Grand Union Housing Group Limited (202108321)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202108321

Grand Union Housing Group Limited

28 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 resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property (including to the windows, bathroom and heating) and its communication with him.

Background and summary of events

2. The property is a three bedroom detached house built in the 1930s.
3. On 12 September 2018 the landlord provide a stage 1 complaint response to the resident. The landlord set out steps it would take to address issues including with the window seal, light fitting, stopcock and possible condensation and damp. The landlord apologised for poor communication.
4. In December 2019 the landlord investigated the possibility of installing radiators throughout the property.
5. On 8 January 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident stating that it understood that the resident was not satisfied with the response to his complaint and that he would like it moved to the next level. The landlord states that a stage one complaint response was not sent as the customer requested that the complaint go straight to stage two because issues were not resolved.
6. A report from 9 January 2020 noted that there was cavity wall insulation but no record of the date. There was an order for an assessment for a top up in process. It noted that the property was maintained in a pristine condition. It noted a number of repair issues with the property, including poorly installed windows with visible gaps. It noted problems with leaks in the bathroom and other insulation issues in the house. Black mould was evident in the bathroom even though the resident had painted it in anti mould paint eight weeks earlier. It noted new double radiators were being installed. It listed a number of essential remedial works required, with a total cost of £13,000, and a number of desirable works.
7. Another survey report was issued on 10 January 2020. It was not clear what relationship this report had to the 9 January 2020 report. This report concluded that there was nothing wrong with the windows that had been installed. It concluded that there was no damp/mould visible and no further investigation was required.
8. Heating works were undertaken in May 2020.
9. On 1 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord stating that he was unhappy with the installation of the new windows and other issues in the property. On 4 July 2020 the resident emailed the landlord highlighting his health issues. The landlord communicated internally about ways to provide safeguarding support to the resident.
10. The landlord set out an action plan dated 22 July 2020, which set out an extensive number of works. This noted that previous works had been inadequate.
11. On 30 September 2020 the landlord noted internally that the works were nearing completion. It noted that works had been done on a full bathroom upgrade, door and window upgrade, flat roof leak repair, side and front gate repaired, new fridge freezer, new floors, garden sorted out and old radiators removed because of the heating upgrade.
12. On 1 October 2020 the resident raised concerns about using the installed mobile thermostat. On 2 October 2020 the resident complained about being left without heating. The landlord ordered a loan of electric heaters for the short term.
13. On 30 October 2020 heating upgrade works were quoted.
14. On 25 November 2020 the landlord noted internally that they were nearing the end of several large jobs for improvements however the resident was raising concerns about ongoing problems.
15. On 4 December 2020 the landlord raised a number of jobs for repairs.
16. On 29 December 2020 the resident complained about further problems over the Christmas period.
17. On 12 January 2021 the parties had a discussion about a number of items of work outstanding, including the temperature in the house and damp. The landlord noted that the resident did not propose a resolution because he considered the landlord had shown a lack of care to him. The landlord noted that its view was that it had put a lot of effort to bring programmes forward to install new windows, carry out extensive works to the heating system and the bathroom. Some further works were identified and planned for.
18. On 7 May 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and offered him £1,500 compensation. It stated that the cause of the complaint was lack of communication by its staff, poor work by external contractors and delays in identifying the works that were required. The landlord stated that the resident would be contacted about underfloor insulation, a positive pressure unit, a bathroom extractor fan and insulation for the kitchen walls.
19. On 24 June 2021 the landlord noted internally that the resident had declined the offer of compensation and sought £5,000. It noted that the resident stated that he was very satisfied with the works since the landlord started trying to resolve the issues.
20. On 27 August 2021 the resident updated this service that he had a number of ongoing concerns about the works on his property.
21. On 3 September 2021 the landlord approved a quote from a contractor for works including underfloor insulation. The quote noted that the property did not meet current building regulations for ventilation.
22. On 10 September 2021 the resident declined the installation of a positive pressure unit in the loft on the grounds that it was too loud and the grill was too big.

Assessment and findings

23. The Ombudsman starts by acknowledging that the resident has found this to be a very distressing experience. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident’s home environment is important to him.
24. Under section 2.3.1 of the Tenancy Agreement, the landlord has an obligation to “maintain the structure and exterior of the Premises in a reasonable state of repair”. This reflects its statutory obligations under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. Section 2.3.5 of the Tenancy Agreement requires that the landlord “carry out all repairs within such reasonable timescales as may be determined by the Association from time to time.” The landlord has a Repairs and Maintenance Policy which sets out the standards it aims for. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to attend to any repairs reported to it in a timely manner and communicate in a reasonable manner with the resident.
25. The resident submits that since 2017/18 he has complained to the landlord about freezing temperatures and black mould.
26. The landlord’s position is that it has taken the resident’s reports “very seriously” and has undertaken multiple repairs to the property.
27. The Ombudsman starts by noting that property is a 1930’s detached property and it is not unusual to have problems with insulation and cold in such properties. These problems can be difficult to solve.
28. The Ombudsman has reviewed the evidence submitted about the landlord’s response to the resident’s complaint about the condition of the property. The evidence indicates that the landlord has undertaken extensive investigations into repairs needed to the property and undertaken a significant number of repairs which has required a notable financial investment. The evidence indicates that it has tried a number of solutions to address the temperatures and the mould and undertaken a number of other repairs on the property. This includes works on the garden, roof repairs and bathroom upgrade. It has installed different heating systems.
29. The landlord has acknowledged that there were problems with some of the repair work – including issues with the installation of new windows. The evidence indicates that it has remedied these, although the Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident still has some concerns about the windows. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it was distressing for the resident that the first window installation was mishandled. Whilst the resident remains unhappy with the temperature and other issues with the house, it is not clear that there are steps that the landlord could reasonably have taken which it has not. The Ombudsman notes that the resident was unhappy with the heating solution installed by the landlord and some of the other proposed remedies.
30. The landlord has acknowledged that there were some failings in the way in which it has handled the matter. In its letter to the resident dated 7 May 2021 it stated that it believed that the repairs issues had now been addressed. However, it acknowledged that there was a lack of communication, poor standard of work by external contractors and delays in identifying the works required. It offered the resident £1,500 compensation for distress and inconvenience.
31. On balance, the Ombudsman finds that there were some service failings by the landlord. The first installation of window replacements was poor and needed to be redone. This understandably caused the resident distress. It appears that the first in-depth survey of the property to fully identify the repair needs was mot undertaken by the landlord until January 2020. Whilst the landlord undertook some repairs before this, the July 2020 action plan identified that these had been inadequate. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord could have undertaken a more in-depth survey, and the subsequent works, before January 2020. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that as 2020 progressed the landlord took steps to prioritise the works, noting the impact that the COVID pandemic had on works being done. The internal communications by the landlord indicate that it was treating the matter as needing to be done “as soon as possible”.
32. The Ombudsman also finds that there were some communications failings. The landlord could have taken further steps to explain in detail to the resident what the proposed plan was to address the issues. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that as the matter progressed the landlord took reasonable steps to remedy this issue. The internal notes demonstrate that the landlord was conscious of the distress that the resident was feeling and actively took steps to provide support to help manage his distress.
33. The Ombudsman has considered whether the compensation offer made by the landlord is reasonable.
34. In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and effort expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts and/or omissions. It considers whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also takes into account the evidence that has been provided. Ultimately the Ombudsman considers what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
35. In considering whether the £1,500 offered by the landlord in this case is reasonable, the Ombudsman has referred to this service’s Remedies Guidance. This sets out that awards of £700 and above are remedies for “maladministration/severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant”.
36. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s Compensation Policy. This sets out that compensation of £301 – £400 would be considered appropriate for “extensive disruption”.
37. The Ombudsman understands that the resident feels that £1,500 does not reflect the distress and inconvenience he has experienced. However, this amount is at the higher end of awards of this type. Taking all the circumstances into account, the Ombudsman is satisfied that this is a reasonable amount. The Ombudsman therefore finds that, whilst there were service failings, the landlord has made an offer of reasonable redress.
38. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident remains unhappy with the windows and some other issues with the property (including the installation of air bricks). Whilst the Ombudsman finds that the evidence indicates that the landlord has taken reasonable steps to address repair issues, nonetheless the Ombudsman considers it would be helpful for the landlord to undertake a final survey of the property to determine if further works could address the resident’s concerns, including to the windows and to address ventilation concerns. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that within four weeks of this decision, and subject to the resident’s agreement, the landlord undertakes a further survey of the property to determine if there are any reasonable further repair works that are needed.

Determination (decision)

39. In accordance with section 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the Ombudsman finds that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress in response to the resident’s complaint about its handling of repairs to his property and its communication with him.

Reasons

40. The landlord has undertaken extensive investigations into repairs needed to the property and undertaken a significant number of repairs which has required a notable financial investment. However, there were some failings in the landlord’s handling of the matter. There were problems with some of the repair work – including issues with the installation of new windows. The landlord could have undertaken an in–depth survey earlier than it did. There were some communication failings, particularly in the early stage of the matter. However, the amount of compensation offered by the landlord is at the higher end of awards of this type and the Ombudsman is satisfied that it is reasonable.
41. Whilst it is not clear that there are further repairs that the landlord could take, the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s ongoing concerns. The Ombudsman therefore recommends that within four weeks of this decision, and subject to the resident’s agreement, the landlord undertakes a further survey of the property to determine if there are any reasonable outstanding repair works that are needed.

Recommendations

42. The Ombudsman recommends that within four weeks of this decision, and subject to the resident’s agreement, the landlord undertakes a further survey of the property to determine if there are any reasonable further repair works that are needed. The landlord should write to the resident with the results of this survey to confirm its position and findings.
43. As set out in this report, it is clear that there were failings in this case which the landlord has acknowledged. The Ombudsman also recommends that the landlord should ensure that it learns from the outcomes of this complaint by carrying out a review of the case and producing an action plan to address any areas for improvement and learning points from this case.