Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited (202302323)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202302323

Lincolnshire Housing Partnership Limited

27 June 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;
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of
  1. Damp and mould.
  2. Leaks in the bathroom.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement roof, kitchen and windows.
3. The associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident had said that she has physical disabilities, as well as mental health difficulties.
On 30 January 2023, the resident complained to the landlord that her windows were damp. She also referenced that her property had not had replacement windows, doors and a roof like other neighbouring properties. The resident raised a further report on 31 January 2023 that there was mould in her property.
The landlord issued a stage one response on 3 February 2023 where it confirmed that the windows and roof would be replaced in the 2023/24 financial year. The landlord explained that they had not been replaced already as the previous tenant had refused the work.
The landlord conducted a survey on 6 February 2023, where there was evidence of condensation on the windows. It advised the resident to ventilate the property, albeit the resident advised that her trickle vents were not working. A job was also raised for the landlord to inspect the kitchen worktop as it was uneven.
On 31 May 2023, the resident raised a further complaint via this Service regarding;
1. Leaks in the property
2. Damp and mould.
3. Outstanding repairs to the blocked shower
4. Poor workmanship to the resident’s kitchen, which she wanted replacing.
5. Poor complaint handling
The landlord issued a stage one on 30 June 2023. It said that it had fitted a new extractor fan for the damp and mould issues. The landlord also said that it had unblocked the resident’s shower and resolved all reported leaks. With regards to the poor workmanship in the kitchen, the landlord said that some remedial work was needed to level off the worktop, but the resident had refused the work.
On 18 August 2023, the resident escalated her complaint as a further leak from her shower had caused her injury and was still ongoing. She also reiterated that the window trickle vents were not working, causing difficulty to ventilate the property. The resident also said that she was unhappy with the landlord’s proposed repairs to the kitchen worktop as it would not look right.
The landlord issued a stage two response on 27 September 2023. It said that the resident had reported that the shower was leaking on 3 July 2023. The landlord determined that the shower doors needed replacing as the seals were no longer available. The doors were replaced on 20 September 2023. The landlord explained that her kitchen worktop could be repaired, but the work would damage her kitchen tiles. It said that a kitchen replacement was not required, and it would be replaced as part of a planned programme in the future,
Following a survey on 20 September 2023, the landlord said it was assessing the replacement of the resident’s roof and windows, and she would be informed of the landlord’s decision.
The resident remains dissatisfied as she said that the leaks in her bathroom remained unresolved for an unreasonable length of time. She also said the landlord pushed back her roof and window replacement to 2024/25, which worsened the damp and mould in the property.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The resident said that the landlord’s handling of the leaks, damp and mould had a negative impact on her and her health. It is beyond the expertise of the Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident’s health. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord. While we cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience that the resident may have experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Damp and mould

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
As stated in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp & Mould (2021), ‘Landlords should avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident’. It highlights the importance of landlords taking reasonable steps in partnership with residents in circumstances where condensation is the main cause of the damp and mould, such as considering additional ventilation.
When the resident initially reported damp and mould in the property, the landlord responded appropriately by attending within 6 days and inspecting the issue.
The windows were found to have condensation. Photographs reviewed by this Service evidence the condensation, as well as mould that was minimal and isolated to the resident’s window handle.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had said that the trickle vents on the windows were not working. The landlord did not confirm whether this was correct, or if it checked. However, it stated that as the windows were due for replacement, it was not required to replace the trickle vents.
Trickle vents are components within a window that provide permanent ventilation into the room, even when a window is closed. They are designed to help prevent or minimise problems associated with poor ventilation, such as condensation and mould.
Given the benefits of working vents, and the resident’s reports of damp and mould, this Service would expect that the landlord inspected the vents as a minimum to establish if they were working. If they weren’t working, this Service would have expected that the landlord sufficiently documented the extent of the damp and mould, while weighing up the impact of having no working vents on the window. There is no evidence that the landlord did this, which is inappropriate.
The landlord offered the resident advice about ventilating the property, which could be done by opening the window, and is the most effective way to manage moisture in the air. This was appropriate advice. The landlord also replaced the resident’s bathroom extractor fan, which was reasonable and would have contributed to the reduction of moisture in the bathroom.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord considered additional measures to manage the condensation in other rooms prior to the windows being replaced. Given the landlord had no definitive timescale of when the windows would be replaced, its lack of proactive action to reduce the condensation throughout the property was inappropriate.
This Service is aware that the landlord has since installed a Positive Input Ventilation (PIV) unit. This was installed in October 2023; 9 months after the resident raised the issue of damp and mould in the property. While a positive contribution to manage the damp and mould in the property, this was an unreasonable delay.
Overall, the landlord took some steps to manage the damp and mould but did not take enough action considering it did not know when the windows would be replaced. The landlord said that it would be assessing the windows and would provide the resident with an update on when this would be completed. It does not seem that it did this. The windows have still not been replaced, which exacerbates the distress and frustration experienced by the resident.
Therefore, there has been a service failure by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Leaks

The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that emergency repairs would be dealt with within 24 hours. For routine repairs, the landlord would attend and complete the repairs within 20 working days.
The resident reported a leak on 13 February 2023. The landlord attended and completed the required repairs on the same day. This was in accordance with its policy for emergency repairs and therefore reasonable.
The resident reported a leaking shower on 3 July 2023. The landlord treated the matter as a routine repair. It is unclear how the landlord determined the repair to be routine, rather an emergency.
Nevertheless, the landlord attended on 17 July 2023, which was appropriate. Follow on works were required, however, but were not completed until 20 September 2023; 58 working days after the resident reported the issue. This is significantly outside the timescales expected for repairs to be completed and caused the resident considerable distress and inconvenience.
When repair timeframes are exceeded for relevant reasons the landlord’s primary focus should be on taking clear and appropriate steps to resolve the issue in a reasonable timeframe (i.e. as soon as possible), arranging temporary fixes in the interim (if possible), keeping the resident appropriately up to date, and managing their expectations.
There is no evidence that the landlord kept the resident up to date, nor is there evidence of the landlord explaining the delays and managing the resident’s expectations about when the new shower doors would be installed. This was inappropriate and caused the resident significant frustration.
Considering the above failures, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom.
This Service acknowledges that the resident has continued to raise issues about leaks in her bathroom, which suggests that the works undertaken have not fully resolved the problem. Therefore, the landlord will be ordered to arrange an inspection of the bathroom and to complete any further repairs that are required to resolve any leaks.

Replacement roof, kitchen and windows

The landlord is responsible for carrying out major planned works at the property. Where this is required, there are no specific timeframes set out within its repairs policy for the landlord to schedule it. It is understandable that the timescale for this type of work can be changeable based on a number of factors, including contractor availability and scope of works required. Therefore, it would be reasonable for a landlord to provide an estimated timeframe of when the works would be carried out and provide regular updates on progress so residents are kept as informed as they can be.
The landlord is expected to maintain the kitchen, but it is entitled to repair it rather than replace it in the first instance and it would only be expected to consider a full replacement if the kitchen could not be economically repaired or if repairs had been attempted but had not resolved the issues.
While the worktop was found to be uneven, the landlord established that this was something it could repair. There is no evidence that the repairs required warranted a full kitchen replacement. Therefore, the landlord’s refusal to replace the kitchen prior to it being part of a planned programme of works was reasonable.
The landlord informed the resident that the roof and windows were scheduled for replacement in 2023/24 in its stage one response in February 2023. This was positive and managed the resident’s expectations.
However, the landlord’s stage two response in September 2023 referred to the replacement roof and windows being assessed by the landlord’s asset team, and the outcome being shared with the resident. This was undoubtedly frustrating for the resident because she would have been under the impression that the work had already been scheduled.
The roof and window replacements were later scheduled for 2024/25. While not necessarily unreasonable given the complexities of social landlords undertaking major works to properties, as the landlord pushed the work back by a year and was aware that the resident had eagerly been chasing the repair, it could have at least provided the resident with an explanation as to why it was no longer going ahead in 2023/24.
The landlord is expected to reasonably manage the resident’s expectations regarding when the works will be completed, which it failed to do, resulting in the resident having to spend additional time and effort in chasing the completion of the work. To conclude, the landlord’s failure to effectively communicate with the resident and manage her expectations regarding the roof and windows was inappropriate and the landlord will be ordered to apologise to the resident.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. The code encourages landlords to adopt a positive complaint handling culture that enables them to resolve disputes, improve the quality of the service it provides to residents, and ensure that complaints provide an opportunity for learning and positive improvement.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. The landlord ought to provide a stage one response within 10 working days of the complaint being raised, and a stage 2 response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. These timescales are in accordance with the CHC.
The landlord responded to the resident’s initial complaint within 3 days, which was reasonable and evidenced a willingness to quickly resolve the resident’s complaint.
The resident made a further complaint directly to this Service, which we sent to the landlord on her behalf. There were elements of the complaint that were new and were not answered in the landlord’s previous response, therefore it was appropriate that the landlord raised a new stage one complaint.
The complaint was raised on 31 May 2023. The landlord wrote to the resident and this Service requesting an extension to respond. This was not unreasonable and appropriately managed the resident’s expectations.
The landlord issued its response on 30 June 2023; 23 working days after the resident raised her complaint. The CHC states that should an extension be required to respond to a complaint, this should not exceed a further 10 working days. While the landlord’s complaint response was marginally outside these timescales, it is positive that it managed the resident’s expectations by keeping her up to date about the extension it required to respond, and it is not assessed that this minor delay had a detrimental impact on the resident.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 27 September 2023; 29 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. As above, while this is marginally outside the timescales outlined within the CHC and the landlord’s complaint policy, it is not assessed that this delay had a negative impact on the resident. As such, this Service has determined that there was no maladministration.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a replacement roof, kitchen and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the associated complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is to pay the resident a total of £200 compensation, consisting of:
1. £50 for the distress and inconvenience, and delays experienced in the landlord resolving the damp and mould in property.
2. £150 for the distress and inconvenience, and delays experienced by the resident in the landlord handling the resident’s reports of leaks in the bathroom.
The landlord must apologise to the resident about its poor communication and failure to manage her expectations regarding the replacement of her roof and windows.
The landlord must arrange to inspect the resident’s bathroom and conduct any repairs necessary to resolve any outstanding leaks.
Evidence of compliance with the above orders must be sent to this Service within four weeks of the date of this determination.

Recommendation

It is recommended that within the next four weeks the landlord contacts the resident with an update on the current position regarding the window replacement.