Golding Homes Limited (202218685)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202218685

Golding Homes Limited

16 October 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example, whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his roof and loft.
This report has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident lives in a 1 bedroom bungalow that he has occupied since December 2020. He is an assured tenant of the landlord. The landlord is aware there are both physical and mental health vulnerabilities within the household. The resident’s partner, a joint tenant, is recorded as being wheelchair dependent and having cancer, osteoporosis and diabetes.
According to the landlord’s repair log, the resident contacted it on 13 September 2022 to report missing roof tile. He reported that some tiles were “hanging” in the gutters. The landlord inspected the roof on 15 September 2022 and, on 21 September 2022, it raised a repair. The work order involved removing and reinstalling the first 2 courses of roof tiles at the front and back of the property. This was so it could readjust the guttering. This would be done to ensure rain flowed into the gutter rather than over it.
The resident contacted the Service on 18 November 2022 to say he had raised a complaint to his landlord in August 2022 about missing roof tiles. The landlord had yet to respond. The resident stated that:
1. His home had no insulation and therefore he could not switch on his heating.
2. His partner was disabled and needed to be kept warm.
3. He was fearful that damp and mould would develop in his property as a result of the missing roof tiles and poor insulation.
4. He was disappointed by the lack of communication from his landlord.
The Service forwarded the resident’s complaint to the landlord on the same day. We asked it to respond by 25 November 2022. The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response on 22 November 2022. It stated that:
1. It was sorry it had no record of the complaint the resident said he had raised in August 2022.
2. It acknowledged he had raised an earlier complaint in July 2022 with regard to internal repairs, which it had since been communicating with him about.
3. Its contractor had attended that week to complete works to a tap and air vent, following the completion of ceiling repairs.
4. Its contractor had also inspected the insulation to the roof and reported that it was “in place and sufficient”.
5. A homes maintenance inspector planned to visit the property to carry out a post inspection. He would check the roof at the same time.
6. If the resident wanted the inspector to also check the loft insulation, it would be happy to arrange this.
7. It was sorry it had taken “slightly” longer than it had hoped to complete internal works to his property.
8. It wanted to offer £250 compensation, which it broke down as follows:
  1. £150 in recognition of distress and inconvenience caused while completing internal repairs.
  2. £100 in recognition of the heat loss he had reported.
The maintenance inspector attended the property on 2 December 2022 to carry out the post inspection of the internal works. He recorded that the resident was “very happy” with what had been done. He checked the roof and loft and advised that:
1. For the most part, the insulation was of adequate depth. However, it did not go all the way to the eaves so there were cold spots along the front and back walls. This could “easily be rectified” by adding more insulation to those areas.
2. On the gable end of the property, the tiles at the verges were loose, with the mortar missing. He said this could be “easily fixed”.
3. The roof did not need “stripping and reinstating” as was previously advised. It was “essentially sound”. However, the rain from the roof did “over shoot the gutter” and needed to be addressed, as did “the entire run” of neighbouring properties.
4. The properties needed a wider gutter, which would be installed “slightly lower” to enable it to catch the rain.
5. He would report his findings back to the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 December. It is unclear what prompted the interaction. However, the resident expressed concern that he had to wait until after Christmas for the roof and loft works to be done. The landlord responded on the same day. It said that its contractor had told it that the insulation would be arranged for the following week and that the resident would get a call to confirm this. However, the landlord’s records show that it fitted the additional loft insulation on 7 February 2023. They also show that the landlord had installed a new boiler in January 2023.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 February 2023 for an update to the roofing works. He contacted the Service on 10 March 2023 to say that, although the landlord had told him his complaint was at stage 2, it was “still not getting anything done”. The Service wrote to the landlord on 12 April 2023 and asked it to raise and consider the resident’s stage 2 complaint by no later than 26 April 2023.
On 27 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident a notice of seeking possession (NOSP) due to non-payment of rent. The resident responded on 28 April 2023 to say that he would not be paying any further rent until all the outstanding works had been completed. The landlord called him back on the same day and followed this up in writing. It assured him that its contractor would erect the scaffolding on 2 May 2023 and that works were scheduled to start on 9 May 2023. It apologised for the upset caused by the NOSP and told him it had applied a £500 credit to his rent account in recognition of any distress its letter had caused. It also told him that, while repairs remained ongoing, it would not commence any court proceedings.
The resident and landlord corresponded about the outstanding works throughout May 2023. On 2 May 2023, the landlord agreed a new complaint response deadline of 8 May 2023 with the resident. On 4 May 2023, the resident informed the landlord that the scaffolding was up. On 17 May 2023 it told him that the roof repairs was “virtually” complete, and that it was waiting for the works to be signed off.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023. It stated that:
1. It had visited the resident on 14 December 2022 to understand what it could do to resolve any outstanding repair issues. It had acknowledged that its communication had been poor up to that point.
2. It had raised works orders in January 2023 to complete all outstanding repairs inside his home. It also gave him a single point of contact (SPOC) for any enquiries regarding those works.
3. Following a visit to his home on 15 May 2023, and in order to resolve his concerns, it proposed to complete a number of other works, which were not part of his complaint.
4. It was pleased to acknowledge that the works to his roof had been completed. Actions left were to removed the scaffolding, and for the dishes and TV aerials to be relocated to their original positions. It had scheduled this for 1 June 2023.
5. It had credited £500 compensation to his rent account in early May 2023 to acknowledge his distress following the “incorrect” serving of a NOSP.
6. To acknowledge further failings, it wanted to offer an additional £500 compensation. It broke this down as follows:
  1. £200 for its poor communication.
  2. £200 for distress and inconvenience.
  3. £100 for appointment delays.
7. It would credit the £500 to his rent account as per its policy, while he remained in arrears.
The resident wrote to the Ombudsman on 7 June 2023to say he had rejected the landlord’s offer of compensation. He added that, given the landlord had taken a year to complete repairs and its communication was poor, its offer was too low. The landlord wrote to the resident on 12 June 2023 and asked him what amount of compensation he would find “acceptable” to resolve his complaint. He responded the following day to confirm that he would not be “taking anything less than £5,000” due to the “stress” he had experienced.
On 31 August 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and stated that:
1. The roof works, which formed part of his original complaint, had been completed.
2. The other repairs that were separate from the complaint had either been completed or were being actioned.
3. It had referred to both its own compensation policy and the Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and believed its offer remained “fair and reasonable”.

Assessment and findings

Legal and policy framework

As per Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (the Act), the tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the resident’s home in repair. This includes the roof, gutters and external pipes. The law says that a landlord should repair a housing defect ‘within a reasonable amount of time’. This is not specific but depends on the circumstances and levels of urgency. In addition. the landlord also has a responsibility, under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties.
The landlord’s repair handbook outlines 3 categories of responsive repair. Emergency repairs are attended to within 24 hours to make safe. Any further repairs are completed after this. Urgent repairs are those that would cause damage to the property of affect the resident’s wellbeing if left for too long. These are completed within 5 days. Routine repairs are completed within 28 days. The handbook states that the landlord prioritises repairs based on a number of different factors, including any vulnerabilities within a household, which may be affected by a longer wait.
The landlord’s complaints policy outlines a 2 stage formal complaints process. It will acknowledge complaints within 5 working days, and send a stage 1 response within 8 working days of the acknowledgement. The landlord will send a stage 2 response no later than 21 days from the date of escalation. The landlord also has what it refers to as a “stage zero”. This is where it will try and resolve an issue informally, within 1 working day. If it cannot do so, it will be logged as a stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that it offers compensation of between £50 and £700 in recognition of distress and inconvenience, depending on how severe the failure, and impact on the resident. The maximum amount is a guide, and the policy allows for higher levels of compensation, subject to authorisation by the appropriate level of management.

Scope of investigation

The resident has raised concerns about delays in completing outstanding repairs following the conclusion of the complaints process. As these issues did not from part of the formal complaint to the landlord under consideration, this is not something that this Service can investigate. This is because, in the interest of fairness, the landlord needs to be provided with the opportunity to investigate and respond to these reports. The resident will need to contact the landlord and, if appropriate, raise a separate complaint to get this matter resolved. They may then approach the Ombudsman if they remain dissatisfied. Any reference in this report to those repairs have been made to provide context.
The resident has stated that the delays in completing outstanding repairs has had a detrimental effect on his mental health. While the Ombudsman extends every sympathy to him for the impact the situation has had on its health, the Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. Matters of personal injury or damage to health, their investigation and compensation, are not part of the complaints process. They are more appropriately addressed by way of the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one) as a personal injury claim. While we cannot consider injury to health, we have considered whether the resident was caused distress or inconvenience as a result of any failings by the landlord

Outstanding repairs to the resident’s roof and loft

The Ombudsman acknowledges the frustration and distress caused to a resident while having to wait for outstanding repairs to be completed over a long period of time. The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the landlord has taken reasonable and appropriate steps to respond to the resident’s reports. This assessment will focus on whether the landlord acted in line with its policies and procedures, and if it took proportionate action and followed good practice.
The landlord has a legal obligation to complete repairs it is responsible for within a ‘reasonable’ timescale. Various factors can affect this, such as volume and complexity of required work or the need for additional materials to be ordered and delivered. The landlord should be able to demonstrate that any delays were unavoidable, and that it did everything it reasonably could to resolve issues appropriately.
The evidence shows that the landlord was initially responsive to the resident’s report of missing tiles on his roof. It inspected the property 2 days after the resident had reported the issue, which was appropriate. It then raised a repair within 6 days of the investigation. However, there is nothing to show the landlord took any further action between then and when the resident approached the Service on 18 November 2022.
It is unclear why there was a delay in progressing the roof works during that period. Additionally, there is no evidence the landlord had contacted the resident to update him, explain why the works were not progressing or to give him an estimated completion date. This demonstrates poor communication and a failure to properly manage the resident’s expectations.
The evidence suggests that the landlord only took action after being prompted by the resident raising his complaint. It should not have taken the resident complaining to compel the landlord to take further action. It was only after he raised a stage 1 complaint through the Ombudsman that the landlord carried out further inspections of the roof and loft insulation. This was 3 months after the resident had initially reported those issues. This would have caused him understandable frustration and uncertainly as to whether the landlord would carry out its repair obligations.
It is noted that the landlord offered the resident £100 in its stage 1 response towards any additional heating costs in recognition of the heat loss he had reported. Furthermore, the records show it installed a new boiler in the property in January 2023. This demonstrates that the landlord was taking reasonable steps to address the resident’s reports of insufficient insulation and the impact this had on the vulnerabilities in the household.
It was reasonable that the landlord inspected the resident’s roof and loft on 2 December 2022 as part of its post-inspection of previous internal works. This meant the resident was not subject to unnecessary additional visits, along with the associated disturbance this would have caused. The evidence shows that, during his visit, the inspector was clear to the resident in his explanation of the work that was required. He also reiterated the findings of a previous loft inspection in November 2022 that found the insulation to be of adequate thickness.
However, he identified areas in the loft that the insulation did not cover. He recommended additional loft insulation to be added to the edges of the loft to address cold spots along the front and back walls. This work was completed on 7 February 2023, nearly 2 months after the inspection. The landlord’s repairs handbook states that the landlord prioritises repairs based on a number of different factors. This included any vulnerabilities within a household, which may be affected by a longer wait.
Given the inspection took place in the winter, and the nature of the vulnerabilities in the household, it is unclear why this work could not have been done sooner. The landlord has failed to demonstrate that it took all reasonable steps to ensure the repair was completed as soon as possible. Its lack of urgency demonstrates a failure to properly consider the household’s vulnerabilities when scheduling the work. In addition, the failure to complete the work within its routine repairs timescale of 28 days was a departure from its policy.
The evidence shows that, from the date of the inspection on 2 December 2022 to completion of works on 6 June 2023, it took the landlord around 7 months to complete the roof repairs. There are no records to suggest there was any water ingress to the property at the time, or that the outstanding roof repair had had any significant impact on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. It is also acknowledged that the roof works involved several properties, which meant the repair would have taken longer than usual to complete. However, it is unclear why it was not until 2 May 2023 that the contractor had erected the scaffolding. Based on the evidence that is available, the delay of 6 months to start the work was excessive.
It is accepted that contractors might not be able to begin works due to capacity issues or periods where they are busy and their services are therefore stretched. However, landlords should ensure they are appropriately resourced and that service agreements with contractors enable it to complete repairs within a reasonable time.
The Service recognises that the landlord may have had some challenges with its contractors. However, its lack of effective contract monitoring meant it failed to take adequate steps to ensure it was completing repairs within a reasonable amount of time. There is internal correspondence where the landlord indicates it was being “let down by contractors”. There is also evidence of the landlord receiving conflicting information from its contractor about when it would carry out the loft insulation work. The poor communication between the landlord and its contractor would have contributed to the delay in starting both the loft and roof repair works.
Furthermore, there is no evidence to show the landlord provided regular updates between December 2022 and May 2023 on the roof repairs. There are no records to show it had tried to give adequate reasons for the delays or manage the resident’s expectations in terms of completion times.
If the landlord had provided regular telephone updates, it should have provided this Service with records of phone contacts to evidence this. Although it provided records of text messages between it and the resident, these mostly related to other repairs. The records show that the roof repair was only mentioned on one occasion via text. That it failed to demonstrate it had communicated adequately with the resident about the roof repairs between December 2022 and May 2023was a failing.
The lack of updates would have caused the resident distress and uncertainty over when the repair would be completed. Given the resident’s anxiety over the outstanding repair, the landlord could have been more proactive in making regular contact, even if there were no significant updates. This would have helped put the resident’s mind at rest and showed it was making reasonable efforts to progress the repair.
It is noted that the landlord visited the resident on 2 February 2023 to try and reassure him about the ongoing work and to provide him with a SPOC. This was appropriate. Furthermore, the evidence shows that the landlord’s communication improved markedly in May 2023, once the scaffolding was installed. From this point on, the resident had a SPOC for any enquiries about the works, and records show the landlord responded to the resident’s enquiries in a timely manner until the works were completed.
Under the terms of the tenancy agreement, the resident has an obligation to pay rent to the landlord on a weekly basis. The reasons the resident withheld his rent are acknowledged. However, the landlord is not obliged to allow residents to withhold rental payments when repairs are outstanding. It therefore had a right to take reasonable action to recover unpaid rent. The evidence shows it did send him letters reminding him he was in arrears before issuing the notice of seeking possession (NOSP). It also attached information that signposted the resident to services that could support him to clear his rent arrears. The landlord therefore cannot be criticised for sending him the NOSP letter.
Notwithstanding this, the landlord exercised its discretion and took steps that were over and above what would normally be expected. When the resident raised objection to the NOSP, the landlord agreed to put a hold on any further enforcement action for non-payment of rent until it completed the outstanding repairs. Furthermore, it apologised to the resident for any distress caused by the NOSP letter, and paid £500 into his rental account in recognition of this. This demonstrates it had been proactive in trying to maintain a positive relationship with the resident. The landlord’s actions were commendable in this regard.
The evidence shows that the landlord took appropriate steps to try and address the resident’s ongoing concerns. It met him at his property on 15 May 2023 and identified additional repairs. It then provided a list of those works in its stage 2 response. In its stage 1 response, it offered him £150 compensation, which related to delays in completing previous internal works. Furthermore, it offered £100 in recognition of the heat loss he had reported due to what he believed to be due to insufficient insulation. At stage 2, the landlord offered the resident an additional £500 compensation in recognition of failings it had identified in its handling of repairs to the roof and loft. Therefore a total of £750 compensation was offered in respect of delays relating to the roof repairs and associated issues. This offer it made was in line with the landlord’s compensation policy and with what the Ombudsman would have ordered for similar failings. Based on the evidence that is available, we are satisfied that this was a proportionate offer in the circumstances. For the reasons stated above, the landlord has offered redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Complaint

The resident approached the Service on 18 November 2022 because he stated he had made a complaint to the landlord in August 2022 but received no response. The landlord stated that it had no record of that complaint. Neither the landlord nor the resident has provided a copy of the complaint or an indication of the date in August when the resident had raised it.
We do not doubt that the resident had raised a complaint in August 2022. However, without supporting evidence, it is not possible to establish whether the landlord had received it. Similarly, there are no records to show that the resident had asked the landlord to escalate his complaint prior to approaching the Service. It would therefore have been beyond the landlord’s control to take further action if it had not received notice of a complaint or escalation request. It is acknowledged that, once it received the resident’s stage 1 complaint, through the Ombudsman, the landlord acted quickly and responded to it within 3 working days.
The resident escalated his complaint via the Ombudsman on 12 April 2023. The records show that the landlord called him on 27 April 2023 in response to this and informed him that it would send him a response by 28 April 2023. However, there is no evidence it formally acknowledged the escalation request within 5 working days. This was a departure from its policy. While this was not a significant failing, it was a failing nonetheless.
Furthermore, it took the landlord 33 days to respond to the resident’s stage 2 complaint. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) states that any delays to the 20 working days timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason. If an extension beyond 10 working days is required, this should be agreed by both parties. It is noted that the landlord sent the resident a holding reply, stating that it would respond by no later than 26 May 2023. It issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023 but sent no further holding replies. Although the delay was not significant, the landlord should reasonably have let the resident know that it required more time. That it did not do so was a shortcoming. The landlord should ensure it keeps residents regularly informed of any delays and that it agrees any further extensions with them.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord had made an offer of redress which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, addresses its response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to his roof and loft.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. Pay the resident £100 in recognition of its failure to formally acknowledge the resident’s escalation request.
2. Apologise to the resident for its failure to formally acknowledge the resident’s escalation request. This should be done in line with the Ombudsman’s apologies guidance.

Recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord should:
1. If it has not done so already, pay the resident the £250 compensation it offered in its stage 1 response.
2. Pay the resident the £500 it offered as part of its stage 2 response.
The resident has stated that there are further repairs to his property that remain outstanding. As such, the landlord is to contact the resident and provide a schedule for when it will carry out any outstanding works. If the resident is not satisfied with how these works are carried out, he may then submit a further complaint to the landlord, and then approach the Ombudsman again if he remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response.
This investigation has identified a number of issues relating to the liaison between the landlord and its own contractor. The landlord may have since addressed these matters through its contract management processes. If it is yet to raise these issues with this contractor, it should now do so and ensure there are robust contract monitoring arrangements in place.