Places for People Group Limited (202209106)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202209106

Places for People Group Limited

13 June 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the property being excessively cold.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a 1 bed house in a conservation area. He moved to the property in June 2021.
  2. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its system. The resident has told the landlord that he has chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD).
  3. In December 2021 the resident told the landlord that the property was freezing and asked if anything could be done. He said the property was losing heat through the doors, windows, cracks in paint work, and that there was no wall insulation.
  4. Either coincidentally or because of the resident’s query, a stock condition survey, and Energy Performance Certificate (EPC) were completed in March 2022. The survey said the windows and doors should be replaced in 2023. The EPC rating was a ‘D’ and one of the recommendations to improve the rating was to install cavity wall insulation. The survey did not mention the excessive cold. The resident does not recall this visit taking place.
  5. The gaps in the windows and doors were assessed and work was carried out in May 2022. Some hinges were replaced, and putty was used to fill gaps.
  6. The resident complained to the landlord on 11 October 2022. He said the issues remained and the property was so cold. He gave the example of the house taking 6 hours to get from 13 degrees to 19.5 degrees. He said he was wasting money on heating. The landlord agreed to send someone to come and inspect the issues.
  7. Following the landlord’s inspection, some further works were scheduled in for November 2022 and January 2023. The jobs related to the excessive cold were to overhaul the windows and any work associated with this action such as plastering. On 20 January 2023 the resident said the work had been completed.
  8. The landlord’s stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses both upheld the resident’s complaints. The landlord acknowledged the delays to the repairs. It said that the windows and doors needed replacing and gave a timeframe of within 5 years. It said it would continue to offer its repair service for the units until they were replaced. On 2 December 2022, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response further acknowledged that 5 years was a lengthy wait and said it would contact the resident by 16 December 2022 with a more specific timeframe. There is no record if this happened or not. The landlord offered the resident £75 compensation for missed repair timescales and lack of communication.
  9. The resident remained unhappy and contacted the Ombudsman to investigate his complaint. He said that parts of his complaint had not been recognised including the wall insulation query and his concerns about the cellar. He wants an apology, the windows and doors replaced, and an explanation as to why they have not yet been replaced.

Post internal complaints procedure

  1. From January to March 2024 further repairs were carried out on the windows and doors, including overhauling, repairing and draft proofing. Internal communications discussed when the windows and doors would be replaced. The indicative date was the 2025-2026 financial year program. The landlord was aware of the area’s conservation status and that the property was part of a grade II listed building.
  2. The resident has made a further complaint about the issue, and this is currently being investigated by the landlord’s internal complaints process.

Assessment and findings

  1. The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. It assesses 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will help determine whether the property is rated as having category 1 (serious) or category 2 (other) hazards. Excess cold is one of the 29 categories. The Government guidance on the HHSRS tells us that a healthy indoor temperature is 21 degrees. Serious health risks can occur when the temperature drops below 16 degrees with a substantially increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions.
  2. To properly assess the hazard an assessment must consider:
    1. The dwellings characteristics.
    2. The energy efficiency of the property.
    3. The effectiveness of the heating system.
    4. Adequacy of the heating, insulation, and ventilation.
    5. Any other factors that may affect the indoor temperature such as dampness, disrepair to the structure, or to space or water heating systems.
  3. The guidance states simple measurement of indoor temperature is inappropriate.
  4. A property must have an energy performance certificate (EPC) if it is being rented out, sold, or built. It contains information about the property’s energy use and typical energy costs. It provides steps to improve the property’s rating. The ratings are from A (best) to G (worst) and are valid for 10 years.
  5. The landlord’s investment strategy includes a section on energy efficiency. It is a key strand of the landlord’s long term investment strategy, and it is committed to delivering warmer and more affordable homes for residents. It will strike a balance between customer affordability, long term sustainability and return on investment. The landlord states it understands properties with poor energy performance may breach HHSRS standards and that it will continue to address known issues.
  6. The resident reported his concerns with the windows and doors causing the property to be excessively cold on 22 December 2021. The landlord took 7 working days to log a repair. This was unreasonable. The landlord should ensure repairs are raised in a timely manner once a report is received. It was not customer focused.
  7. The landlord’s responsive repairs policy at the time had the following timescales:
    1. Appointable repair 60 days. This was for repairs that can prevent damage to the property. It was previously 28 days but had been increased to manage the post covid backlog. It remained at 60 days during the time of this complaint.
    2. Planned repair 90 days. This was for repairs that were non urgent and can consist of a replacement rather than a repair.
  8. The landlord’s responsive repair policy also tells us that at times a pre- inspection may be necessary. Once an inspection is carried out, the repair will be diagnosed and subsequently issued within the appropriate timescales. This is open to interpretation and could mean both the pre inspection and the repair must be completed within 60 days (appointable repair). It could also mean that once the pre-inspection has been completed and the repair is ordered, the 60 days or 90 days timescale starts again. The policy should be clearer and in recognition of this an order is made below.
  9. The landlord took 52 days to carry out the pre-inspection of the doors and windows. They took a further 76 days to complete the repair. The landlord is obliged by section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to complete repairs in a reasonable timeframe. This was not reasonable. The resident had expressed how concerned he was with the cold. The landlord should have completed the pre-inspection and the repair within 60 days. The landlord acted inappropriately in taking too long to complete the repair. There was no evidence that the resident was told why the appointments were scheduled so far in the future.
  10. On 8 March 2022 the landlord carried out a stock condition survey on the property. The Ombudsman does not know if this was coincidental or if it was because of the resident’s concerns. The landlord’s evidence provided as part of this investigation included the survey. The survey said that that the windows and doors should be replaced in March 2023. The survey documented that it was not a clone survey and there were photos of the inside and outside of a property.
  11. The resident does not recall this survey taking place. The Ombudsman has been unable to verify if the internal photos are of the resident’s property.
  12. The survey does not show any specific assessment of the areas one would expect if a landlord was assessing for a HHSRS hazard, as detailed at the top of this section. The survey’s HHSRS was blank with every hazard marked as typical. If this survey did take place, then it was unreasonable that the landlord did not fully investigate the hazards the resident reported and follow the HHSRS guidance. It was also unreasonable that the landlord waited until March 2022 (Spring) to complete the survey. The resident complained about the excess cold in late December 2021. To fully assess the resident’s concerns, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to visit in the winter period, and before and after any remedial works were carried out. The landlord’s inaction and delays meant the resident has had to endure 3 winters at the property, not knowing for sure if the remedial works had made any difference.
  13. At the same time as the survey, an EPC was completed. The property was rated D. One of the recommendations to improve the rating was install cavity wall insulation. The landlord did not discuss the outcome of the EPC with the resident. Given his concerns this would have been customer focused and may have showed the resident the landlord was listening and trying to resolve his issues. It was unreasonable that the landlord did nothing with the EPC information.
  14. On 31 August 2022, repairs were raised to overhaul the windows and carry out some plastering work. The landlord took 73 days to complete the work. This was not appropriate and may have contributed to the resident continuing to feel like the landlord was not listening or doing anything with his concerns.
  15. On 11 October 2022 the resident complained to the landlord. He said the property was cold, there were drafts and it took 6 hours to get the temperature from 13 degrees to 19.5 degrees. He said he was wasting money and energy. The landlord responded quickly and sent a supervisor out to inspect the property on 20 October 2022. This was reasonable of the landlord given the number of concerns the resident had. However, it was an action the landlord should have taken in December 2021.
  16. The supervisor concluded that the windows and doors were in poor condition and needed replacing sooner rather than later. He quickly shared this information internally with the relevant team. He raised several repairs for the property (not all related to the excess cold). The supervisor acted reasonably. It was not clear from the landlord’s evidence who is trained to investigate possible HHSRS category 1 hazards. The Ombudsman cannot therefore determine if the supervisor should have done this.
  17. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response upheld the resident’s complaint. It acknowledged the communication had been poor and repairs were delayed. It told the resident that the doors and windows would be replaced within a 5-year window of 2023-2028. It did not offer any compensation for the delays. It did not explain why the landlord had not discussed cavity wall insulation with the resident. It noted the supervisor had been unable to access the cellar but made no plan to gain access. It was unreasonable and not solution focused that the landlord did not do more to help the resident.
  18. On 2 December 2022 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response. It again upheld the resident’s complaint and acknowledged the repairs had taken too long. It offered a financial remedy of £75 for missed timescales and poor communication. It explained someone would call the resident by 16 December 2022 to provide a more specific timeframe for the window and door replacements. The landlord has told the Ombudsman it does not have a record of this call happening.
  19. Where there are failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress (apology, compensation, actions to rectify the issues) offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaints in all the circumstances. In the Ombudsman’s assessment the landlord’s financial offer was not proportionate to the impact the failings had on the resident. The repair remedies and offer of a phone call on 16 December 2022 were not enough. It is of further concern to the Ombudsman that the landlord did not consider the resident’s vulnerabilities, which it knew about at the time of the stage 2 response. The complaint responses showed that the landlord did not fully understand what its failings were.
  20. The landlord has not demonstrated that it exhausted all its avenues to assist the resident:
    1. It did not carry out an inspection focusing on the HHSRS hazard reported.
    2. It did not offer the resident a referral to its money advice team, any energy support or signpost to external agencies who may be able to help. The landlord told the Ombudsman it had not done so because the resident had not asked. This was short sighted of the landlord. It should promote and offer its services if it thinks they could help a resident.
    3. The landlord’s asset investment strategy recognised there are several approaches to prioritising investment in housing stock, one of them being local knowledge. The landlord did not do enough to explain to the resident why it gave a 5-year window for replacement, when the stock condition survey, the supervisor and the resident all said they needed replacing sooner rather than later. The resident deserved a detailed explanation.
    4. The landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s concern about the lack of wall insulation or the EPC’s recommendation that the property gets it. The landlord should have explained what it planned to do.
    5. The landlord did not inspect the cellar. A further inspection should have been arranged given the potential for the void of a cellar to cause issues with temperature. Under the HHSRS guidance all the dwellings’ characteristics must be considered.
    6. On 28 October 2022 the resident mentioned he had COPD and needed to keep warm. There is no record that the landlord acknowledged this information or made any suitable adjustments to its service or decisions. It was not logged on its systems.
    7. It did not consider that the resident had lived in a cold house for 2 winters while suffering from a recognised serious respiratory disease.
  21. In January 2024 the Ombudsman published a spotlight report ‘Relationship of Equals’. The report found that landlord failings were either a failure to act on vulnerabilities because they were not recorded on the system, or a failure to take known vulnerabilities into account when making decisions or providing a service. In this case the landlord had failed to record known vulnerabilities or take them into account. The resident’s vulnerability, his COPD, compounded the detriment caused by the service failures he experienced.
  22. In summary there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the property being excessively cold. The landlord did not do enough to establish if the temperature constituted a category 1 hazard. Its repairs were delayed, and it did not assist the resident enough with his concerns. It had an opportunity before stage 2 of the complaints process to recognise the resident’s vulnerabilities and take appropriate action. The landlord did not give the resident a new timeframe as agreed in its final complaint response. Orders are made below to reflect this finding.

Review of policies and practice

  1. The Ombudsman has found severe maladministration following an investigation into a complaint raised with the landlord involving responsive repairs, planned works and HHSRS concerns. As a result of this, the Ombudsman issued a wider order to the landlord under paragraph 54(f) of the Scheme. This is for the landlord to review its policy or practice in relation to the service failures identified, which may give rise to further complaints about the matter.
  2. The Ombudsman ordered the landlord to carry out a review of its policy or practice in relation to responsive repairs, planned work and HHSRS concerns. Some of the issues identified in this case are similar to the previous case and so we have ordered the landlord to incorporate the learning from this complaint into the wider review, ordered as part of case 202321572. Of particular concern in this case was the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of excess cold and the timeframes around pre inspections. In addition to this, we have not made any orders or recommendations as part of this case, which would duplicate those already made to landlord as part of the wider order.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of the property being excessively cold.

Orders and recommendations

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Apologise for the impacts of its failures on the resident. This written apology must be from someone in the landlord’s senior management team.
    2. Provide the resident with details of any referrals or support that may be relevant to assist him with energy costs until the windows and doors are replaced. These could be internal referrals or support, or external information, such as relevant government schemes.
    3. Pay the resident £700 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred as a result of the landlord’s failures in this case. This replaces the landlord’s offer of £75. If already paid, the £75 should be deducted from the above amount.
    4. This must be paid directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
  2. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to provide the resident with a written action plan for the windows, doors, cellar, and wall insulation. It must be SMART – Specific, Measurable, Achievable, Relevant, Time-bound. The landlord must provide the resident and the Ombudsman with a copy. It must include:
    1. Details of any remedial or interim fixes to improve the heat in the property.
    2. Specific timeframes for any works (planned or responsive) and explanations for any decisions.
    3. How the landlord intends to monitor the temperature in the property over the winter period. If it needs assistance from the resident to do this (energy bills, records of time the property took to get to a healthy temperature for example) it should clearly explain what it needs.

 

 

 

Chat to us