still outstanding over 10 months later and the resident confirmed to this Service that it had been completed in February 2021. There was reference to the resident not allowing access to the property in July 2019 however the landlord’s limited record keeping from the time suggested it was making arrangements for the mould wash to take place in January 2020. Despite this confirmation in its letter of 23 December 2019 there had been no explanation why this did not take place at the time or indeed when it was eventually carried out by the landlord. If the resident had not allowed access to the property it would be expected that the landlord would have recorded notes to this effect. However no notes to show this or any other reason for the delay have been provided by the landlord.
In terms of compensation offered the landlord had acknowledged that there were failings in the time taken to assess and resolve the leak. Whilst it had initially addressed the issues in December 2019 the leak had not been fully repaired as a result of that complaint. Instead further operative visits had been necessary. The landlord’s compensation policy set out that in relation to service failure resulting in distress and inconvenience it could make a payment of up to £500. Whilst the stage one response had offered an amount considerably lower than this, the landlord’s stage two response had made an offer of compensation which exceeded the amount under the compensation policy. The amount offered was in excess of the amount the Ombudsman’s Remedies guidance suggests in the case of service failure and for maladministration. This was therefore reasonable redress in respect of the matter and so no further amount is ordered.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the conduct of one of its contractors.

The landlord has explained that it investigated the concerns raised by the resident in April 2021. However due to the “personal nature it was not in a position to disclose any HR related information”. However it added that “the allegations were fully investigated under its disciplinary policy”. It had agreed with the resident that the operative in question would not be allocated any further work at the property.
It was reasonable that as the issue concerns disciplinary matters related to employment which would be confidential in nature the landlord has been unable to provide any further details on the matter. Having said this it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have demonstrated that it had investigated the resident’s allegations without compromising confidentiality by commenting on whether it had found any wrong doing by its staff member and apologising if there was evidence that something inappropriate had occurred. The landlord did not comment on whether it had found any wrong doing. In the final response it did apologise to the resident. It added in the final response that it had taken action to ensure that the operative in question was not allocated any further jobs at the property.
Whilst the landlord did apologise in the final response and made an offer of compensation it has been unable to provide a copy of the initial response about the matter in April 2021.
In addition to the apology, the landlord made an offer of redress for “the poor experience encountered with our operative” which it banded together with the issues of the leak at the property. The total amount offered by the landlord had then been increased by a further £350 following discussions with the resident.
Whilst there were some shortcomings in the landlord’s approach and it has not provided this Service with further information on the allegations and its investigation it has apologised and taken steps to ensure that the operative would have no further interaction with the resident. It also made a reasonable offer in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance in response to the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the matter. Therefore no further redress would be due to the resident.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reporting of issues with the street lamp situated outside the property.

The landlord indicated in its final response that the resident had raised the issue of the alignment of the street lamp initially on 9 April 2021. It has been unable to provide a copy of the resident’s initial complaint on the matter. Having looked at the correspondence provided by both parties this date appears to be incorrect and it is an indication of a wider issue relating to the landlord’s record keeping. It appears that the resident did not appear to refer to the street lamp issue with the landlord until October/November 2021.
The landlord has explained that it attempted to contact the resident following the matters being raised by him. It also attempted to visit the property. This was a reasonable initial approach by it as it appeared to be taking into account the concerns of the resident who had raised issues about the level of light coming directly into the property. The landlord was therefore looking at the impact the matter was causing. However the landlord has confirmed that it was unable to speak to the resident at the time and that he had not answered the door when it attended.
Whilst the landlord set out in the stage one response that it would be making a further visit to the property on 7 December 2021, this was one day after the response had been issued. There is no indication that the stage one response had been hand delivered or emailed to the resident. Neither is there any indication that it had informed the resident before he received the letter of the visit to the property. Therefore it was unreasonable to expect the resident to have been sufficiently put on alert of the forthcoming visit by the landlord.
The landlord’s revised stage two response of 22 July 2022 explained that whilst the electrical manager was on annual leave at that time it would aim to have the street lamp realigned to its original position by 10 August 2022. This was approximately nine months since the resident had originally raised the matter. The landlord has not been able to provide a clear audit trail on what it had done regarding the street lamp since the proposed visit in December 2021. The landlord’s final response stated that it had undertaken a further site visit in June 2022, but there was an absence of any work being undertaken by it between December 2021 and this date.
The landlord provided some internal emails however these date from the time of the final response on 22 July 2022 until August 2022. The lack of any update or movement on the street lamp issue was unreasonable. This was especially given that in the first few months were during winter and early spring when the street lamp would have been on earlier in the evenings and for a longer duration.
The landlord has explained that it attended a further site visit on 31 August 2022 which it had informed the resident about in advance by means of a hand delivered note to him. Despite this it was unable to speak with the resident at that time. Instead it had spoken to the neighbours who occupied the properties either side of the resident. The landlord said that these individuals were happy with the positioning of the street lamp as it allowed light onto the path outside the properties and did not shine directly into their properties. This was a view shared by the landlord’s electrical manager and it had communicated this to the resident by phone and in a letter to him on 5 September 2022.
Overall the actions of the landlord were ultimately reasonable. Whilst the resident had wanted the street lamp alignment adjusted to the original position, the lamp not only covered his property but that of his neighbours. The landlord had attempted to speak with the resident when it attended the property. As the resident was not available it had spoken to his neighbours and based on their views as well as its own it had determined the positioning of the street lamp did not require any further adjustment. The landlord had also offered the resident the option to have a personal external light including a sensor light which he had not accepted. It confirmed that this option was still available to him.
Whilst the landlord did eventually reach a resolution on the matter the length of time taken to do this was unreasonable. It made an offer of compensation of £150 for the matter in the initial final response which it issued on 21 June 2022. Following having spoken to the resident about the issues the landlord had increased the total offer by a further £350 without breaking down how much each part of its original offer had been increased. The revised offer was instead based on a figure the resident had suggested.
However the landlord had informed the resident on more than one occasion that it would move the alignment of the street lamp back to the original position. It had also provided deadlines by which this would be done which it had failed to keep. This had been after it had set out the offer in the final response. This would have caused the resident a further degree of distress and inconvenience for which it does not appear to have taken into account when considering the amount of compensation which was due.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord has explained that following a complaint having been raised about the operative’s conduct “an entry on the complaints tracker” suggested the resident was sent a written response about the matter in April 2021. However it has been unable to provide this as it “cannot access the related correspondence due to it being saved in personal folders of colleagues who no longer work for the company”.
The landlord had also referred to the complaint about the street lamp having been raised by the resident on 9 April 2021 in the initial final response. This was an error as the issue of the street lamp was not raised by the resident until several months later.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This includes the investigation of complaints received. This has not been the case in its management of the residents’ repair request and later in its management of the complaint investigation.
The resident has stated that he had contacted the landlord primarily by phone to register his dissatisfaction and to make various complaints over the years. In terms of this complaint he had also asked for an escalation to stage two in January 2022 by phone. However the landlord has not provided any call notes of any telephone conversations which it held with the resident during the course of the complaints and the subsequent investigation.
The resident also complained that he was often waiting for a response from the landlord and that he had often to chase it up with it as well as this Service before he was able to complete the landlord internal complaints process. The landlord’s failure to keep and provide relevant records means that it has not been able to establish whether it took reasonable action in a timely manner.
The lack of contact or telephone records evidencing the resident’s reports of issues at the property is a significant concern, as is the landlord being unaware of when the complaints being investigated under this report were first reported. It is the Ombudsman’s view that this constitutes maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a leak and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress offered in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of the conduct of one of its operatives.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of issues with the street lamp outside the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord’s actions in response to the resident’s reporting of the leak and mould was reasonable and appropriate. Site visits had identified elevated moisture levels which was something the landlord could and should have perhaps identified at an earlier stage. This would have minimised the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident. Even after the leak had been resolved the landlord took a considerable period of time to finish off the mould wash recommended by the surveyor. However it had acknowledged these service failings in the amount of compensation which it offered to the resident.
The landlord’s actions with regards its operative was reasonable and appropriate. Whilst it did not disclose any issues of wrong doing to the resident, it did apologise to him and made an offer of redress and it took action to ensure that the operative in question would not be allocated any further work at the property.
The landlord’s action in dealing with the issue of the street lamp was not reasonable. Whilst it did attempt to consult with the resident and his neighbours over the issue there had been a large period of time when it appeared that nothing had been done in respect of the matter. The level of compensation offered was not proportionate to the degree of distress and inconvenience to the resident as a result of its delay in dealing with the matter.
There were record keeping failures in terms of the notes on the conversations including phone calls which took place between the landlord and the resident. This included the setting up and investigations of the various complaints which had been raised by the resident. The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records which noted what its operatives had found on attending the property in relation to the issue of the leak and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further amount of £300 in addition to the amount of £1,500 already paid to the resident in September 2022. This comprises:
  1. £100 in relation to the handling of the street lamp situated outside the resident’s property.
  2. £200 for its failure in its record keeping.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping processes to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of and responses to complaints and delivery of operational services.