Places for People Group Limited (202118128)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118128

Places for People Homes Limited

18 April 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 a number of repairs at the resident’s home.

Background

2. The resident, who is an assured tenant, submitted a complaint with the landlord on 25 June 2021 in which several repair concerns were raised. These concerns were regarding a fence repair that had been outstanding for two years, a door replacement that had remained outstanding since the previous year, time taken to fix a toilet, a bathroom replacement, and that the property had only been painted once in the previous 21 years.
3. The landlord addressed these concerns in its stage one response, and the issues raised were resolved. However, following the resident’s stage two escalation request an inspection of the property was conducted, on 4 January 2022, and several other issues were identified. These issues included several problems with the bathroom (mould, broken light and extractor fan), the identification of the need to replace the kitchen, the resident’s concerns regarding the flooring in her bedroom and the possible risk to the structural integrity, the need for new window and door fittings and architraves, cracking in the bedroom window, issues with the guttering, and a loose car port facia board that the resident believed was a fire risk.
4. The landlord’s final response of 10 January 2022 acknowledged each of these issues and confirmed that its service had fallen short of the required standard. It assured the resident that she would be issued with repair dates for the issues by 17 January 2022. Additionally, due to distress and inconvenience, the landlord offered £100 compensation, and £60 in decoration vouchers.
5. The issues were resolved on several visits between 24 February 2022 and 20 July 2022. However, the kitchen was not scheduled for renewal, and the bathroom extractor fan was not repaired as the landlord did not gain access during its visit. The resident advised that she wanted the identified repairs to be carried out as stated in the landlord’s final response.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs at the resident’s home

Rear Door

6. In its stage one response of 9 July 2021, the landlord acknowledged that the previous year the resident had requested a new rear door. The door had been ordered on 14 December 2020, but it had not been fitted. It advised that the door had been made and was ready to be quality checked, and that it would keep in contact with the suppliers to ensure that an appointment would be made to fit the door.
7. However, on 6 November 2021, the resident had to chase the landlord as the door had still not been installed. It is evident that the landlord had failed to manage the resident’s expectations. It had assured the resident that its door supplier would contact her so that it could be fitted, however, the resident was left to chase the issue as she had not heard anything.
8. Not only is communication between a landlord and its resident important, but communication between its contractors and suppliers is just as vital. Failure to maintain clear lines of communication with its contractors and suppliers caused the resident unnecessary involvement through having to chase a repair.
9. In its final response, of 10 January 2022, the landlord advised that an order had been raised for the replacement of the rear door and that it was ready for installation. However, in an internal email on 3 April 2023, over a year later, the landlord confirmed that nothing could be found regarding the fitting of the rear door, even though it said in its final response that this would be done.
10. The fitting of the rear door had remained outstanding for over two years, since at least 14 December 2020 when the landlord stated the door had been ordered. The landlord provided no reason for why the door could not have been fitted, and consistently advised the resident that the door was ready for installation, and that its contractor would be in touch to arrange the fitting.
11. The landlord’s failure to communicate appropriately with the resident, its supplier and contractor, and failure to ensure that the door was fitted within a reasonable period of time represents maladministration by the landlord. It also remains unclear whether the issue has not been resolved or remains outstanding. As a result, the landlord has been ordered to pay further compensation in recognition of these failures and, if the door has not yet been installed, ensure that it contacts the resident in order to progress and complete the work.

Bathroom

12. On 18 November 2021, the resident advised the landlord that there was mould on the bathroom ceiling. The inspection carried out on 4 January 2022 identified that the extractor fans were not working sufficiently. The ducting fans were in poor condition, poorly installed, and due to a kink in the ducting, pooling water was causing the presence of mould in the bathroom. The landlord identified the required fixes, and also confirmed that a mould wash was to be completed.
13. Section 4.3.3 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “appointable repairs” are to be completed within 28 days of the issue being reported. However, even though the first report of mould in the bathroom was made on 18 November 2021, the work to remedy this was not raised until the inspection on 4 January 2022.
14. Damp and mould can be a serious health and safety hazard. Handling of such an issue should be treated with diligence and urgency. As soon as the issue was reported, the landlord should have considered the possible health risks to the resident, and used its discretion to quickly identify the presence of the mould, the cause, and put in place a remedy.
15. However, even after the need for work was identified on 4 January 2022, the mould wash was not completed until 24 February 2022. This was several weeks after the work was raised, but more significantly, three months after the issue was reported in November 2021 This delay was not acceptable, especially when the potential health and safety concerns are considered.
16. Additionally, whilst the mould wash was completed, this did not address the root cause of the issue itself. As noted by the landlord, the extractor fans in the bathroom also needed replacing/fixing.
17. The landlord advised this Service that it attended on 1 April 2022 to carry out the work to the extractor fans, the operative could not gain access on this day, and that the work was still outstanding as the resident never chased up the repair.
18. Given the seriousness of the presence of mould, it would be appropriate for the landlord to have been proactive in this situation, and to have followed-up with the resident in order to rearrange the appointment. The failure to treat the matter with urgency, and to leave the work outstanding amounts to maladministration by the landlord.

Kitchen Replacement

19. Following a visit from a surveyor on 4 January 2022, it was identified that there were “various issues” with the kitchen due to “numerous repairs and age”. The landlord determined that the kitchen was at the end of its life expectancy and was due for a renewal. The landlord also recognised that the renewal was overdue.
20. Following this, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to explain the reason for the delay, what it planned to do, and ensure that the resident was kept informed and her expectations managed.
21. The landlord did explain that over the previous years, there had been changes in its financial priorities, and therefore cyclical works such as the replacement of kitchens had been delayed. However, it did note that the programme had been reinstated and that it was established that the resident’s kitchen was due for renewal in 2022/23.
22. Whilst it was positive that the landlord informed the resident as to the reason for the delay, it would have been appropriate to inform its residents of this change to its service delivery as and when it happened. It was unfair to leave a resident’s kitchen to deteriorate to the point where she had to chase this information.
23. Additionally, although the landlord identified the need for renewal in 2022/23, an internal email sent in early April 2023 showed that there was no schedule for the kitchen renewal, the resident’s kitchen not appearing on the landlord’s planned investment programme or ad hoc programme.
24. The landlord had identified issues with the resident’s kitchen, and advised that the kitchen was scheduled for renewal in the coming year. The landlord failed to ensure that the resident’s kitchen renewal was scheduled, resulting in further delays in having the issue resolved. If were the case that the landlord was not to renew the kitchen within the timeframe that had been provided, it should have advised the resident of this and sought to identify any temporary repairs that would bring her kitchen to a reasonable standard in the meantime. However, there is no evidence that it did so.

Windows, Door Fittings and Architraves

25. The landlord’s inspection on 4 January 2022 found that the external window cills were rotten due to “poor cyclical maintenance”, and that work was required to remedy this. The resident also felt that the ground level architraves had also not been adequately maintained over the years, and as a result, some had rotted.
26. The landlord acknowledged that there had been service failure, and that had these been maintained and painted on a regular basis, they would have been better preserved. The landlord also apologised that this had not been addressed until the resident had raised it as a formal complaint.
27. It was not disputed that the landlord was responsible for doors, fixtures and fittings within the property. The landlord’s failure to maintain these fixtures and fittings to a reasonable standard was a failure. Following the recognition that it had failed to adequately maintain these aspects of the resident’s property, it was appropriate for the landlord to offer the resident compensation in recognition of this. The landlord confirmed that it had carried out work to the window cills on 15 July 2022.

Bedroom Flooring

28. In its final response, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns that the flooring in two of the upstairs bedrooms was springing, and that it potentially posed a problem with the structural integrity of the building.
29. The landlord advised that its inspector had acknowledged that the floors did spring in some places, but that this was consistent with floorboards of this age. No other issues were noted, and the inspector had no concerns with the matter.
30. It was appropriate for the landlord to listen to the resident’s concerns, and to inspect the issue. However, it is also appropriate for the landlord to rely upon the expertise of its staff and contractors. Therefore, given that the landlord addressed the concerns of the resident, yet found no cause for further action, it was reasonable for the landlord not to uphold this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Cracking in the bedroom window

31. The resident showed the landlord’s inspector a crack in one of the windows in her bedroom during the inspection on 4 January 2022. The inspector advised that the crack was cosmetic and that it posed no repair or maintenance concerns.
32. As previously noted, it was appropriate for the landlord to rely on the expertise of its own staff and contractors, and given that the advice given to the landlord was that the crack posed no threat to the resident’s safety or comfort within the property it was reasonable to not uphold the complaint.
33. However, it would be have been reasonable for the landlord to have reassured the resident that should the crack increase, or should the resident begin to experience any negative effects such as a draught, it would provide any necessary repair should the need arise.
34. Additionally, given that there is no evidence to suggest that the resident was unhappy with this determination, it is reasonable to assume that this aspect of the resident’s complaint has been resolved.

Guttering

35. Following the identification of a leaking gutter, the landlord’s responsibility was to identify and fix the issue. From the evidence provided, it is clear that the landlord raised orders on 7 January 2022 to clean out the debris and flush the gutter, and to also carry out a repair on the gutter itself.
36. The landlord confirmed that the repairs were completed on 20 July 2022. Whilst it is positive that the repairs were completed, it was clearly over the timescales published in its responsive repairs policy. As already noted, section 4.3.3 of the landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that “appointable repairs” are to be completed within 28 days.
37. Given that the need for repair was identified on 4 January 2022 during the landlord’s inspection, the repair should have been carried out no later than the end of January 2022. However, the issue remained outstanding for roughly six months.
38. This was not a reasonable amount of time for such an issue to remain outstanding. It is not clear that the landlord provided any reasonable explanation for the delay nor kept the resident reliably informed. This delay was excessive, and as such, it would be appropriate for the landlord to offer additional compensation to the resident in recognition of this failing.

Car Port Facia Board

39. During the inspection on 4 January 2022, the landlord identified a defective board to the underside of the car port. The resident raised concerns that she felt this was a potential fire hazard.
40. The inspector addressed her concerns and advised that it was his opinion that it did not pose a fire risk as it was covering a steel beam and brickwork. However, it acknowledged the need for it to be fixed nonetheless. The landlord advised in its final response that an appointment would be raised shortly.
41. The issue was resolved on 25 February 2022, and given that there was no further correspondence regarding this, it is reasonable to assume that the resident was satisfied with the landlord’s repair.

Conclusion

42. The landlord’s inspection of the property, following the resident’s escalation request, was thorough and identified several issues that had been outstanding for some time, and some issues that had only just been raised at that point by the resident.
43. The report from the inspection identified several works that needed to be raised. However, it is clear from the evidence provided that only some of the issues identified were resolved within reasonable timeframes, or were not in need of repair at all. There were several issues that remained outstanding for an unnecessary duration of time, some of which lasted for the duration of almost two years and were still not resolved. This is not appropriate, and it is not fair on the resident to be left with outstanding repairs for such time.
44. Additionally, it is clear that the landlord’s communication, both internally and externally, was not to the required standard, and as such, led to further significant delay, and unnecessary involvement by the resident.
45. As a result of the findings in this report, overall, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of, and communication concerning, repairs at the resident’s home.
46. With this in mind, it would be appropriate for the landlord to increase its offer of compensation to better reflect this. This Service’s remedies guidance suggests that for instances in which there was maladministration that had a significant impact on the resident, a payment of £700 would be reasonable. This can be broken down to £300 for the time that the rear door repair has remained outstanding, £200 for the landlord’s maladministration in handling the mould and extractor fan repair in the bathroom, £100 for the delay in repairing the gutter, and £100 already offered by the landlord in its final response.

Determination

47. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of a number of repairs at the resident’s home.

Orders

48. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £700 compensation in recognition of its failings. This includes the £100 already offered, if this has not already been. This is to be paid within four weeks of the date of this investigation and the landlord is to confirm to this service when this has been paid.
49. The landlord is also ordered to ensure that the rear door is fitted within the resident’s property within three months of the date of this investigation, and to confirm to this service once the installation has been completed.