Places for People Homes Limited (202105432)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202105432

Places for People Homes Limited

9 December 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 complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Action prior to a mutual exchange.
2. Response to the resident’s reports of repairs required to the property.
3. Complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a property owned and managed by the landlord. Their tenancy began following a mutual exchange on 8 February 2021.
The landlord’s Mutual Exchange Policy states that “4.5. The incoming tenant accepts the property in the condition they find it. The landlord will not undertake internal redecoration, cleaning and will not carry out rechargeable or other repairs that are the former tenant’s responsibility. We must however carry out our normal repair duties and ensure the property meets our void standard before agreeing the exchange.”
In para 6.5 it is stated that in order to progress a mutual exchange application the landlord’s Place Manager (PM) should ensure that the landlord completes a property inspection at the property and notes any significant damage. Only when the PM is satisfied with the condition of the property, they can sign the approval. Otherwise, all the parties should be informed of any damage.
Para 6.5. of the mutual policy states that as part of the approval and sign up process, “the PM will request gas and electrical checks to the property allowing at least two weeks’ notice by emailing the voids team the details.”
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets the landlord’s obligation to complete or make safe an emergency repair within 24 hours, and to complete all other repairs within 28 calendar days from receipt of customer request.
If a responsive repair required parts or materials which must be ordered and the repair cannot be completed in the target timescale, the landlord will advise the customer of the delay and the likely date for completion. In the case of Emergency Repairs, the property will be “made safe” prior to returning to complete the repair.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that payments can be made for stress and inconvenience caused to the resident:
1. £25 for missed timescales;
2. £50 for lack of communication/ staff attitude.
3. Discretionary payments can be made to a maximum value of £250, and in extreme circumstances this can be increased by a senior staff.
The Landlord’s Complaints Policy operates two stages. The landlord tries to resolve an issue within 24 hours and if unable raises a stage one complaint, acknowledges within five working days and responds within 10 working days. At stage two the landlord sends the acknowledgement within three working days and responds within 20 working days.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not define a complaint. Para 1.2 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code explains that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction about standard of services, action taken or lack of action taken. In para 1.4, the Code states that the landlord should recognise the difference between a service request and a complaint. This should respectively be valid for any stage of the complaint process.

Summary of events

Since the resident moved to the property following a mutual exchange, on 8 February 2021, the resident has reported multiple repair issues, which raised concerns about whether the landlord had inspected the property during the mutual exchange and completed the gas and electrical checks.
On the moving in day, the resident reported a large gap under the front door, an issue with the front door lock, a leak from the toilet and flooding from the shower. The resident also reported poor condition of the windows. The front door issues and the leak were noted as completed on 9 February 2021 according to the landlord’s repair log.
On 11 February 2021, the resident raised further concerns about the leak from the toilet and the bathroom sink and requested an assessment of the damage caused. On 15 February 2021, the landlord carried out an inspection and decided to replace the bathroom toilet, shower and basin.
On 23 February 2021, the resident reported further issues with the bathroom. He also reported on the day issues with the windows, which he said needed to be overhauled due to their age and condition. The landlord noted that the repairs to the bathroom should be completed once it replaced the toilet, shower and basin as per the inspection carried out on 15 February 2021.
On 18 March 2021, the toilet, the sink and the shower were replaced according to the landlord’s repair log.
On 23 March 2021, following further concerns raised by the resident about mutual exchange inspections, the landlord booked an electrical test.
According to the landlord’s internal correspondence, on 13 April 2021, in a telephone call, the resident raised a formal complaint saying that they had not received a response to the following issues raised:
1. A request for further information about a reported window repair. The resident explained that they were awaiting to hear from a supervisor as the property was in a conservation area.
2. The resident reported that there were works in the bathroom still to be completed.
The landlord acknowledged that a complaint was raised and provided a deadline for response of 27 April 2021.
On 21 April 2021, the resident reported that the problem in the bathroom still existed and they were unable to take a shower due to the slow draining and the shower tray flooding. A landlord’s operative attended the same day but was unable to resolve the issue. An appointment was made with a specialist operative, who reported that works were completed on 23 April 2021.
On 27 April 2021, the landlord issued its stage one response which explained that:
1. It acknowledged the resident was dissatisfied with the standard of the property and he had initially contacted the place manager with concerns about the mutual exchange process, and particularly a lack of inspections.
2. Its mutual exchange policy said that ‘the incoming tenant accepts the property in the condition they find it’. The landlord confirmed that the resident viewed the property during the mutual exchange and accepted it.
3. Following the inspection of 15 February 2021, the landlord agreed to replace the shower cubicle, toilet, wash basin and the flooring in the bathroom as an upgrade rather than a repair because it considered the bathroom functional. The landlord confirmed this was completed on 21 March 2021.
4. It noted that there was a ceiling patch repair to be carried out and planned to arrange this via its scheduling team by 30 April 2021.
5. It should be able to carry out the required repairs to the windows and the remedial works, despite the building being in a conservation area and it depending on the local authority permission. It agreed to make further arrangements for those works through its scheduling team.
6. It awarded a compensation total of £75, inclusive of £25 for missed timescales and £50 for lack of communication. (no details were provided of what was the lack of communication)
7. It acknowledged that completing the outstanding works would further resolve the complaint and provided details of how the resident could contact it in case they were dissatisfied with the response.
Following the stage one response, on 27 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and said that:
1. They agreed that they had accepted the property on ‘face value’. However, they considered that the landlord was dishonest in its previous statements,( which this Service does not have evidence of), that checks to the property were carried out. Had those checks been done and they became aware of the condition of the property, they would not have proceeded with the mutual exchange.
2. They considered that the issues raised were due to the landlord’s neglect, and particularly lack of inspections and services. The issues included the gap under the front door; the lever on the front door slamming; leaking toilet (resolved after 4 attempts); the shower not draining properly even after the upgrade; the basin water coming back through the shower tray since upgrading; the extractor fan in the bathroom; the 16 year old boiler which was leaking; paint coming off the windows from a leaking roof; mould and cracks in the bathroom ceiling caused by a leaking roof; windows unable to open and close and draughts coming from the windows.
3. They were dissatisfied with the length of time and the multiple attempts by the landlord to complete the repairs. Some of the jobs were resolved on the fourth or fifth attempt and some were still ongoing.
4. They considered the level of compensation not enough.
According to internal correspondence, the landlord forwarded the resident’s dissatisfaction email on 28 April 2021 to the relevant department with the intention to initiate a stage two investigation. However, there is no evidence of an acknowledgement being sent to the resident.
On 20 May 2021, the landlord’s repair log shows that further repairs were reported and raised as work orders following a landlord’s inspection:
1. Ceiling repairs, marked as completed on 02 June 2021;
2. To overhaul all timber windows at the property, which was attended on 19 June 2021 but noted that another appointment should be arranged for additional works.
On 26 May 2021 and on 04 June 2021 the resident reported reoccurring shower tray flooding and drainage issues. According to a note on the repair log, the issue previously had not been resolved, and the contractor installed a rodding eye on 27 May 2021. There was no access on 05 June 2021 and the landlord left a card.
Following a request from the resident, this Service contacted the landlord on 4 June 2021. We asked the landlord to progress the resident’s complaint about the handling of the repairs at their property, and particularly the ones that had not been resolved after multiple attempts (mainly the shower tray drainage and the condition of the windows). The resident reported that when it was raining water was leaking through the windows, the windows were rotten and draft proofing was also required. The landlord acknowledged the escalation request to the resident and this Service. It stated that it would send a response by 8 July 2021.
On 10 June 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident about an appointment for 19 June 2021 but no works were subsequently carried out on that day. A note was left on the landlord’s repair log that a further appointment should be arranged.
The resident was still dissatisfied that a long term solution was not offered for the shower tray and basin drainage. The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two and sent another acknowledgement to the resident.
On 22 June 2021, the resident reported a blocked shower and asked for the front door gap to be assessed due to a draught. The shower issues were noted as completed by a specialist contractor on 23 June 2021.
On 25 June 2021, the resident reported a further shower leak and additionally, damage to the sealant around the shower tray and wall.
The landlord issued its final response on 08 July 2021 and said that:
1. It had received the resident’s escalation request on 4 June 2021.
2. It acknowledged that in line with its mutual exchange policy an inspection should have been completed prior to the customer moving in. However, due to Covid -19 pandemic, the landlord’s staff were not required to attend in person. Instead a virtual inspection was completed with the outgoing tenant. A viewing was also arranged for the resident to view the property and no issues were raised by the resident to the Place Manager. The landlord stated that no repairs had been reported by the previous tenant or during the virtual inspection. It however, apologised for any inconvenience caused and noted that the repairs once reported were then handled under its repair policy.
3. It explained that it reviewed all the repairs which had been reported since the resident moved in to the property on 8 February 2021 up until 4 June 2021 and said that:
  1. There was no service failure in relation to its handling of the repairs to the front door gap, lever on door slamming, the toilet leaking, the leaking boiler and ceiling repairs. The leaking boiler was attempted multiple times but was replaced in a timely manner. The ceiling repairs were also completed within the routine works timeframe.
  2. The front door gap and the lever on the door slamming were both reported as emergency repairs and attended within 24 hours. None of them had been re-reported.
  3. The leaking toilet was first raised as an emergency repair on 8 February 2021 and completed within 24 hours. It was attended a couple of times and following an inspection, the landlord suggested to replace the toilet, sink and shower. This was completed on 18 March 2021. The landlord stated that at the time of replacement the bathroom was considered as fully functional, but was replaced due to age.
  4. It identified failures related to the timescales of the repairs to the shower and lack of communication regarding the window repairs:

(1) There was an emergency repair raised to the shower on 21 April 2021, which was attended the same day but the operative was unable to resolve it. A specialist operative then attended out of the 24 hours period and resolved the issue. The resident made further reports about the reoccurring drainage issue on three separate occasions. The landlord raised routine repairs and the job was shown as completed on 28 June 2021.

(2) With regards to the window repair, the landlord considered it first raised on 23 February 2021. This repair was attended a couple of times and the operative who attended advised that they were unable to finish the works due to the resident’s concerns that this would not stop the ‘rattling’. The landlord acknowledged the resident’s request for a specialist contractor but this was not progressed.

(3) It offered to re-raise the repair and send an alternative operative. It apologised for any inconsistency in relation to the events. The landlord was also in a process of discussing planning permission for the windows with the local authority and depending on the outcome the windows were likely to be replaced in 2022-2023.

The landlord awarded total compensation of £150.00, comprising of £100 – for the lack of communication and £50 for the inconvenience caused by multiple repairs to the shower drainage and the missed timescales of the emergency repair.

Following the landlord’s final response, the resident chased the repairs to the shower tray and the windows and the payment of compensation.
The landlord completed the repair to the front door gap on 28 July 2021.
The landlord attended the shower drainage issues on 2 August 2021 and 10 September 2021. But due to no access, the repair was raised again on 28 September 2021.
On 13 October 2021 the landlord surveyed the property. The surveyor’s report established that:
1. The windows were in need of repair:
  1. There was no glass to a window and in order for this to be rectified the landlord should raise a job for the timber to be replaced with glass.
  2. There was damp on the plaster around the windows and the landlord should arrange a replacement of plaster and decoration.
2. The issue with the bathroom was reported again by the resident. The surveyor noticed the shower filling up despite no signs of blockage and made recommendation for further investigation.
3. There was a leak between the bathroom cubicle. Additional repairs, not part of this investigation, to the kitchen and bathroom were also identified.
Repairs to the window locks were carried out on 6 October 2021. During the repairs the resident asked for further information about the planning application for the windows replacement. There are no evidence of a landlord’s response.
The shower drainage repair was noted as completed as per the repair log on 19 October 2021.
On 19 October 2021, the resident chased the landlord for further information about the planning permission for the windows replacement. There is no evidence of any response.
The resident referred the complaint to this Service formally on 19 October 2021. He explained that some of the works were completed and gave an example of the new locks on windows, completed in October 2021. However, the resident remained unhappy with the lack of communication and overall handling of repairs. He was dissatisfied that he had been redirected from one person to another while chasing repairs. He reported that he still experienced draughts from the windows. The resident expressed concerns that the landlord had not submitted an application to the local authority for the windows replacement.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision about the resident’s complaint we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in this Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concern about the landlord’s actions prior to mutual exchange.

It is not disputed that the landlord conducted a virtual inspection prior to the mutual exchange. It is also not disputed that the resident agreed to accept the property after viewing it in person. This Service has seen the landlord’s Covid-19 mutual exchange guidance of May 2020, stating that due to the pandemic, it might conduct virtual inspection prior to a mutual exchange.
It is recognised that the mutual exchange happened during the Covid-19 third national lockdown. However, this was in February 2021 when according to the government guidance essential works were allowed. Additionally, the landlord was allowed to visit properties to carry out routine repairs as evidenced in its repairs log. The Covid-19 situation was very dynamic and it was the landlord’s obligation to assess the government requirements and to adjust its policies regarding inspections to properties in line with the changing circumstances. An inspection in person at the time would have been a more adequate approach in identifying any ongoing issues at the property.
According to its mutual exchange policy, the landlord was required to complete the electrical and gas checks before the new tenant moved in. There is no evidence that those checks were completed, which was inappropriate, considering the potential health and safety implication. The landlord has a statutory obligation to ensure that the gas supply and the electricity at the property is safe. According to an internal document, and particularly the landlord’s complaints checklist, the landlord intended to explore the lack of those checks. However, it failed to do so in its response to the resident.
Overall, there has been failures by the landlord as set out in the last two paragraphs, as it failed to carry out an inspection in person and the gas and electric checks were not performed prior to the new tenant moving in. For these reasons, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s action prior to the mutual exchange.

The landlord’s response to the residents reports of multiple repairs to the property

Gap to the front door and lever slamming

The resident reported the repair on 8 February 2021 and the landlord repair log evidenced that it dealt with both issues as an emergency repair on 9 February 2021 within the 24 hours timeframes of its policy. There was a further report on 22 June 2021 about a draught coming from the front door gap, which was noted as complete on 28 July 2021.
Due to the amount of time between the first request for repair to the front door gap and the second, this Service considers the report of the 22 June 2021 to be a separate issue. The landlord recorded that this was dealt with as a responsive repair. The landlord’s repairs policy allows the landlord 28 calendar days to complete the repair. The repair was completed within 36 calendar days. Hence, there was a minor service failure identified for this repair.

Leaking toilet and repairs required following a roof leak

The evidence provided to this Service confirmed the landlord’s assessment in its final response. The repairs log evidenced that the toilet leak was reported on 8 February 2021 and completed within 24 hours when a small leak to the flush pipe was identified. The resident raised the same issue again on 9 February 2021, but due to no access the landlord could not attend. The resident re-raised this again on 11 February 2021 and following an inspection on 23 February, the landlord suggested to replace the toilet, shower and basin. The landlord carried out the replacement on 18 March 2021, within the repairs policy timeframes.
The ceiling repairs were reported on 20 May 2021, and also completed within the routine repairs deadline of 28 days on 02 June 2021. Hence, no service failure was identified in the landlord’s response to these two repairs.

Shower and basin not draining

According to internal correspondence, the resident initially reported this when he moved in, on 8 February 2021. Following an inspection from 23 February 2021, the landlord replaced the toilet, shower and basin in March 2021. The draining issue was again reported on 21 April 2021. This was an emergency repair and was not disputed that the landlord has failed to resolve within the 24 hours timescales. The landlord had to appoint a specialist contractor and the work was reported as complete on 23 April 2021.
However, the issue persisted and the resident reported the drainage issue as reoccurring on four further occasions. Whilst in its final response the landlord stated that on 28 June 2021 it completed this repair, this Service has not seen evidence confirming this. Rather, the evidence suggests the repair was not completed until 19 October 2021. The repair log suggests that on a couple of occasions the landlord was unable to gain access to the property to perform the works. Whilst the access issues have contributed to the delays, the repair was not completed for nine months and took the landlord over eight visits. This was not appropriate or in accordance with the landlord’s repair policy.
If the landlord had been more resolution focused, it could have engaged a specialist survey or contractor to investigate the ongoing problem, which may have led to the issue being resolved sooner. However, the landlord did not follow up and complete the repair in a timely and reasonable manner as per its policy and repairing obligations. Hence, there were delays and failures in the overall handling of the drainage issues.

Repairs to the sash windows

The resident initially reported repairs required to the windows on 8 February 2021. Some were completed by 6 October 2021 after several appointments. This was eight months after the initial report. Further works were noted as required in the survey from 13 October 2021. Whilst the surveyor recommended those to be carried out, this Service has seen no evidence of being completed. This considerable delay and failure of the landlord to put things right was not appropriate.
Additionally, the miscommunication between the landlord, its contractors and the resident contributed to the delays. There was a contradictory information provided by the operative that the resident was unwilling to proceed with the repairs, whereas the resident stated on a few occasions in their correspondence to the landlord that they would like the repairs to be completed even if the landlord is unable to replace the windows as being in conservation area.
In its final response of 8 July 2021, the landlord also explained it had made an application for permission to replace the windows with the local authority. This was planned to take place in 2022-2023. The landlord however failed to provide further information about the outcome of its application and consistent updates about this process. The landlord’s overall communication in relation with the windows was unreasonable and not customer focused.
In its final response, the landlord acknowledged that there was a service failure in terms of the communication about the windows repairs and offered to re-raise the repair. However, it did not follow up on putting things right.
The works were not completed for eight months after being first reported and four months after its final response, which was not in accordance with its repairs policy. The landlord also failed to acknowledge those delays in its complaint response, which would have been reasonable to do. Overall, there were delays and failures in relation to the landlord’s handling of the windows repairs.
It should be noted that the landlord has provided a thorough final response and has tried to build trust with the resident that it could resolve the issues. It accepted that it should have managed the repairs to the windows, the shower drainage, and the communication with the resident more effectively. It also apologised for the service issues and offered compensation, which was resolution focused.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation and details of lessons learned) put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
The landlord acted fairly by apologising for not effectively managing the resident’s expectations about some repairs to be completed on first or second attempts and for its poor communication about the windows. However, it did not act fairly by failing to acknowledge that, despite attending the property on various occasions, it had not repaired the drainage or resolved the window issues within a reasonable time.
The landlord did not demonstrate that it had learnt from outcomes. Despite acknowledging its failures in these services, it did not provide clear plan of repairs or point of contact in order to improve its communication. Additionally, it did not follow up on the repairs or the information about the planning permission after it admitted its failures. This was not customer focused and caused additional inconvenience to the resident.
Overall, the landlord’s response did not put the matters right as:
1. It did not carry out the repairs as mentioned above.
2. The compensation of £150 offered for lack of communication and service issues was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident for its failures to deal with the repairs to the windows and the shower drainage in a reasonable time and the multiple time consuming attempts to resolve those issues.
Therefore, for the reasons set out in the previous four paragraphs the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s complaint response was not proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident as a result of its failures and the landlord has not done enough to put things right. Additional compensation has been ordered below to address this failure.

The landlord’s complaint handing

There is evidence that following its stage one response of 27 April 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord on the same day with their dissatisfaction of how the complaint had been responded. The resident then further chased the landlord in May 2021 .
There is evidence that the landlord was aware of the resident’s email of 27 April 2021. However, it did not escalate the complaint until it was contacted by this Service on 4 June 2021, which delayed the escalation by 36 days. The landlord failed to recognise this in its final response.
Additionally, as earlier explained, the landlord failed to address parts of the resident’s complaint related to the gas and electrical checks prior to the mutual exchange. For the above reasons, there was maladministration by the landlord in its complaint handling.
It is set out in the Ombudsman’s Guidance on Remedies that for instances of maladministration resulting in some impact on the complainant which was of short duration, but where the landlord failed to acknowledge its failings, £100.00 could be considered sufficient to put things right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s actions prior to the mutual exchange.
2. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs, and particularly to the handling of the windows and drainage repairs.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not fulfil its obligation to carry out an inspection in person and gas and electrical checks prior to the mutual exchange.
There were significant delays in carrying out the drainage and window repairs at the property. They were not resolved within one or two attempts and were not completed over five months since the initial reports. The multiple attempts caused additional inconvenience. The landlord also failed to keep the resident updated in respect of further action on the repairs and the planning permission for the windows.
Despite its thorough response the landlord did not adequately consider the level of compensation. It did not follow up with a reasonable plan of works or point of contact.
There were delays in the landlord acknowledging and escalating the stage two complaint. It also failed to identify its initial complaint handling failures and delays.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to write to the resident and this Service setting out:
1. A clear timetable for the repairs to the windows, if it has not completed them already.
2. An update about the application made to the local authority, if any, in relation to the windows replacement. If this has been approved, a plan of works for the replacement. If it has not been approved, to provide information on its next steps.
3. An apology for its failures.
The landlord is ordered within four weeks of the date of this report to pay the resident £550. This is comprised of:
1. £150 previously offered if it has not been already paid.
2. A further £150.00 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident due to lack of safety checks prior to mutual exchange.
3. A further £150 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the windows and the drainage issues in the bathroom at the property.
4. A further £100 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble incurred by the resident as a result of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord to review its policy, procedure and working practices in relation to mutual exchange inspections, complaint handling and multiple reports of reoccurring repairs in order to identify service improvements and to provide training to its staff to ensure that effective communication and complaint handling is achieved and to ensure that such similar failings do not occur in future. The landlord should provide a summary of any identified service improvements to this Service and the resident.