One Vision Housing Limited (202124849)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202124849

One Vision Housing Limited

15 May 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of plastering works in the resident’s property.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant at the property of the landlord. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing.
3. It is evident that the resident experienced a leak at her property during 2021. It is not clear from the evidence provided to this service when this was reported to the landlord.
4. As a result of the leak, the landlord identified that the plaster in the resident’s property required removing and re-plastering. The landlord initially arranged for works on 16 July 2021 and 19 July 2021; however, the works were extensive and required additional appointments on 21 July 2021 and 22 July 2021. Following these appointments, further works were still required, and were arranged for 20 September 2021.
5. The resident raised a formal complaint as she considered the communication surrounding the booking of the further appointments was poor. The resident stated that she had to take additional unpaid days off work which had a financial impact. In addition, the resident further stated that her daughter had a severe dust allergy which was under advisement of a specialist, and the excessive amount of dust in the property as a result of the works had impacted her daughter.
6. In its stage one complaint response, the landlord upheld the resident’s complaint on the basis that the work had taken longer to complete than what was originally stated. It apologised and offered £30 compensation as a gesture of goodwill for the inconvenience caused by the delay in completing the plastering work.
7. In her complaint escalation, the resident stated that when the contractor was removing the old plaster from the walls, a TV in a separate room fell off the wall and broke. She stated that the contractor reported it at the time of the incident. The resident did not accept the compensation offered as she felt that this was not reasonable in light of the time taken off from work and the distress and inconvenience caused.
8. The landlord provided its final response in September 2021. It stated that it was unable to arrange its contractors to attend on 20 September 2021 to complete the plastering due to insufficient resources being available. In relation to the damaged TV, it stated that after speaking to the contractor and reviewing photographic evidence, it was determined that the removal of plaster from a separate wall would not have caused the TV to fall and, as such, it would not accept responsibility for the damaged TV; however, it directed the resident to her home contents insurance.
9. The resident escalated her complaint to this service in July 2022. She stated that she had no access to her kitchen due to the plastering works required. This resulted in having to purchase takeaway food, which in turn led the resident into rent arrears as she did not have the financial means to pay for both the cost of rent and of feeding her family. Due to the works the resident had to redecorate the property and replace the carpets, for which the landlord has not offered any financial support. In addition, the resident stated that she was informed she would have new windows installed and yet this has not been followed-up by the landlord. As a resolution, the resident would like compensation to be provided considering the inconvenience suffered as a result of the works.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

10. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding the impact the dust in the property had on her child’s health due to her having a severe allergy to dust which resulted in hospital admissions, but the Ombudsman is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. However, the Ombudsman has considered the general distress and inconvenience which the situation has caused the resident and her child.
11. The resident may be able to make a personal injury claim against the landlord if she considers that her child’s health has been affected by its actions or inactions. This is a legal process, and the resident should seek independent legal advice if she wants to pursue this option. The Ombudsman is unable to give legal advice and therefore cannot comment on this matter further.
12. In her escalation to this service, the resident has raised several issues which have not completed the landlord’s internal complaints procedures. These include rent arrears, redecoration of property, the duration of works taking six weeks, and window repairs. However, these matters were not raised to the landlord within the original complaint referred to this service. As these matters are a separate issue to the complaint raised with the service, this is not something that the Ombudsman can adjudicate on at this stage. If the resident raises a formal complaint to the landlord regarding these issues, and remains dissatisfied with its formal responses, she may then be able to refer them to this service.
13. This investigation has focused on the requirement for further appointments to complete the plastering work; the poor communication surrounding this; and the alleged breaking of a television by a contractor.

Assessment

14. Upon the arrival of the contractors and the commencement of the plastering work it became apparent that the two days scheduled for the work would not be sufficient. From the evidence provided, once the landlord was aware that additional works would be required, it immediately began trying to obtain plasterers to attend the property within a reasonable timescale considering the unexpected requirement for attendance at the property to be extended.
15. It is not evident that the landlord deliberately booked in insufficient dates for the works. It would not be a failing in the landlord’s service to request works be extended so long as the dates and times of the appointments were communicated effectively. However, this was not what occurred in this case.
16. The resident complained of poor communication in relation to this matter, as she had contacted the landlord to confirm if the appointments would go ahead, but did not receive the promised call-backs from the landlord. As such, the resident was left unsure if the appointments would proceed, causing her distress and inconvenience.
17. While the landlord recognised this inconvenience and offered £30 compensation to reflect the inconvenience caused, this is below what the Ombudsman would consider reasonable in the circumstances given the impact on the resident. Therefore, a finding of service failure has been made, as has an order for compensation of £100 to reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience as a result of the poor communication.
18. Regarding the resident’s reports about damage to her TV, the Ombudsman’s role is not to determine if the works caused the damage to the TV, but to assess the landlord’s investigation and subsequent communication of its position. In this case, the landlord completed an investigation which included reviewing photographic evidence and speaking with the contractors. Based on its contractor’s expert opinion the works would not have caused the television to fall from the wall, the landlord’s position that it was not responsible for the damage was reasonable in the circumstances. In such circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to refer a resident to their insurer, and so it was appropriate it did this in its formal response.

Determination

19. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in way the landlord handled the plastering works in the resident’s property.

Orders

20. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident £100 compensation in light of its poor communication. This is inclusive of the £30 previously offered and should be paid within four weeks of this report.