One Manchester Limited (202318825)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202318825
One Manchester Limited
24 September 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 handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould at her previous address.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
- the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
Background
- The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord. The property is a 3 bedroom terraced house. The resident lives in the property with her brother, her daughter and her niece. She is disabled and has an auto immune disease.
- There were repair issues in a previous property the resident lived in, which was owned by the landlord. This resulted in a legal disrepair claim and the resident was decanted to a new property in August 2023. During the move between each property, the resident alleged that her personal belongings had been damaged by the landlord’s removal contractor. She submitted a claim to the landlord for damages in the region of £8,000.
- On 18 August 2023, the day after moving into the new property, the resident reported issues with the electrics, and said that her shower was not working correctly. On 22 September 2023 the resident asked the landlord to send a surveyor to the property. She said that there were “various issues” with the electrics and the bathroom window had been sealed shut.
- The resident made a complaint on 1 November 2023. She said it had been “hell” since she had become a tenant of the landlord and nothing had been done. She asked for contact from a manager and compensation. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at stage 1 of its process on 20 November 2023. It said that:
- it acknowledged that its service had not been delivered in line with expectations, and it was sorry it had failed to resolve her repairs. It had raised new works orders and arranged for a full property inspection by a surveyor.
- it had sent her a form to fill out with regards to her request for compensation for damaged belongings, but could not see she had signed and returned it.
- it was sorry if she felt that the landlord was not listening to her. It had asked for a neighbourhood officer to carry out a tenancy experience visit to discuss her concerns.
- On 3 January 2024 the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. She said that the landlord had not completed repairs it had assured her were raised in its stage 1 response. She explained that she had mental health conditions which had worsened since moving into the property and she felt she had been lied to.
- The landlord provided the resident with a stage 2 complaint response on 7 February 2024. It said that:
- repairs at her previous address had taken longer due to the Covid-19 pandemic. She had raised new concerns about additional issues which had not been part of her original complaint, but it had taken ownership of these and wanted to respond to all points she remained dissatisfied with.
- it had been “unacceptably slow” to react to requests for repairs and did not carry out a thorough investigation at stage 1 of its complaint process. To put this right, it had collated a list of repairs and they were in progress. It agreed that some of the work could have been completed before she had moved in, and for this it was sorry.
- with regards to her claim for compensation for damaged belongings during the move, it accepted it did not raise a complaint directly with the contractor in good time. It had arranged to have a meeting about her experience and would provide her with an update after 8 February 2024.
- it wanted to offer her £2,500 in compensation, broken down as:
- £100 for its failure to follow its complaint policy, and an additional £400 for the inconvenience.
- £400 for not identifying repairs sooner, and an additional £100 for the inconvenience.
- £1,000 for not acting quickly enough to remedy defects at her new address and for any inconvenience caused.
- £500 for not referring her complaint about damaged personal items to its removal contractors in a timely manner.
- The landlord later met with the removal contractor and agreed an additional £500 as a goodwill gesture, bringing the total amount of compensation to £3,000. On 12 March 2023 the landlord contacted the resident and explained that as the repairs it had agreed with her had been completed, this was its final offer.
- The resident responded the same day and said that she was dissatisfied with the total compensation offered, and repairs remained outstanding. In recent correspondence with the Ombudsman, she has advised that some repairs remain outstanding. She said has been informed she will be moving out of the property to allow for the repairs to take place, but has had no further communication about when this will be.
Assessment and findings
Jurisdiction
- What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
- Paragraph 42.e. of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where a complainant has or had the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.
- After reporting several repairs at her previous address, the resident engaged with solicitors and brought a disrepair claim against the landlord. A court hearing was set for 1 September 2023, however both parties reached a settlement agreement by way of a Tomlin Order on 30 March 2023. As part of the order, the landlord had to:
- pay the resident £1,500 as full and final settlement of all claims.
- carry out a schedule of works which had been identified within 84 days.
- As a result, the Ombudsman is unable to consider the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould at her previous address.
Scope of investigation
- It is recognised the situation has caused the resident distress. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact living conditions have had on the health of herself and her family. She has alleged that her elderly mother fell over and injured herself as a result of tripped electrics. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. We cannot establish what caused any health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs
- Given the resident’s experience in her previous property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have ensured a smooth transition into the new property. The landlord’s repair records demonstrate the new property became void in March 2023 and major works were completed until it was deemed ready to let on 8 August 2023. However the day after moving in on 17 August 2023, the resident reported that the electric sockets on the landing and living room were not working.
- The landlord has an obligation under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) to ensure that there is adequate light in a property, and in accordance with the its repair policy, it should have attended the property to inspect it within 24 hours. However there is no evidence that it did so, and the resident had to chase the landlord again on 30 August 2023 which was unreasonable.
- The landlords records do not demonstrate that it acted swiftly on the resident’s concerns which was inappropriate. It did not respond to her request for a surveyor to visit the property to rectify the “various issues” she had found as she settled into the property. This demonstrated a lack of ownership of the repairs and resulted in the resident making a formal complaint.
- The stage 1 response was an opportunity for the landlord to put matters right for the resident. Whilst it apologised for its failure in service, it should not have taken approximately 3 months and a formal complaint for the landlord to have raised the required repairs. In its response, the landlord took no learning from her complaint and failed to consider its compensation policy or offer the resident any form of financial redress which was unreasonable.
- It is only after the resident escalated her complaint, that the landlord attended the property to do an inspection, which included a review of mould found in the bathroom. There is no evidence that the landlord arranged for a full damp survey, but it did ask its repointing contractors to attend the property on 17 January 2024 to provide their assessment of what needed to be done to the front and rear elevation.
- The repointing contractors made a number of recommendations to the landlord, but made it clear that it was not within their remit to repair the kitchen and extractor fans. As a result, the completion of these repairs was delayed. The failure to instruct a damp specialist and identify a schedule of works at an earlier date caused the resident evident frustration and inconvenience.
- The landlord’s records note that a meeting took place with the resident on 24 January 2024 to discuss her complaint. Minutes of the meeting were not seen, however the landlord’s final response alludes to a list of repairs being agreed with the resident. The agreed list was not specified within the landlord’s response, nor was it provided as evidence to the Ombudsman. It is therefore difficult to conclude what repairs the landlord had agreed to complete with the resident around this time.
- The landlord’s final response on 7 February 2024 acknowledged that it had been “unacceptably slow” to react to the resident’s requests for repairs and accepted that “some work” could have been completed before she moved in. Although the landlord apologised and offered the resident £1,500 for its failures which was reasonable, it failed to set out what it had learnt from her experience. Furthermore there is no evidence that it made clear within its response what outstanding repairs works would take place when.
- As a result it is clear that less than a month after the conclusion of her complaint, the resident informed the landlord that repairs remained incomplete and the situation was making her “ill to the point of fear and no sleep”. Whilst it is accepted that the landlord has been in more regular contact with the resident, particularly since July 2024, it was not until 9 September 2024 that a senior building surveyor attended the property and only recently has it instructed a full damp survey. The additional delay in concluding matters 7 months after the landlord’s final response was unreasonable, resulting in a finding of maladministration.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings.
- The resident has alleged damage to her personal possessions as a result of damp and mould in her previous address. As explained in paragraph 13 of this investigation report, matters relating to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues relating to her previous address are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This assessment will focus on the resident’s claims that items were damaged by the landlord’s removal contractors during the move between the 2 addresses.
- It is not the Ombudsman’s role to determine liability for any damage caused to the resident’s possessions. This would be dealt with as an insurance claim or through the courts. It is our role to investigate whether the landlord acted fairly and reasonably, in line with its policies and procedures.
- On 18 September 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to start a claim for items she believed had been damaged by its removal contractors. The landlord’s compensation policy states that it does not have an internal process with regards to making an insurance claim, but any request for reimbursement of damaged items will be assessed as part of a submitted complaint.
- In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord responded to the resident’s correspondence and it did not recognise that it had not yet opened a complaint for it to address the issue. However, evidence demonstrates that at some point she was sent a form to fill out, as a signed document was sent back to the landlord dated 20 September 2023 with an accompanying hand written letter. The resident also sent the landlord photos to support her claim around the same time.
- The landlord failed to promptly acknowledge the resident’s claim, and the information it gave the resident within its stage 1 response on 20 November 2023 stating it was yet to receive a returned form, was incorrect. The failure to action the resident’s request as soon as possible through consultation with its moving contractors caused the resident inconvenience, time and trouble.
- It is not until around January 2024 and after the resident requested an escalation to her complaint, that the landlord raised the matter with its contractors. The delay of approximately 4 months from when she first raised the issue was unreasonable and contributed to the resident’s feeling that she was “not being listened to”.
- The Ombudsman issued guidance on insurance claims in 2020. Within this, it explained that landlords should consider whether to refer the matter to its insurers, particularly where a complainant is unable to evidence the level of damages they are claiming. In the absence of a clear process for potential claims for insurance, the landlord did not demonstrate whether it had considered referring the matter to its insurers, although it is recognised it dealt with her concerns in accordance with its compensation policy. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to review this process to ensure its service delivery is consistent.
- In determining whether there has been service failure or maladministration we consider both the events that initially prompted a complaint and the landlord’s response to those events. The extent to which a landlord has recognised any shortcomings and the appropriateness of any steps taken to offer redress are as relevant as the original mistake or service failure.
- In this case, the landlord acknowledged in its final response that it had not dealt with the resident’s concerns or approached its contractors in a timely manner. It apologised for its mismanagement of her request, which was appropriate. The resident was offered £500, which was beyond the scope detailed within the landlord’s compensation policy for “severe disruption”. The amount the landlord offered the resident for its delays was reasonable.
- The evidence shows that the landlord followed up on assurances that it would liaise with its contractors to further discuss her claims. During these discussions, the contractor assessed the resident’s claim and said that whilst it “may have been possible” minor damage could have been caused to her gas cooker, there was no supporting evidence it could have caused the extent of damage she was claiming for her sofa or fitted wardrobes.
- With no evidence to support there had been poor performance of the landlord’s contractors, a decision was made to award the resident £500 as a goodwill gesture to conclude matters. The amount offered to the resident was reasonable, bringing the total compensation to £1,000.
- Overall, there were delays in acknowledging the resident’s request for compensation for damaged belongings. The landlord took responsibility for its shortcomings and put matters right within its final response. It reviewed the evidence the resident had provided in partnership with its contractors and it compensated her beyond the scope of its compensation policy, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
- The resident first made her complaint on 1 November 2023. The landlord was slightly delayed in responding to her in accordance with its policy, but offered no apology, which was unreasonable. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have discussed the resident’s concerns fully, prior to providing her with a stage 1 response. By failing to do so, it did not have a full understanding of her complaint and as a result, key aspects were missed.
- The resident made it clear on 3 January 2024 that she wanted to escalate her complaint to the next stage. On this occasion, the landlord met with the resident to discuss her concerns in depth and agreed an extension to respond to her at stage 2 which was reasonable. The landlord also agreed to include additional matters which had not previously been raised as part of the resident’s complaint which was fair and demonstrated a willingness to put matters right.
- The final response acknowledged that there had been an initial failure to follow its complaint policy. It set out how it understood its failures had arisen and apologised for the inconvenience it had caused her. The £500 in compensation it offered the resident was beyond the upper limits in accordance with its policy for complaint handling failures. The amount was fair and was sufficient to put matters right, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
Determination
- In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the residents’ reports of repairs.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damaged belongings, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
- In accordance with paragraph 53.b. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion resolves the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint satisfactorily, resulting in a finding of reasonable redress.
- In accordance with paragraph 42.e. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs, damp and mould at her previous address is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
Orders and recommendations
Orders
- The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for the failures noted within this report, within 4 weeks. The apology should be issued using the Apologies Guidance.
- The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £3,600 in compensation. The amount is to be paid directly and not offset against any arrears, within 4 weeks. The amount is made up of:
- £3,000 the landlord offered the resident at stage 2 of its complaint process, if not already paid.
- £600 for the additional distress and inconvenience caused to the resident as a result of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs at the current property.
- Within 4 weeks the landlord should provide the resident with a written update of its plan of action with regards to the outstanding repairs, including any plans for a temporary decant.
- Within 4 weeks, in accordance with paragraph 54.g. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to provide the Ombudsman and the resident with a review to include an explanation of what it has understood its failures to be in relation to the its handling of the resident’s repairs. In doing so, it should include:
- what it has learnt from the resident’s repairs experience from the start of her tenancy at the current address, and how it will use her experience to improve its future service.
- an explanation of how the landlord will track outstanding repairs through to conclusion.
Recommendations
- The landlord is recommended to review its process for claims for damages, using the Ombudsman’s guidance on insurance claims.