Places for People Group Limited (201910641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910641

Places for People Group Limited

11 January 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

The resident’s complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and condensation in the property.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dripping taps and the hot water temperature.
3. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied a 2-bedroom first floor flat under an assured tenancy. The tenancy began on 16 July 2007.

Legal and policy framework

While the Ombudsman has not seen the tenancy agreement, section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies a term that the landlord must keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling-house and the system for providing hot water. It also implies into the agreement a term that that the property is fit for human habitation in relation to freedom from damp.
Under section 11 of the same act and section 16 of the Housing Act 1988 respectively, (a) the landlord had a right of access to the property (with certain conditions) in order to inspect its condition and state of repair (b) the resident was obliged to give access for the purpose of carrying out repairs.
Under the landlord’s repairs handbook, the landlord stated it was responsible for maintaining the fixtures and fittings it had provided, including maintaining and replacing basins and water supply. The resident was responsible for replacing washers to taps to stop any dripping.

Chronology

The evidence showed that there had been a lengthy history to this complaint. The resident had made reports in relation to his taps/water temperature and damp and mould on two or three separate occasions between 2010 and 2018.
While the Ombudsman has noted the longer history and background, this investigation will focus on the period from 19 November 2018, the date of the resident’s complaint. This is because there was a lengthy gap between the conclusion of the first stage of the complaint on 27 June 2019 and the resident’s complaint escalation on 7 January 2020. The Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable and sufficient period of time to consider and that it would be disproportionate for the Ombudsman to investigate the period over a number of years.
According to the landlord, the resident made a complaint about damp and mould in his flat which the landlord received on 19 November 2018. The landlord responded to the resident on 27 November 2018 as follows: It noted that that the reported issues had been diagnosed as condensation and ventilation related issues. However, it had also noted that the resident and his surveyor believed that the issues were damp related. In the circumstances, it had raised a damp survey to be undertaken by its specialist damp contractor. It would update the resident further by 19 December 2018, by which time the survey would have been undertaken.
The landlord’s independent surveyor wrote to the resident on 28 November 2018 to state that it had been unable to contact him to arrange an assessment of the damp issues he had reported in his property. It offered to carry out a survey on 5 December 2018 or on a mutually convenient date. It invited the resident to contact the contractor to make the necessary arrangements. According to the landlord, neither heard back from the resident at that time.
According to the landlord’s records, the next contact by the resident was when he telephoned the landlord on 10 May 2019 in relation to the damp. It offered to raise a repair, but the resident declined the offer. It sought advice internally as to any next steps. The resident telephoned again on 22 May 2019 in relation to the damp as he had not heard back. He reported that his breathing was being affected by damp and as a result of which he was attending hospital.
On 23 May 2019, the landlord noted that it had made numerous attempts to contact the resident by telephone, text and letter since November 2018 in relation to his reports of damp within the property. It had, however, made contact with the resident and made progress regarding arranging a survey though the resident had not agreed anything definite. According to the landlord’s records, it tried to contact the resident to follow up on 24 May 2019.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 25May 2019 to state thathe refused an inspection by the surveyor on the basis he was awaiting for a surveyor “from the ombudsman” and in order to speak to his solicitor first. In addition, the landlord had sent a surveyor five years previously and no steps had been taken.
According to the landlord’s internal email, the resident telephoned the landlord on 28 May 2019 to report he had a lung infection caused by the condition of his property. The landlord tried to contact the resident on the same day, without success.
On 6 June 2019, the landlord wrote to the resident that it had not heard from the resident following its offer of a survey in November 2018. It advised that if a survey were allowed to be undertaken, progress to address the issues the resident reported could be made. It “politely requested” that he agreed to a survey. It had made provisional arrangements for a specialist survey to be undertaken in the resident’s home on either 18 June 2019 or 21 June 2019, dependent on what date better suited the resident. It asked the resident to contact it by 13 June 2019 to confirm a date. There was no evidence the resident contacted the landlord and the landlord reflected that was the case in its letter of 6 July 2021.
It wrote to the resident again on 21 June 2019 and offered subsequent appointments on 2 July 2019 and 5 July 2019.
On 27 June 2019, the landlord wrote again stating that the resident contacted the landlord to refuse the survey. It explained that a survey would be a crucial step in resolving any damp and mould issues. It invited the resident to reconsider his decision and agree to the survey taking place. It also invited the resident to contact its customer service team if he was dissatisfied with how it had handled the resident’s complaint.
There is no evidence that the resident pursued the matter until he contacted this service on 14 November 2019. As a result, the landlord wrote to this service on 19 December 2019 to explain that the resident’s complaint was closed under its stage 1 process in June 2019, and the resident had not asked to escalate his complaint at that time.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 January 2020 to escalate his complaint, stating that he had made numerous reports spanning over a decade about damp and condensation and that the property was not properly insulated or ventilated. He said that the landlord stated that it would repair dripping taps but did not return to carry out the works. The water temperature was too high to the point he was getting scalded. As a resolution to his complaint, he wanted a new kitchen and bathroom with “proper” ventilation and insulation.
According to the landlord’s internal email of 20 January 2020, the resident agreed to having a survey. It noted that it would take time to contact the resident due to his “personal circumstances”.
According to the landlord’s records, a number of repairs were completed on 30 January 2020, including renewing the kitchen and bathroom taps, the stopcock “where required”, installing a new cylinder thermostat to resolve the hot water temperature issue.
On 11 February 2020, the landlord’s independent surveyor wrote to the resident to confirm an appointment for 18 February 2020. According to the landlord, the resident had initially sent a text agreeing to the appointment but then cancelled the appointment subsequently with the contractor.
On 20 February 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident with its final complaint response as follows:
1. The resident had raised concerns about damp on 16 February 2010, and made further reports on 27 January 2014 and 10 February 2014. Remedial works were completed 13 May 2014. Further damp was reported on 19 April 2016. A specialist damp survey was requested but not “completed”. On receiving a further report on 17 February 2017, the landlord further requested a survey. The landlord placed an order to carry out remedial works on 23 May 2017.
2. It apologised for the lack of progress but its findings were that it had tried to undertake a specialist survey on a number of occasions. It appreciated that his health issues had contributed to the difficulties in making the arrangements. It invited the resident to make fresh arrangements for a survey to be carried out.
3. The complaint about dripping taps and the hot water temperature was raised in the resident’s request for escalation on 7 January 2020. It stated that washers were usually the responsibility of the resident, however it had replaced the taps and stop-cock on 30 January 2020 as a gesture of good will. On 10 February 2020, the resident reported that he was experiencing water pressure issues, the water was very hot and the bath was very slow to fill. It stated that the water pressure was unrelated to the thermostat. The resident refused to have the same contractor so the landlord arranged for another contractor to attend on 18 February 2020. The landlord requested confirmation of that appointment, given the resident had cancelled the survey and the operative was travelling from the mainland in order to carry out the works. The appointment was cancelled. The landlord invited the resident to rearrange the appointment, giving a week’s notice.
4. In relation to the resident’s request for a new kitchen, bathroom and upgraded ventilation and insulation, this would require that a survey be undertaken. The kitchen and bathroom were due to be assessed as part of its “investment” programme in 2020/1. The resident would be contacted after April 2020. A condition survey in September 2018 recommended that the bathroom be considered for replacement in 2028. It would survey the bathroom “at the appropriate time”.
5. It felt it could have engaged more proactively in seeking its agreement to carry out a survey. It invited the resident to contact the landlord to agree to a survey as a necessary preliminary to further works. The letter concluded the second and final stage of the complaints process.
While the Ombudsman does not investigate events that post-date the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint process, it is noted that on 1 July 2021, the landlord’s surveyor attended the property to assess the resident’s reports he had made on 28 June 2021. On 6 July 2021, it wrote to the resident to state that the thermostat was set to the correct temperature and the water temperate was adequate. It also referred to and repeated a previous offer of June 2021, to undertake works to the extraction systems in the kitchen and bathroom and offered to address some mould present in the property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and condensation in the property.

The landlord’s responsibilities were not in dispute. While the Ombudsman has not had sight of the resident’s tenancy agreement, the landlord was under an obligation in law to maintain in repair the structure of the building and keep in repair and in proper working order the system for providing hot water. It also had an obligation in law that the property be fit for habitation in relation to damp.
Damp can be caused by external factors such as water ingress, or by internal factors such as condensation. Condensation can be caused and prevented by the way a resident uses the property, such as lack of heating and ventilation. Equally, it can be caused by a number of factors for which a landlord would be responsible such as faulty extractor fans. The Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould cautions landlords against not properly investigating the causes of damp and mould and blaming the resident’s “lifestyle”, to be proactive and not reactive.
The evidence showed that the landlord had initially diagnosed the resident’s reports of damp and mould as due to poor ventilation and insulation. There was no evidence whether it considered this to be the responsibility of the resident or the landlord. However, the evidence that the Ombudsman reviewed showed that it did not dispute its obligations. It was both appropriate and reasonable that it offered a specialist damp survey in order to determine the nature and causes of the damp and mould, in order to determine the remedy.
The landlord was entitled to consider that a damp survey was the appropriate response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The evidence also showed that it explained the reasons why a survey was a necessary preliminary step, which explanation was reasonable, and it kept the offer of a survey open.
While there was no evidence of any particular vulnerability of the resident, the landlord made reference to the resident’s personal circumstances. It made adjustments as to the difficulty in contacting him and arranging to inspect the property by offering alternative appointments and seeking mutually convenient times. The evidence showed that the landlord made a number of efforts to contact the resident and to arrange a survey, by offering fresh appointments in writing, even when it did not receive a response, and being clear in what it expected from the resident by way of confirmation of those appointments.
The evidence also showed that the resident either refused access or, on many occasions, did not respond to the landlord’s or contractor’s communications. The resident’s reasons for refusal (waiting for a surveyor from the Ombudsman, seeking advice or having had a survey some years previously) were decisions made freely by the resident. No fault can be attributed to the landlord for those decisions by the resident. The Ombudsman would not provide a surveyor as part of its function as this Service is not able to carry out individual property inspections or definitively diagnose causes of issues such as damp and mould. Our role in such cases is to consider the documentary evidence, including any relevant inspections or surveys carried out, and then assess whether the landlord’s actions were reasonable and appropriate in the circumstances and whether it complied with its repair obligations.
The landlord exercised its discretion reasonably in not insisting on or enforcing, as it was entitled to do, its rights of access. It also exercised its discretion reasonably in acceding to the resident’s request for an alternative surveyor. This demonstrated the landlord’s willingness to work with the resident and to identify a resolution.
There is no evidence that the landlord considered offering to treat the effects of the damp (cleaning any mould) in the meantime, until June 2021. While it would be sensible to assess the property in order to treat the cause of any damp or mould, cleaning and applying mould paint, for example, may have been a proportionate step to have taken in order to alleviate the effects of any mould on the resident, even if he refused a survey. However, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord made reasonable attempts to gain access and to engage with the resident, and in the circumstances does not consider there was service failure by the landlord. However, the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
In relation to the resident’s reports that his health was affected by damp in the property, the Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration (if any) has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and/or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a complainant but only where there has been a service failure by a landlord.
The Ombudsman recognises that the resident was distressed by the presence of damp and mould in his property and that he felt frustrated by what he felt to be a lack of action. However, given that the landlord offered to undertake a survey as a preliminary step to carrying out remedial works, which the resident did not agree to and in the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has not found that there has been service failure by the landlord in any event.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dripping taps and the hot water temperature.

The resident would have been responsible for the replacement of the tap washers but not for any disrepair to the taps themselves. While the evidence is not clear whether the dripping taps were due to the washers or the taps themselves, the landlord reasonably accepted responsibility for their repair and replacement.
The evidence showed that the landlord dealt with the hot water temperature by replacing the hot water cylinder within a reasonable time following the resident’s report of 7 January 2020. It was reasonable of the landlord to separate the water pressure issues from the water temperature issues. The landlord acted reasonably in arranging for a contractor to attend and to seek confirmation that the resident would provide access, given the difficulties of previous appointments and the complicated journey the contractor would have to undertake. The landlord also acted appropriately by leaving the offer of an inspection and repair open, while reasonably being clear it would require a week’s notice to make the arrangements. The Ombudsman does not find service failure in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s complaint handing

The Ombudsman appreciates that the landlord did not close the complaint in November 2018 as it considered that the complaint had not been resolved by it arranging for a surveyor to attend. However, as a result, and given the resident did not provide access to the surveyor, the complaint was left suspended until June 2019. The landlord did not provide a first stage response, until the resident contacted it again in May 2019. This was an unreasonable delay, which rendered the process unclear and may have led the resident to contacting this service in December 2019. While the Housing Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s complaints policy during the period, the timescale was not in line with best practice. However, in the Ombudsman’s view, while the resident incurred some trouble due to the delays and lack of absolute clarity, there was no evidence of an overall significant impact on the resident.
It is noted that the landlord treated its letter of 27 June 2019 as its stage one response. While it invited the resident to contact the landlord if he was not happy with the resolution, the letter did not explicitly advise the resident of his entitlement to escalate the complaint. In the Ombudsman’s view, it should have done so to ensure the resident could be clear of any next steps. It is noted that the landlord may well have changed its practices since 2019, however the Ombudsman will make a recommendation to ensure that this is addressed.
It was reasonable of the landlord to accept the resident’s request his complaint second months later. It was also reasonable of the landlord to provide a full review of the history of the case and provide a detailed response.
The landlord’s reasons why it did not offer a new kitchen and bathroom were reasonable. In the Ombudsman’s view, it would have been disproportionate for the landlord to have incurred the high cost of a replacement prematurely, without first having explored remedial works. Moreover, the refurbishment was already part of a planned programme and the necessity of a refurbishment had been assessed previously. The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for an upgraded extraction system was reasonable. A survey would be necessary in order to identify the issues and again, it left the offer open for the resident to reconsider.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there was:
1. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and condensation in the property.
2. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of dripping taps and the hot water temperature.
3. No maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord responded to the resident’s reports of damp and offered to undertake a specialist damp survey in order to identify any causes and any remedial works. No fault is attributed to the landlord for the resident declining the offer, in particular given it made repeated and proportionate attempts to progress matters and engage with the resident.
The landlord undertook remedial works in relation to the taps and water temperature within a reasonable time of the resident’s reports.
While the landlord’s complaint handling could have been more disciplined and followed a clearer path, it addressed the resident’s concerns and undertook a thorough review of the repairs history. The landlord‘s decision not to undertake a refurbishment except in accordance with its existing plans as a resolution of the resident’s complaint was reasonable.

Recommendations

The landlord should, if it has not done so already, provide training to ensure that its complaints processes are adhered to, in terms of both timescales and that it proactively follows up and concludes complaints. It should also ensure, again if it has not amended its practices already, that the first stage response sets out the resident’s right to and how to escalate their complaint. The landlord is referred to the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Code. Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The landlord is referred to the Housing Ombudsman’s report on damp and mould in relation to best practice and should share this with the relevant teams. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).