Magenta Living (202124408)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124408

Magenta Living

30 August 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reported repairs which included:
1. damp and mould in the kitchen.
2. repairs to the downstairs toilet.
3. the installation of the radiator on the resident’s landing.
4. repair work to the resident’s daughter’s bedroom door/doorframe.
5. glass and rubbish left in the garden by the previous tenant.
6. the garden fencing.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and has lived in a three-bedroom, semi-detached house since September 2020.

The Ombudsman notes that the resident raised other repairs within the same period of the complaint process. As these did not form part of the original complaint and were addressed outside the complaint process, they fall outside the remit of this investigation.
On 28 October 2020, the landlord recorded the resident’s concerns that the internal doors within her home were not sitting properly within the door frames and the fence needed to be renewed. The landlord subsequently raised an order to investigate the issues with the internal doors. Its records show that it called and left a voicemail for the resident in the same month. Its records show that it instructed its contractors to visit the resident in November ‘on the off chance’ that the resident would be in. Although the landlord was unable to provide further repair logs/outcome of the visits relating to this work order, it did provide a screenshot that indicated that the overhaul of 7 doors was completed in November 2020.
The landlord was unable to provide repair logs/call logs and the outcome of visits and related notes for the fence repairs, when requested by this service.
On 5 November 2020, the resident reported that her landing needed a radiator. The landlord assessed the area and authorised an additional radiator to be installed.
On 1 December 2020, the landlord noted that the resident cancelled the appointment for the radiator to be installed on the landing as she needed to take her daughter to the doctors.
On 18 January 2021 the resident reported that there was damp and mould and rotted skirting boards in her kitchen. She also reported that her garden was unsafe for her children to play in, as there was glass in the garden left by the previous tenant.
On 4 March 2021, the landlord cancelled the work order to install the radiator on the landing, which was originally booked for 1 December 2020, because it had not heard from the resident.
On 16 March 2021, when the landlord’s contractor attended to a leaky radiator in the hallway, the resident asked about the outstanding installation of the landing radiator. The contractor noted that it had accidentally deleted the work order and raised a new one.
On 25 March 2021, the landlord recorded a conversation with the resident, and noted that she reported that there was rubbish, including approximately 10 wine bottles in the garden, that needed to be removed. The resident was told that they would be removed when she first moved in, but had not heard back from the landlord. The landlord explained that the person she was dealing with at the time had left the organisation, so the issues may have not been passed on to action. Subsequently, the landlord requested for the garden to be cleared.
In April 2021, the resident stated that she was informed by the landlord’s contractors that all fence panels should be replaced as they had holes in them and were unsafe. The landlord was unable to provide logs or outcome of visits from contractor/surveyor notes regarding the fencing, upon request by this service.
On 13 April 2021, the landlord raised a work order for the resident’s toilet to be secured and a cistern to the toilet crack to be investigated. The resident’s daughter’s bedroom door frame needed to be assessed as it was not secure and there was damp and mould under the stairs, the kitchen cupboards and in the downstairs bathroom so the landlord asked for an inspection of those areas.
On 15 April 2021, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint, received on 12 April 2021, (this service does not have a copy of the original complaint) noting the issues as follows:
1. The resident was told that all of her radiators needed to be on the same temperature to work and wanted a further investigation.
2. The installation of the landing radiator was outstanding.
3. The landlord had not removed the glass and material in the garden which was left by the previous tenant.
4. The fencing needed to be replaced as it was rotten and unsafe.
5. There was rising damp in the cupboard under the stairs and in the downstairs toilet and the kitchen cupboards smelt of damp.
6. The sink in the downstairs toilet was not secure and the cistern to the toilet was cracked.
7. The resident’s daughter’s bedroom door frame was not secure.
On 20 April 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended to carry out an inspection of the reports of damp and mould in the kitchen and raised an order to remove a kitchen unit back board, report back and renew board.
On the same day, the landlord issued its stage one complaint response, which stated:
1. New radiator valves were installed and the landlord’s contractor had explained to the resident how to use the valves correctly.
2. The landlord would repair the landing floorboards on 18 May 2021, so the new radiator could be installed.
3. The landlord would attend on 24 April 2021 to remove the waste material/glass.
4. The landlord’s surveyor would attend on 20 April 2021 to inspect the damp and mould.
5. The repair works to the fence were completed.
6. The landlord’s contractor would investigate the downstairs toilet and cistern repair on 27 April 2021.
7. The landlord’s contractor would attend on 18 May 2021, to look at the resident’s daughter’s doorframe.
On 20 May 2021 the resident stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response because of the following:
1. The repairs to the cracked toilet and her daughter’s bedroom doorframe were outstanding. The landlord’s contractor attended on 18 May 2021, but was unable to complete the works due to a lack of communication from the landlord.
2. Rising damp in the property was starting to ruin her belongings and was especially bad in the kitchen.
The landlord chased its contractors about the work raised followingthedamp and mould inspection. The contractors confirmed that they had attended and were due to finish the work on10 June 2021.
The resident explained to the landlord that its contractor had removed the kitchen cupboard, but had not been given any further instructions. The landlord noted that, as the kitchen unit had been removed, it was now able to investigate the issue.
On 17 June 2021, the landlord’s issued its final response which stated:
1. It failed to attend to repair to the toilet and sink because there was a technical error on its scheduling system. It apologised and rescheduled the appointment for 25 June 2021.
2. The landlord completed the damp and mould works to the downstairs toilet and under the cupboard and a further inspection of the damp in the kitchen would take place on 22 June 2021.
3. The work required to overboard the floorboards on the landing for the installation of the radiator was attended by the landlord’s contractor as planned, however, due to time restraints the work was not completed. A further appointment was scheduled for 6 July 2021 [and the radiator would be installed on the same day]. The landlord’s contractor would also repair the internal door frame on the same day.
At the end of June 2021, the resident reported that the new toilet was not secured to the floor, as a consequence she fell off it while using it. The landlord raised a work order to re-attend to secure the toilet.
On 9 July 2021, the landlord’s surveyor raised an order for the landlord’s contractors to remove the kitchen unit back board so they could inspect for damp and condensation and in the same month, the resident emailed the landlord and explained that she was still waiting for her daughter’s doorframe to be repaired.
At the end of August 2021the resident contacted the landlord as she was still waiting for her kitchen cupboards to be removed so the surveyor could inspect for damp and mould.
In September and October 2021 the resident’s MP and the landlord discussed the resident’s outstanding repairs. The landlord confirmed that it did not find any evidence of defects with the building fabric that were contributing to damp, but rather a lack of ventilation leading to excess moisture in the air and it was going to carry out further investigation in the week commencing 18 October 2021. It had also implemented a procedure whereby damp and moisture readings would be taken at every empty property before a new resident moved in.
In June 2023, the landlord stated that it carried out a further inspection of damp in the resident’s kitchen in March 2023 and explained that it had raised work orders to carry out works. The notes provided demonstrate that there were also still issues with damp in the downstairs toilet as there was no damp proof course.

Assessment and findings

Policies and procedures

The landlord’s lettable standard (which is a set of standard requirements a property must meet before the landlord lets the property to a resident) stated:
1. Paths, paving, steps, boundary walls, fences and gates, plus any garden buildings, are in reasonable repair and safe.
2. Gardens are clear of rubbish and grass is cut to a manageable level, maximum height.
3. Where it is considered reasonable and practical (e.g. for minor repairs) work may be undertaken after new tenants take up occupation.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy stated the following about its ‘no access’ process:
1. If two contact attempts are unsuccessful the planner will send an appointment card with job number, along with a description of the work to be carried and details of proposed appointment.
2. The repairs team manager will decide when it is appropriate to cancel a job due to no access. When the job is finally cancelled a letter is sent to the resident explaining the reasons, including the dates and time the landlord had visited the property and actions required by resident to re -order the repair.

Damp and mould within the resident’s kitchen

The resident reported damp and mould issuesin her kitchen on 18 January 2021, however the landlord failed to act on this report. It was only in April 2021, approximately three months later, when the resident made a formal complaint, that the landlord attended and inspected the resident’s kitchen. This is a service failure, which the landlord should have addressed in its stage one response.
Following the landlord’s inspection in April 2021, it raised works for its contractor to remove the kitchen unit back board, report back and renew the board, which they attended the property for in June 2021. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to coordinate this work with an inspection to reduce any potential further delays. The landlord then raised another order on 9 July 2021 for its contractor to return and remove the kitchen back board so they could inspect the area. It is not clear whether this work order related to the same area the contractor attended to in June or a different area. Nonetheless, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was either miscommunication between the landlord and its contractor, or other areas to inspect damp and mould were missed. Either way, it caused further delays in resolving the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen.
The resident asked the landlord in August 2021 for an update on when its contractor was going to remove her kitchen cupboards to allow for the inspection. It also appears that in September and October 2021, there were further inspections from different surveyors. However, the landlord failed, when asked by this service, to provide all call notes and outcome of visits, including surveyor notes relating to the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen.
The landlord stated in its internal communication that it had explained to the resident that there were delays with its contractors. Whilst this may be the case, the evidence provided demonstrates that the landlord’s inactions and repeat inspections and failure to take action at the earlier stages are the main reason for its delays and failure to deliver an adequate service.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord stated in its response to the resident’s MP in 2022, that, as part of putting things right, it had ensured that damp and mould readings were taken when its properties were void. This is a welcome addition to the landlord’s process and demonstrated that it was learning from the outcomes of complaints it had considered.
The landlord stated that another inspection was carried out in March 2023, where further works were raised. Although the landlord was unable to provide all the information and evidence relating to this inspection, it is clear that the landlord has carried out many inspections and raised many orders. The Ombudsman appreciates that resolving issues are not always straightforward and it can be a case of ruling out causes until the right one is identified. Where a process of elimination is required the Ombudsman would expect to see that an action plan is developed by the landlord which is overseen and closely monitored to ensure the correct cause is identified at the earliest opportunity and a prompt remedy is then implemented.
Whilst, this investigation focuses on the resident’s reports of damp and mould in her kitchen. It is clear that there were damp and mould issues in her downstairs bathroom and cupboard. Whilst, the landlord investigated the issues at the time the resident reported them, it is clear from the landlord’s records in 2023, the relevant was work to rectify the issues, were either outstanding or missed. This is unacceptable and indicates that the resident’s property has had damp and mould in areas other than the kitchen, which has been ongoing for approximately two or more years, and that the landlord has failed to fully resolve.

The installation of the landing radiator

The landlord raised an order in November 2020 for a radiator to be installed on the resident’s landing. Its contractor subsequently cancelled the order in March 2021, when the resident cancelled the appointment to install it in December 2020. The landlord’s contractor closed the work order, without demonstrating to the landlord that it had followed its procedure. Furthermore, the landlord failed to address this, in line with its responsive repairs policy and procedure.
As a consequence, the resident had to chase the landlord again in March 2021 to find out what was happening. This could have been avoided, if the landlord and its contractor followed its policy and procedure.
The landlord subsequently booked the landing floorboards to be repaired on 18 May 2021 so the radiator could be installed, however, its contractor ran out of time to complete the work, therefore it was rescheduled for early July 2021. It is clear that the landlord’s and its contractors’ errors caused unreasonable delays to install the radiator on the landing, approximately 8 months after the resident’s initial report.

Glass/rubbish in the garden

The resident reported that there was glass in the garden which meant it was unsafe for her children to play in, in January 2021. She reiterated the issue again in March 2021. It was not until April 2021, after the resident made a formal complaint, that the landlord arranged for the rubbish and glass to be removed.
There is no dispute that the rubbish and glassin the resident’s garden was left by the previous tenant. It is of concern that the rubbish was not removed before the resident moved in as it not only presented a potential health and safety risk, it also went against the landlord’s lettable standard which stated that gardens should be clear of rubbish.

Fencing

In October 2020, the resident raised her concerns that her fencing needed to be replaced. At that time the landlord determined that parts needed to be repaired, and it would not renew it. It subsequently agreed to inspect the fencing again in June 2021.
It is the Ombudsman’s understanding, that the landlord subsequently renewed the fencing. However, the landlord was unable to provide this service with relevant repair logs or the outcome of visits by its contractors and its surveyor to demonstrate that it responded and handled the fencing repair/renew satisfactorily.

Cracked toilet and cistern

When the resident reported that there were issues with her toilet and cistern in April 2021, the landlord promptly raised an order for its contractor to attend in the same month. However, when the resident raised her concerns that the contractors failed to attend, the landlord confirmed that the works were not booked due to a system error and it had to re-book the works for the end of June 2021. Although, the delay may have been due to a system error, the resident still incurred time and trouble because of it.
The Ombudsman notes that the landlord had to return to secure the toilet which it failed to dowhen it repaired/renewed the toilet. The Ombudsman acknowledges that there are times when a landlord would need to return to carry out follow up works. In this case, it appears that the landlord failed to complete the work at the first visit, which it would have been reasonable to do. Therefore, the resident incurred unnecessary time and trouble by way of reporting and having a subsequent visit for the landlord to complete the work to the toilet.

The resident’s daughter’s bedroom door/doorframe

The resident reported issues with her internal doors/door frames in October 2020. It is not clear if this included her daughter’s doorframe. Nonetheless, in the same month the landlord raised an order for them to be looked at. The landlord’s records show that it called and left a voicemail for the resident in the same month to book an appointment and in the following month, sent an operative on the off-chance the resident would be in.
It is not clear how the landlord continued to manage the work order after that, and it is not clear whether the resident’s daughter’s bedroom was included in the initial reports, as the landlord was unable to provide evidence by way of repair logs and outcome of visit notes. The landlord explained that it now uses a different repair system and that access to the previous system is limited and difficult, however it confirmed that seven doors were overhauled in November 2020 and provided a screenshot that stated the work as completed.
It appears the resident then raised her concerns about her daughter’s door frame in April 2021. Although the landlord’s contractor attended on 18 May 2021, the landlord explained that its contractor ran out of time on the day and booked in another appointment for 6 July 2021. It is not clear when and if this repair was completed as the landlord was unable to provide call logs/outcome of visits note, therefore, it failed to demonstrate that it handled this work order satisfactorily.

Record keeping

As part of this investigation, this service asked the landlord to provide key evidence to demonstrate that it reasonably handled the resident’s reported repairs, such as call logs/repair logs and outcome of visits by both itself and its contractors. Whilst, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord changed its repair system in January 2021, it is reasonable for the landlord to have access to those earlier records to demonstrate to itself, the resident and this service that it handled the resident’s reported repairs satisfactorily.
These gaps and omissions have meant the landlord has not been able to clearly demonstrate what steps it had taken to resolve the resident’s concerns, its overall management of the issues and condition of the property. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers it is appropriate to make a separate finding about the landlord’s record keeping in this case.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s reported repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping in relation to the matters raised in this complaint.

Reasons

Overall, the landlord failed to either raise the resident’s reported repairs and/or complete the repairs in a reasonable timeframe. On occasions it either failed to attend an appointment and/or had to reschedule works as it was unable to complete the works on the original dates. These failures negatively impacted the resident, as she had to chase the landlord for updates and have appointments rebooked.
It is particularly concerning that the resident had to chase the landlord for updates on the reported damp and mould issues in her kitchen throughout this case and after what appears to be several inspections, the issue has still not been resolved. It also appears there may be other areas of the resident’s home that have damp and mould that the landlord has failed to resolve.
The landlord failed to provide this service with supporting evidence by way of call logs/repair logs and outcome of visits by either its contractor or itself to demonstrate that it reasonably handled the resident’s reported repairs. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord changed its case management system, and explained that access to its previous system was challenging. However, it should be able to access to information that it relies on to satisfy itself, its residents, and this service that is delivering good customer service.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord should pay the resident £900 compensation, which comprises of:
1. £600 for its failures in handling the resident’s reported repairs adequately.
2. £300 for its poor record keeping.
The landlord must ensure all staff members and contractors are aware of the no access/cancellation provision of its responsive repairs policy and procedure and provide this service of evidence that it has done so within eight weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must instruct an independent surveyor to carry out a full damp and mould inspection of the resident’s property and provide evidence by way of a surveyor report within 8 weeks of the issue of this report. Any recommendations, should be carefully considered and implemented in a reasonable timeframe. The action plan should be shared with the resident and this service within 12 weeks of the issue of this report.
The landlord must contact the resident to clarify whether there are any outstanding repairs and carry out a full property inspection. If there are, it must implement a contact schedule with a single point of contact until the repairs are completed, and give this service evidence it has done so within four weeks of the issue of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord reviews its record keeping approach with reference to this service’s recommendations set out in our May 2023 Knowledge and Information Spotlight report.