Places for People Homes Limited (202003224)

Back to Top

 

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003224

Places for People Homes Limited

7 December 2020

 

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 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 responses to the resident’s reports of:
  1. outstanding repairs to his property
  2. a raised manhole to the rear of his property
  3. rubbish that he says should have been collected from the outbuilding attached to the property, prior to his moving in

Background

 

1.        The resident has an assured tenancy with a co-tenant. Both the resident and the co-tenant reside in the property together, which comprises a one–bedroomed, ground floor flat. The tenancy began on 13 June 2011. 

 

2.        In 2014, the landlord applied for a court order against the resident, because he withheld rent, following a dispute about repairs to the property. It appears that the resident raised some counter-claims, which resulted in a court order against the landlord to complete certain repairs. The court order is dated 12 March 2014. The Schedule to the court order says that the landlord was to carry out the repairs within 56 days. The court order did not specify what these repairs were, but a part of the resident’s complaint is that some of the repairs under the court order were not carried out. The resident says the landlord only completed repairs to one room and neglected repairs in other affected rooms. Other than this information, the Ombudsman has not been made aware of the complete background to the court order by either party.   

 

3.        On 15 and 16 February 2016, a couple of emails passed between the resident and a member of the landlords staff, about an insurance claim that the resident was making against the landlords insurance company. The resident was asking for compensation for damage to personal items in his property following repair problems, plus further compensation for repairs being carried out late. The emails implied that the landlord had taken longer than stated to repair a leaking roof and that the leaks were still continuing. In an email to the landlord, the resident stated that the landlord’s roofing contractor had inspected the property for the source of the leak, but had mis–diagnosed the problem. The resident claimed that the roofing contractor had stated that he could see where the leak was coming from, it was coming from two places and that the roof would have to be stripped back in order to check for further damage. The Ombudsman has not seen any reports, either from the roofing contractor or the landlord, that contains this diagnosis or confirms what the roofer had told the resident. The Ombudsman has also not seen a copy of the landlord’s response to the resident’s email.

 

4.        The resident referred the matter to his local MP, who further referred the matter to this Service. The resident told his MP, in July 2020, that the repairs under the court order did not begin until November 2015. He explained that compensation was awarded by the court for 2011 to 2014, but he wants further compensation from 2014 onwards. 

 

5.        The resident told this Service, in July 2020, that he seeks compensation of £2,500 worth of rent arrears to be set aside. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s rent account and has not been made aware by the landlord that the rent account is in arrears.

 

Jurisdiction

 

6.        What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as sometimes there are reasons why a complaint (or part of a complaint) will not be investigated.

 

7.        The resident wants to have his rent arrears set aside as compensation for repairs that he says were not carried out, following the court order of 12 March 2014. After carefully considering all the evidence, the Ombudsman’s view is that this aspect of the complaint falls outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because a decision to set aside the resident’s rent arrears, plus a decision about any breaches of the court order by the landlord, can only be reached by a court. The Service is not a court of law therefore, in accordance with paragraphs 39(h), 39(i) and 39(r) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this part of the complaint will not be considered further.

 

8.        This investigation focuses on how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of:

  •    outstanding repairs to his property
  •    a raised manhole at his property
  • rubbish that he says should have been collected from the outbuilding attached to the property, prior to his moving in

 

The Tenancy Agreement

 

9.        Clause 2.3: The landlord is responsible for the repair of the structure and exterior of the property. Clause 2.3 contains a list of the types of repair the landlord is responsible for.

10.   Clause 3.29: The tenant agrees to promptly report, to the landlord, any disrepair or defect for which the landlord is responsible regarding the structure or exterior of the property or for any installations within the property or in common parts. 

 

The landlord’s Compensation Policy

11.   Pages 10 to 14: These pages of the landlords Compensation Policy contain a guideline for calculating amounts of compensation payable.

 

12.   Page 15: When a customer has been offered compensation but is in rental service charge arrears or has a sundry debt, any compensation payment will normally be paid directly to their rental service charge account or sundry debt account.

 

13.   Page 17: Rent arrears and other debts: When a compensation figure is offered, the manager should always check the customer’s account for any arrears/ outstanding payments.  In situations where the account is in arrears, compensation should be offered to offset the payment against the debt. Where there is more than one type of debt the rent account will be the priority debt. Note that where the customer is requesting reimbursement for costs incurred or damage caused, the payment should be honoured regardless of monies owed.

 

Evidence submitted by the resident 

 

14.   The resident has submitted, what he says, is an extract of internal notes made about his move into the property. In relation to the complaint about outstanding repairs, the raised manhole and rubbish in the outbuilding, the extract says: 

  • 29 June 2011: “There is a shed in the rear of the property that is full of the previous tenant’s belongings and materials ….. can we arrange for this to be removed ….. “
  • 23 September 2011: “[The resident] called to advise that when he moved in there was a lot of rubbish in the rear of the property that was left from the previous tenant, can we arrange for this to be removed ….. “    
  • 15 October 2011: “ Tenant wanted to chase the P3 for leaking window sent email ….. sent an engineer came out yesterday ….. engineer did not knock on the door and just posted a card through the door – tenant chased him as he drove to get his registration plate – as a result he needs this job re booking ….. lounge window raining in ….. “  
  • 15 February 2012: “Customer called following leak that was ongoing for over six months and damaged brand new carpets he had fitted that he had to then replace the carpets again and would like to be reimbursed for the cost of this ….. “

 

The landlord’s Repairs Records, July 2019 to July 2020

15.   The landlord has submitted a part of its repairs records for the period July 2019 to July 2020, only, as its evidence. The records show that a repair to an external drain (the manhole) in the garden of the property was reported on 10 February 2020. The records show that repairs were completed on 19 June 2020. The records also show the following entries:

  • 12 March 2020: Repairs had to be cancelled as further works were required
  • 20 April 2020: Repairs had to be cancelled and rebooked due to Covid 19
  • 27 May 2020: An email to the resident: Repairs had to be re-scheduled due to Covid 19. The manhole would be inspected on 9 July 2020
  • 16 June 2020: An appointment for 15 June 2020 had to be cancelled because there was no access to the property because the resident was on holiday
  • 19 June 2020: The manhole repair was completed 

 

Summary of events

 

16.   The resident says that when he moved into the property in June 2011, he was shown around inside and he completed all the relevant paperwork in the kitchen. After he completed the paperwork, he was shown the back garden and found that the outbuilding was “stacked floor to ceiling with rubbish including broken windows and an old bed.” He says that the person who showed him around the property assured him this rubbish would be removed. After waiting a reasonable amount of time for this to happen, he contacted the landlord, on 29 June 2011, and notes about the rubbish were made (see paragraph 14, above). When he chased the landlord he was informed that the landlord is not responsible for emptying outbuildings for tenants and that it became the resident’s responsibility to remove the items. The resident says he has been battling ever since to have the rubbish removed. The rubbish was eventually moved in May 2020. The resident says he would like some compensation for not being able to use the outbuilding while it contained rubbish. 

 

17.   The resident says that the property’s sewer became blocked in 2013. The landlord sent a contractor to remove the blockage. The resident says the contractor saw the manhole and told him that the manhole structure was illegal as planning permission was needed to build on an open sewer and that it was poorly constructed. The contractor had also told him that there was “absolutely no reason for the drain to be raised in this way as all it served was to divert water around that should be flowing in. The original ring at floor level that holds the lid in place was buried beneath the bricks showing the structure had just been placed there for no reason.” The resident has submitted pictures of the manhole.

 

18.   The landlord has submitted copies of internal communications: A report about the resident’s stage one complaint indicates that the landlord received notification of the resident’s complaint on 5 May 2020, plus 3 June 2020. The report says that the resident wanted some repair works to be completed, but did not go into any specific detail. There is also an email, dated 21 May 2020, which states that the resident wanted to escalate his complaint to stage two. A further email dated 22 May 2020, from the resident to the landlord, questioned why the landlord had notified him of an inspection of 9 July 2020 for the manhole cover, when he had already been notified that the manhole cover had been repaired.

 

19.   The stage one decision was issued to the resident on 4 June 2020. The letter stated that:

  • “After reviewing the repair history it is documented you had previously filed for disrepair back in 2015 and the majority of works were completed, however after our conversation on the 20th April 2020 you suggested that this was not the case. We have revisited this and have identified the below internal and external repairs, booked in for the 19th June 2020:
  • Skirting boards in bathroom and kitchen
  • Renew gulleys to outside of property
  • Plaster patch to kitchen
  • There is also some works relating to mould which is being addressed by [the contractor] and an appointment is to be booked with yourself.
  • All the repairs to your home you have reported to the housing officer] have been reported to our Property Maintenance Team to be logged and operatives have attended on each occasion to carry out these repairs. 
  • The resident’s [housing officer] does not have any influence in confirming which repairs are carried out and when, this repair responsibility is with our Property Maintenance Team.
  • You recently reported to our Customer Service Centre that a mattress and some rubbish was left in the outbuildings in your rear yard in which you have exclusive access as part of your home when you moved in. We have checked our records and can confirm no record of any rubbish left in the out buildings when your tenancy commenced. However in order to resolve the matter amicably, we understand that our contractors Specialist Cleaning Services attended on 5 May 2020 to clear this out building.” 
  • An apology was offered for any inconvenience resulting from the rubbish that was collected on 5 May 2020.

 

20.   On 5 and 11 June 2020, the resident notified the landlord that he was unhappy with the stage one response because he felt that he was being passed off and because there had been no mention of any compensation. He requested that his complaint be escalated stage two. The resident said that:

  • Rubbish that should have been collected from the outbuilding prior to his moving to the property: He has checked the position with several of the landlords customer service agents. He has been told that the landlords records do not go as far back as 2011 because their systems were updated in 2015. The resident said it is unacceptable that he has lived with the rubbish for nearly nine years, in the full knowledge of the landlord, who has done nothing about it. 
  • Outstanding repairs to his property: The repairs stipulated in the court order had a time scale of 56 days for completion. This time scale has not been met. The court order states that the landlord must now meet the residents costs, which the resident says should include rent arrears, further compensation to offset the time wasted by the landlords staff members turning up to take pictures of repairs that need doing but not actually completing the repair works. Further compensation is expected for the distress caused by trying to get the repairs completed but being “fobbed off and blocked at every turn” and being told that the case is closed.  
  • The raised manhole to the rear of the property: The manhole has now been removed but the way this problem was handled was “very dubious” as it was subject to a claim via a solicitor. All communications were through WhatsApp with an operative arriving to complete the task on 14 May 2020. The resident says he refused entry because no appointment had been made, or was held within the landlords records. The resident said he rearranged the appointment for 20 May 2020. The work was carried out on that day. The resident added that an admission of liability for an accident he suffered when he tripped over the manhole drain has not been offered and the evidence about this incident has now been removed – which he finds to be highly irregular. The only remedy to be offered for this part of his complaint is compensation.  

 

21.   The landlord acknowledged the residents dissatisfaction with stage one decision and told him he would receive a stage two decision within 20 working days, i.e. by 13 July 2020. The stage two decision was issued on 14 July which was one day later than anticipated. The Ombudsman’s notes that the delay of 24 hours did not appear to cause any detriment to the resident’s position.

 

22.   The stage two decision, dated 14 July 2020, stated that

  • Rubbish that should have been collected from the outbuilding attached to the property, prior to the resident’s move: There has been some internal misunderstanding about the available records regarding this schedule of works drawn up prior to the resident moving to the property. The landlord can now confirm that the schedule of works at the time, in 2011, did not identify the need for rubbish removal – the landlord is therefore content that the resident was correctly advised that there was no record of any rubbish requiring removal within its records at that time, including any rubbish removal as part of any void works. The landlord notes that it had recently arranged for some rubbish to be removed and that this rubbish has now been removed.
  • Outstanding repairs to the property: The resident has advised the landlord that there are outstanding repairs which relate to a previous disrepairs case. The landlord has checked its records and notes that these repairs were raised, the appropriate works were completed and the case was closed in March 2014. The landlord is therefore satisfied that repairs connected to the disrepair claim were completed. In respective of more recent repairs, these have now been ordered and booked for 19 June 2020. The more recent repairs are not connected to the previous disrepair case – which is why the resident was told the (previous) case was now closed. It is clear that the more recent repairs, booked for 19 June 2020, have not been completed. The landlord accepts that this will have caused some inconvenience and distress. The landlord apologises for this failure in service is offering the resident £200 under its compensation policy, broken down as follows: £25 for a missed appointment, £75 for failing to communicate properly and £100 for distress and inconvenience. The resident will be contacted by 22 July 2020 to arrange an appointment for the repairs to be completed.
  • The raised manhole to the rear of the property: The landlord says that an operative visited the property on 13 May 2020  to repair the manhole, but without a prior appointment. The landlord apologises for any inconvenience for attending without making an appointment first. It has reminded the appropriate teams to make sure appointments are made with customers, moving forwards. The agreed alternative appointment for 20 May 2020 was honoured and the works have now been completed, as acknowledged by the resident. With regards to the use of WhatsApp – the landlord finds that its customers prefer to use this tool as it offers a more direct from of communication. If the resident prefers not to use WhatsApp, the landlord will stop using it for the resident. The resident refers to a claim he has made through his solicitor. The resident needs to refer any matters relating to this claim back to his solicitor.
  • Conclusion: The landlord attached a compensation acceptance form for the resident to complete and return for the £200 compensation. No mention was made about using the compensation against any rent arrears. 

 

23.   On 16 July 2020, the resident explained to the landlord why he would not be accepting its offer of compensation and would instead be escalating his complaint to this service.

  • Rubbish that should have been collected from the outbuilding attached to the property, prior to the resident’s move to the property, and the repairs under the court order: The resident explained that it was not correct that the repairs ordered by the court were completed in March 2014. The resident says he is attaching emailed correspondence between himself and a member of the landlords staff, from February 2016, which clearly shows that the repairs were not completed in March 2014 and that they had only just begun in February 2016. The landlord also states that there is no record of any rubbish in the outbuilding as part of the inspection before the resident moved into the property. However, there was also no record of a hole in the roof that the resident says he immediately spotted upon moving into the property. He believes the hole was caused by lead flashing being removed from the extension. This repair was missed in the inspection and, once it was reported, it took 18 months for the landlord to carry out a satisfactory repair by which time the bedroom had suffered catastrophic water ingress. The works that the landlord refers to as at 2014, was merely decorative work. The resident refers the landlord to photos that were taken by a member of its staff when he first attended the property in 2016. During this visit the staff member took the resident’s copy of a Scott schedule that detailed all the repairs that were to be carried out. The resident said that he would like his copy of the schedule returned.
  • The raised manhole to the rear of the property: The resident said he has made several complaints to get the manhole removed, since a visit by a drains company in 2011, whereupon he was told that the manhole was an illegal structure. The resident said that the landlord staff members have been aware of the position, but he was ignored and “mocked” which can be noted in the landlords phone call records.      

 

24.   The landlord told this Service, on 26 August 2020, that although the resident claims that rubbish was left in the property’s outbuilding from prior to his move into the property, in June 2011, he has never reported the matter. It was only in mid–April 2020 that the resident called the landlord and said that some rubbish was left in the outbuilding from before he had moved in. The appropriate departments then checked their records and inspection sheets and confirmed that there was no record of any rubbish being left, either inside or outside the property, in the yard connected to the property or its outbuilding, as at June 2011. However, in order to resolve the matter amicably with the resident, the landlord arranged for the rubbish to be removed in early May 2020. The landlord added that the manhole problem was attended to, as indicated in its repairs records dated July 2019 to July 2020.

Assessment and Findings

 

25.   The outcome that the resident is seeking is compensation for the three parts of his complaint. This complaint began around April or May 2020. The landlord issued its stage one decision on 4 June 2020 and its stage two decision on 14 July 2020. In the Ombudsman’s view, both decisions were made promptly without any serious delays. Therefore no compensation is payable for the way the landlord handled the complaints process.

 

26.   Outstanding repairs to the property: The Ombudsman notes from the stages one and two decisions that any outstanding repairs (whether or not related to the 12 March 2014 court order) were booked for a completion date of 19 June 2020. Any delays for the completion of these repairs were due to Covid 19 rescheduling – any restrictions imposed by central government is not within the landlord’s control. It is noted however, that no evidence is presented from the resident to show that more recent repairs have not been completed – or that there is a link between the disputed repairs of 2014 and the outstanding repairs as of 2020. The landlord offered £200 under its Compensation Policy for mis–communications regarding this part of the resident’s complaint. This was a reasonable offer of redress given the limited supporting information with the complaint.

 

27.   Rubbish in the outbuilding prior to the resident’s move: There is no evidence to indicate who left the rubbish, and when, in the outbuilding attached to the property. The resident has submitted information (which appear to be internal records) that state some rubbish was present at the time he moved to the property, in June 2011. It is unclear how the resident managed to obtain the landlords internal records, in June 2011 or thereafter, especially since the landlord says that since 2015 it has no records that date back to 2011. The resident sent in photographs of the raised manhole cover but there are no pictures of the rubbish that the resident could have taken, which was supposedly housed in the outbuilding, over the ten years that he chased for its removal – neither are there any copies of emails or text messages that reflect his requests for the rubbish to be removed, or the landlord’s written responses to the chasers, between September 2011 and May 2020.  For these reasons, it is difficult to determine with any certainty whether any rubbish was left in the outbuilding by the previous tenant – but it is noted that the landlord promptly removed the rubbish in May 2020, after the resident requested it to be removed, in April 2020. In the Ombudsman’s view, therefore, in the absence of any specific evidence that the previous tenant had left rubbish, or that the resident had chased for the rubbish to be removed over a ten year period, there is no service failure on the part of the landlord. Furthermore, the Ombudsman would only expect a landlord to consider issues within six months of a complaint, i.e. a complaint in April 2020 would only reasonably result in an investigation back into 2019. Any concerns about the landlord’s actions in 2011-2018 would need to have been raised previously in formal complaints.

 

28.   The raised manhole to the rear of the property: This Service has not been presented with any information about the resident’s legal claim concerning the manhole, or that he reported the manhole issue earlier than 2019, or any information from the contractor (who unblocked the resident’s sewer in 2011) that the manhole was illegally constructed. The resident has also not provided any evidence to support his opinion that the manhole problem to the rear of the property was handled in a “very dubious” manner. If the landlord and its other occupants prefer to communicate via WhatsApp, there is no reason why WhatsApp is not a reasonable method of communication. If the resident did not want to be contacted via WhatsApp, the landlord was right to ask the resident if he preferred an alternative means of communication, regarding the manhole problem. There were changes to the repair dates for the manhole, but the Ombudsman notes, from the landlords repairs records, that this repair was re-scheduled because it had been decided that further works were needed, there were barriers due to Covid 19 and because the resident had been away. None of the reasons for the cancellations are due to mal-administration or service failure by the landlord – therefore no compensation is payable for this part of the complaint.

 

Determination (decision)

29.   In accordance with:

  • paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the problem with the raised manhole to the rear of the property and the rubbish that the resident says should have been collected, from the outbuilding, prior to his moving in
  • paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord offered reasonable redress to the resident for the complaint about outstanding repairs to the property 

 

Reasons

 

30.   Evidence points to the raised manhole problem being notified to the landlord in 2019 and actioned by the landlord within reasonable timescales – the only recorded delays being due to events beyond its control (as indicated in its repairs records).

 

31.   There is no evidence of any uncleared rubbish remaining in the outbuilding attached to the property, prior to the resident moving in, in June 2011. However, the landlord took timely action to clear the outbuilding as soon as the resident reported the matter in April 2020.

 

32.   The landlord offered £200 in compensation for the complaint about outstanding repairs: £25 for a missed appointment, £75 for failing to communicate properly and £100 for distress and inconvenience, in line with its Compensation Policy.

 

Recommendations

33.   The landlord should consider adopting a practice whereby a tick-box type of inventory is completed, and then signed by the tenant and the landlord, to determine the condition of a property, the garden and any outbuildings at the start of a tenancy. A copy of the inventory can be given to the tenant and a copy retained on the tenancy records for future reference.

34.   The landlord should consider keeping full records of all repairs to its properties and archive (in an accessible manner) any repair records that it deems to be of historical value.