Places for People Group Limited (202210881)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210881

Places for People Group Limited

14 December 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s:
1. Reports of a leak and subsequent repairs.
2. Formal complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a one bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives alone, suffers with his mental health and has OCD and learning disabilities.
On 20 September 2021 the resident noticed water “pouring down the wall and through light sockets from the property above.” He made multiple calls to the landlord over a number of hours. The resident said when he called to report the leak, he was told “it will dry out, it can’t be that bad.” The landlord has not provided any call recordings or notes of the calls.
However, the landlord’s repair records show the job recorded as “water dripping through extractor fan in ceiling, please make safe” and logged as a priority 1 to be carried out within 24 hours. An electrician attended that day, but left the property with water still pouring in as he said he would need a joiner.
The resident submits that the lack of help from the landlord lead him to have a panic attack and call the fire service. The joiner arrived at the same time as the fire service, almost two hours later. The fire service accessed the property above, stopped the leak, and noted that the upstairs neighbour was “walking in inches of water.”
The electrician returned and removed the extractor fan that night and another attended the following day to check the bathroom light, but did not test any sockets. Instead, he advised that the property needed to be left for two weeks to dry out. The landlord’s repair log shows a job raised on 21 September 2021, to replace the extractor fan and check electrics following the leak, as a priority 3 to be completed in 60 days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 September 2021 to “make a formal complaint” regarding the handling of the leak, which was acknowledged the same day. It was allocated as a Put It Right enquiry on 22 September 2021 with the aim to have the complaint resolved within 24 hours.
Landlord representatives inspected the property on 13 October 2021 and the resident says he was told the necessary repairs would be carried out. The landlord has not provided any evidence to dispute the resident’s account of the inspection. The landlord attended again on 20 October 2021 and an internal email said the resident was “not happy and I think you may need to treat this as an official complaint.”
An electrician attended on 21 October 2021 and fixed the extractor fan and checked the electrics within the 60 day timeframe. Whilst waiting for confirmation the electrics were safe, the resident had not been using the lights. He had also walked to his mum’s house to shower, as he was concerned about causing more damage which he might then be charged for. The fire service told him not to use the electrics until they had been checked and declared safe.
The resident made an insurance claim through the landlord’s public liability insurance, including for damaged personal belongings. The insurer requested information relating to the claim from the landlord on 4 May 2022 and chased for a response on 16 June 2022. It said the leak was caused by a blockage/back up from the drains, and damage to the property was mainly to the flooring, plastering and decoration to the lounge, kitchen, hall way and bathroom. The insurer declined the claim in July 2022 on the basis that the leak was not something the landlord could have foreseen or prevented.
On 31 August 2022 the landlord said it had “no repairs outstanding at the property and the resident has been advised they need to go through the insurance company to claim for damage regarding the leak.”
In the absence of a response to his formal complaint, the resident contacted this Service for assistance in August 2022. Following the Ombudsman’s intervention in October 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response on 27 October 2022, more than a year after the complaint was first made. It offered £50 as a goodwill gesture for its poor service. It said the property was inspected to assess the water damage but, as internal decoration is the responsibility of the resident, it would not redecorate. However, it did offer a £100 paint voucher and gave contact details if the resident wanted the insurer’s decision re-assessed.
The resident submitted a stage 2 complaint as he was unhappy with the response and said the voucher would not be enough to cover the work. He advised that he would not be able to redecorate himself, and did not think it was fair he should have to do so when the water damage was not his fault. He felt that, had the landlord attended earlier, the extent of the water damage would have been less. He did not think the gesture of goodwill made up for the poor customer service and said he had spent additional money on replacing water damaged items and heating to dry the property out.
The resident said water leaked into the property for almost five hours, affecting several rooms and causing the ceiling to crack, damage to flooring and skirting boards, the kitchen and bathroom walls and personal belongings – including clothing, towels and sheets used to stop the water.
The resident appealed the insurers decision but it was declined a second time on 25 September 2022. The landlord spoke to the insurers who said damage to the structure of the building is its responsibility to resolve.
The resident chased the landlord for updates in November 2021 and March, May, July, August and November 2022.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response of 2 December 2022, it confirmed that redecorating was the responsibility of the resident, it had offered vouchers and then to ‘patch’ the areas affected by the water damage as a gesture following the declined claim, but the resident had declined as he wanted the affected rooms redecorating in full. It apologised for the distress and inconvenience caused and noted that the resident had received the £50 previously offered. It did not comment any further on the outstanding repairs.
To date, the repairs to the cracked ceiling, flooring and skirting boards nor any redecoration have been carried out.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes;
2. b. put things right, and;
3. c. learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred and, if so, whether this led to any adverse affect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse affect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.

The landlord’s handling of the leak and repairs

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs policy says:
1. It would consider a repair an emergency if the resident has a sudden and unforeseen issue which:
  1. Immediately puts a customer’s health and safety at risk.
  2. Is currently causing uncontrollable damage to the property which the customer is unable to contain.
  3. Renders the property uninhabitable.
2. It is responsible for leaks, electrics or ceilings damaged by water and skirting boards.
3. It will attend all emergency repairs within 24 hours.
4. Provision for emergency repairs outside of normal working hours can be accessed through the standard telephone number and repairs categorised as ‘emergencies’ will be dealt with urgently.
5. Resident’s are responsible for internal painting and decorating.
The tenancy agreement says:
1. the landlord agrees to keep in good repair internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door hinges and skirting boards *but not in any case including internal painting and decoration.
2. in relation to internal decorating it will keep the interior of the premises in a good state of decoration, redecorating from time to time and as required, excepting damage to decoration caused by the resident’s negligence or misuse of the premises.
3. the resident agrees to keep the interior of the premises in good condition and to decorate all internal parts of the property as frequently as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order.
The landlord said the leak was reported at 16:35 and its records show it was logged as a priority 1. An operative attended between 22:30 and 23:00 – within the 24 hour callout timeframe detailed in the Repairs Policy.
A landlord internal email refers to another emergency callout option, “to be attended within 4 hours” which can be used where there is an “uncontainable leak with possibility of injury/ceiling collapse.” The Responsive Repairs Policy provided does not mention a 4 hour emergency callout. As a result, it is not clear at what point a leak is classed as “uncontainable”. However, the evidence is clear that there was water leaking into the resident’s property and that the property above was under “inches of water”, suggesting that a degree of urgency was required.
The evidence suggests the landlord relied on the Responsive Repairs policy to absolve itself of both the repairs and redecorating responsibility. However, it should have repaired damage to the ceiling caused by water and skirting board within 90 days. As a result, it is not clear why these works remain outstanding despite the resident making the landlord aware of the issues on several occasions over a 2 year period.
There is a grey area when it comes to where responsibility lies for redecoration. The tenancy agreement this Service has been provided with says the landlord will “keep the interior of the premises in a good state of decoration, redecorating from time to time and as required excepting damage to decoration caused by the resident’s negligence or misuse of the premises.” It also says the resident should “decorate all internal parts of the property as frequently as is necessary to keep them in good decorative order.” In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to redecorate the property in this case as the damage was not the resident’s fault and there were elements of service failure on the landlord’s part which may have contributed to the extent of the damage.
The landlord advised the resident to claim through its insurance for damages. There are no records to confirm exactly what the resident was told. Internal emails show there may be some confusion around when a resident should claim through the insurance. In one internal email the landlord “advised the resident… to go back to insurance… [and] challenge as we are not liable for the works or damage.” However, another email said “the insurers will only consider items it is not responsible for under public liability policy, so building damage [repairs] would need to be arranged by us.” Whilst it was reasonable for the landlord to recommend the resident contact the insurer for damage to personal belongings, it would not be reasonable to tell the resident to claim for damage to the property.
Further, when the landlord was asked for information relating to the resident’s insurance claim, it took 37 working days to reply, following a chaser from the insurer. This unreasonably delayed the processing of the claim and would have exacerbated an already difficult situation for the resident.
Ultimately, it was the fire service that took appropriate steps to stop the leak and prevent further damage, rather than the landlord. As a result, the landlord undermined the landlord-resident relationship in its handling of the leak, and then the subsequent repairs, and this would understandably reduce the resident’s confidence in its ability and willingness to effectively manage such issues in the future.
The landlord failed to consider the impact the delays with the repairs and redecorating had on the resident. He did not use the lights or shower between 20 September and 21 October 2021 whilst waiting for an electrician to assess the electrics and confirm they were safe. He has lived with repairs and redecoration outstanding for over 2 years, affecting his enjoyment of the property. He says he takes pride in his home and due to his mental health and OCD, the stains and damage caused him a great deal of stress.
Given the landlord’s failure to meet its obligations to carry out repairs in a timely manner, and its failure to consider redecorating the property, its offer of £50 for poor customer service and £100 voucher for paint was an insufficient remedy.
As such and due to the effect on the resident, a finding of maladministration is made. The landlord’s Compensation Policy does not set out guidelines for what amount it will consider for failures, but this Service’s remedies guidance (published on our website) sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that an award of £500 for distress and inconvenience may remedy cases where maladministration has been found and the impact on the resident is not considered to have been permanent.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s complaint policy has a ‘Put It Right’ option to be carried out within 24 hours. If it is unable to resolve the complaint, it is considered a stage 1 complaint, with a response to be issued in 10 working days. A stage 2 response is to be issued 20 working days from receipt.
The allocated investigator said “please do not escalate this [to a stage 1 complaint], I’m positive we will be able to come to an agreement with the customer” on 18 October 2021. This was 17 working days after it should have been treated as a stage 1 complaint. The landlord has not provided evidence to show what it did to resolve the complaint as a Put It Right enquiry. In an internal email on 20 October 2021, it said “this does not need to be raised as an official complaint at the moment as I do not think it will benefit anyone.”
There is also no evidence it explained to the resident that it was initially dealing with the complaint as a Put It Right enquiry, what happened to the complaint, or whether it was closed – despite the resident continuing to express dissatisfaction and report the matter had not been remedied for many months.
It was only after this Service contacted the landlord in October 2022 that the complaint was investigated, and even then the landlord representative still said the complaint must “not be raised as a stage 1.”
The resident should have received a stage 1 response by 7 October 2021. However, in the event, no response was issued until 27 October 2022, 42 working days after it was allocated following this Service contacting the landlord, and 267 working days after the resident should have received a response.
The stage 2 response was issued on 2 December 2022, 24 working days after escalation, 4 working days over the expected timeframe, and 272 working days after the resident should have received a response.
It is also noted the landlord did not regularly update the resident and he had to chase for updates on the progress of the complaint. The Ombudsman does not consider the remedy offered in either stage response to be proportionate to the adverse effect on the resident.
The evidence shows the landlord failed to follow its own process and investigate the complaint as a stage 1 complaint in October 2021. The delays issuing responses were not reasonable as it delayed the resident’s access to this Service.
The stage 1 response apologised for the impact on the resident’s wellbeing and the stage 2 response also apologised for any distress and inconvenience caused. However neither acknowledge the length of time it had taken for the complaint responses to be sent. The stage 2 response was limited in detail and explanation, and the landlord did not sufficiently acknowledge the resident’s circumstances.
The responses do not address the landlord’s failings with:
1. the time taken to deal with complaint.
2. not completing the repairs to the ceiling or skirting board within 90 days.
3. not considering redecorating the property – or explaining why it would not do so
4. directing the resident to claim through the insurance and that it may not have been the best way forward.
5. the inconvenience, distress, frustration, time and trouble caused by the resident’s efforts contacting it chasing a response and progressing the complaint.
6. general poor service.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not provide ranges for compensation but says it will be considered where:
1. There is an unreasonable delay in resolving an issue and the customer has not been kept informed.
2. Complaint responses are inadequate.
3. The overall experience of the resident requires some recognition to acknowledge we have fallen short of expected standards.
The landlord offered no apology for the delayed handling of the complaint. The resident has felt “fobbed off” and “passed from pillar to post.” The landlord did not appear to consider the resident’s mental health issues or communicate with the resident effectively. As such this Service finds severe maladministration and makes orders for redress accordingly.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the reports of the leak and subsequent repairs.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord shall take the following action within 4 weeks of the date of this report and provide the Ombudsman with evidence of compliance with these orders:
1. A senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident £1,200 compensation made up of:
  1. £600 for the impact on the resident by the landlord’s delay in carrying out repairs.
  2. £600 for the impact on the resident caused by the landlord’s poor complaint handling.
3. In relation to the repairs to the property:
  1. Repair the cracked ceiling.
  2. Repair the water damaged skirting boards
  3. Repair the damaged flooring.
  4. Re-decorate the rooms affected by water damage.
1. The landlord to review the case and the complaints handling failures identified to identify lessons it can learn from the case. Particularly the landlord should consider how it will handle complaints, how it will escalate complaints and how it will ensure it responds to formal complaints in a timely manner, in accordance with its policy and the Complaint Handling Code.