Read our new Spotlight report on repairs and maintenance – repairing trust.

Platform Housing Group Limited (202307100)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202307100

Platform Housing Group Limited

15 January 2025

 

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
    1. A window repair.
    2. Damp and mould.

Background

  1. The resident was an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association, between September 2022 and August 2023. He lived in the property with his brother, and the landlord had it recorded that both were vulnerable.
  2. On 30 November 2022, the resident reported mould in the property. The landlord noted it emailed him with advice about how to manage this.
  3. The resident reported one of his windows was smashed on 8 April 2023. The landlord noted it attended the same day to board this up and follow on works were needed to measure and fit a new double glazed unit. Later that month, the landlord noted it attended to measure the window and ordered the double glazed unit. On 2 May 2023, the resident made a complaint to the landlord, via this Service, about damp and mould and disrepair in the property.
  4. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 26 May 2023. This said it had contacted the resident to discuss his specific repair concerns but he had declined to provide any details. Therefore, it had only investigated his concerns about a window repair mentioned in previous correspondence. The complaint was not upheld as there was no evidence of any service failure. It had responded in a timely manner to the window repair and confirmed there was an appointment scheduled for 30 May 2023 to complete this. It had followed the correct process in relation to his report of damp and mould.
  5. On 30 May 2023, the landlord attended for the window repair and recorded this as completed. It subsequently said that the job was incorrectly closed on its systems as it had not been completed on this date, due to no access being provided.
  6. In August 2023, the resident told this Service that he had moved out of the property but that the damp and mould and disrepair had been left unresolved. The resident’s complaint was subsequently escalated via this Service at the end of October 2023. The following month he told the landlord that he had reported his window had been smashed, but this was not repaired. It had not attended regarding the damp and mould, despite saying that it would. He had asked for a surveyor to attend but this was refused.
  7. The landlord provided its stage 2 response on 4 December 2023. This said the complaint was upheld as there were errors and service failure in its handling of the window repair and damp and mould. It apologised and offered £250 compensation. The resident has asked this Service to investigate his complaint and said that he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s compensation offer.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has told this Service that these matters have negatively affected his and his brother’s mental health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments; however, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s actions and the resident or his brother’s ill-health.
  2. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if he considers that his or his brother’s health has been affected by any action or failure by the landlord (reflected at paragraph 42.f of the Scheme). While the Ombudsman cannot consider the effect on health, consideration has been given to any general distress and inconvenience the resident experienced as a result of any service failure by the landlord.

Handling of a window repair

  1. The landlord was responsible for repairs to window frames in accordance with the resident’s tenancy agreement. This said it was responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including window frames.
  2. The landlord’s rechargeable repairs leaflet said it was responsible for boarding up broken window glazing and that it would reglaze windows if a crime reference number was provided. If no crime reference number was provided, then the resident would be recharged.
  3. In this case, it is not clear from the evidence provided whether the resident provided a crime reference number or not when he reported that his window had been smashed in April 2023. However, the landlord accepted responsibility for carrying out the repair to the window. As the issue of responsibility is not in dispute by either the resident or the landlord, this does not require further assessment by the Ombudsman.
  4. The landlord’s repairs policy defined emergency repairs as ones which posed a serious risk to people or property. Therefore, when the resident reported his window had been smashed on 8 April 2023, it was reasonable that the landlord dealt with this as an emergency repair. This was because the smashed window meant that the property was insecure, which would be a potential serious risk to both the resident and the property. The landlord attended the same day to board up the window. This was in line with the 24 hour committed response time for emergency repairs, set out in its repairs policy at the time.
  5. The landlord’s repairs policy defined major repairs as ones which were larger scale, more complex repairs. As the window repair required the full double glazed unit to be measured, ordered and replaced using a specialist contractor, it was reasonable that the landlord dealt with this as a major repair.
  6. The landlord’s repairs policy at the time said it would carry out an initial assessment of major repairs within 28 days and complete the repair within 90 days. In this case, the landlord attended on 25 April 2023 to measure the window, which was 18 days after the repair was first reported. It then attended on 30 May 2023 to complete the repair, which was 53 days after the repair was reported. Both of these appointments were in accordance with the committed timescales for major repairs, set out in the landlord’s repairs policy at the time.
  7. While the landlord attended within the committed timescales, the repair was not completed. The landlord subsequently said this was because no access was given by the resident at the appointment on 30 May 2023. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence to confirm this. Whatever the reason for this job not going ahead, the landlord subsequently recorded this as completed, which was an error. This error meant no follow up was made to progress the repair and resulted in the resident living in the property with a boarded up window for a further 3 months, until he moved out.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the boarded up window was unsightly and that it was frustrating for the resident that this repair did not go ahead. However, the delay in completing this did not pose any risk to him as the window had been boarded up. This meant the property was safe and secure.
  9. The landlord acknowledged its error in the handling of this issue as part of its stage 2 complaint investigation. It apologised and offered compensation, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles to be fair and put things right. The total compensation offered was £250 in recognition of this and 1 other issue. However, the landlord did not give specific amounts for each of the 2 issues.
  10. Considering the full circumstances of this matter and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, £100 compensation is reasonable for the landlord’s handling of this issue. As this is covered by the total amount offered, the landlord has offered reasonable redress to the resident for its handling of a window repair.
  11. A recommendation has been made for the landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation previously offered, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord.

Handling of damp and mould

  1. The landlord was responsible for addressing damp and mould in the property in accordance with section 9(a) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. This says that the landlord has an obligation to ensure the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy, in relation to freedom from damp.
  2. In response to the resident’s first report of mould in November 2022, the landlord said it provided written advice on how to deal with this. While sensible that it did this, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on this subject says that landlords should avoid taking actions that place the onus solely on the resident to resolve the issue. It should evaluate what actions it can take and seek to diagnose the underlying cause of the damp and mould as soon as possible.
  3. In this case, there is no evidence that the landlord did this and the only action taken placed the onus solely on the resident to resolve this issue. This meant that it was unaware of the severity of the issue and whether there was any action it needed to take. This left the resident feeling that the landlord was not taking the matter seriously.
  4. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord introduced a damp and mould policy the following month, in December 2022. This sets out a detailed process for how the landlord will investigate and manage these types of issues. This includes a commitment that where mould is present in a property, it will clean this and make contact with the resident within 5 working days. It also says it will survey the property to identify and resolve any damp. The introduction of this new policy and process is positive and is in accordance with best practice set out in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report.
  5. When the resident reported the damp and mould issue was ongoing as part of his formal complaint in May 2023, the landlord added his property to its damp register. This was in accordance with its damp and mould policy, which said it would record all reports of damp and mould on its register. The landlord acknowledged the report on 10 May 2023 and told the resident it would contact him to discuss this. However, this did not happen. This amounts to maladministration as it did not keep to its commitment or act in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This left the resident feeling let down.
  6. The landlord acknowledged its failure in the handling of this issue within its stage 2 complaint response. It told the resident that due to the volume of mould reports it had received, these were prioritised on a case by case basis. While reasonable that the landlord did this, there is no evidence that it updated the resident during the period of delay or explained why it had not prioritised his report. The landlord had committed that it would contact him and when it did not, this left him feeling ignored.
  7. The landlord was provided photos of the property in May 2023 for review. While these did not show any obvious signs of damp and mould, they did not cover all areas of the property and could not give the landlord a detailed overview of the condition. Therefore, further investigations should have been done. The resident had asked for a surveyor to inspect the property, which would have been sensible for it to fully investigate this issue. The landlord itself acknowledged this within its stage 2 complaint response.
  8. After the resident moved out in August 2023, the landlord inspected the property and noted that no damp and mould works were required as part of the void works. It concluded that this meant there was no damp or mould in the property. Despite there being no evidence of damp and mould in the property after the resident moved out, this was not mitigation for the landlord’s earlier failures. This was because it did not know this at the time the resident reported his concerns in November 2022 and May 2023.
  9. As the resident reported mould in the property on more than 1 occasion, he clearly believed there was an issue and wanted the landlord’s help to resolve this. Therefore, the landlord should have done more to investigate his concerns in a timely manner and in accordance with its damp and mould policy. This was particularly important as the landlord knew that the resident and his brother were vulnerable and so should have acted sooner to investigate and address his concerns.
  10. With hindsight, the landlord concluded there was no damp or mould in the property. Therefore, there was no detriment to the resident because of the condition of the property. However, there was detriment caused by the landlord’s overall handling of this issue as it did not contact the resident when it said it would or take reasonable steps to investigate his concerns. This left him feeling that the landlord did not care about the issues he had reported.
  11. As part of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it acknowledged failure in its handling of this issue, apologised and offered a total of £250 compensation to cover this and 1 other issue. The Ombudsman has determined that £100 compensation was reasonable in respect of the other issue (window repair), therefore, an amount of £150 is remaining in respect of this issue.
  12. It is positive that the landlord independently identified failures in its handling of this issue and offered redress to the resident. This shows it was prepared to take accountability for its actions and wanted to put things right for him. However, considering the full circumstances of the case and in consultation with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, £150 compensation is not quite proportionate to the failings identified by this investigation.
  13. Therefore, balancing the landlord’s failures and the detriment caused to the resident, with the steps taken by the landlord to put things right; a finding of service failure is appropriate. An order has been made for the landlord to pay the resident £225 compensation for its handling of this issue, which is inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already. This is in accordance with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, satisfactorily resolves the complaint about its handling of a window repair.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £225 compensation for its handling of damp and mould (inclusive of the £150 already offered, if not done so already). Evidence of compliance to be provided to this Service, within 4 weeks.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to pay the resident the £100 compensation previously offered for its handling of a window repair, if not done so already. The reasonable redress finding is made on the basis of this sum being paid to the resident, as it recognised genuine elements of service failure by the landlord. An update to be provided to this Service regarding the above recommendation, within 4 weeks.