Platform Housing Group Limited (202341540)

Background

1. The resident told the landlord about a leak in her bathroom, which she said had caused mould in her bedroom, damaging her possessions. The repairs to her bathroom were incomplete and she was not satisfied with the amount the landlord offered in compensation. This led to the resident making her complaint. The resident has mental health vulnerabilities which the landlord is aware of.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
   1. The resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and related damage to items.
   2. Complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

3. We found:
   1. Maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs and related damage to items.
   2. Service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling.

We have made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

4. In summary the Ombudsman found that:

In the landlord’s response to the residents reports of outstanding repairs and related damage to items

1. The landlord was responsive in sending out a contractor to address the leak the same day it was reported.
2. The landlord did not complete effective repairs to the bathroom within a reasonable time.
3. It was appropriate that the landlord referred the resident to its insurers to make a claim for any damaged items.

In the complaint handling

4. The landlord did not correctly identify the resident’s reply to their stage 1 response as an escalation to stage 2.
5. Its acknowledgment of the escalation was 26 working days late.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration, or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Orders

Landlords must comply with our orders in the manner and timescales we specify. The landlord must provide documentary evidence of compliance with our orders by the due date set.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

What we did not investigate

5. The resident reported that the situation affected her family’s health and damaged personal belongings. We can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, but we cannot determine liability for damage to health or belongings. These matters fall under insurance or court processes, so we will not include them in this investigation. We will assess any compensation offers in line with our remedies guidance. If the resident wishes to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.
6. The resident did not include mould on her wall as part of her original complaint. Her complaint focused on compensation for mould damage to her possessions and outstanding repairs. She first told the landlord on 31 January 2024 that she and her children were coughing. On 12 February 2024, 2 days before issuing the stage 2 response, the landlord raised a works order for a damp and mould inspection.
7. The resident told us about mould on her bathroom wall when she referred her complaint on 15 March 2024. However, this issue did not form part of her original complaint, so the landlord would not have had the opportunity to respond to it during its original complaint’s process. We are aware that the landlord has since carried out a damp and mould survey and completed the associated works.

What we did investigate

8. The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it will attend emergency repairs within 24 hours, complete appointed repairs in a single visit (where possible) within 28 days, and assess major, more complex repairs within 28 days and complete them within 90 days.
9. The resident first reported a leak in her bathroom on 29 August 2023, and the landlord sent a contractor the same day. The contractor completed initial repairs and identified further works for a follow up visit on 15 September 2023. It was unclear from the landlord’s records whether the leak was stopped on this visit. Additional works were identified during that visit, and the contractor ordered materials. The landlord cancelled a follow-up appointment on 17 October 2023 because the materials were not available. This was not compliant with timescales in their repair policy.
10. The resident made her complaint on 7 November 2023, stating that tiles on her bathroom wall were broken and the leak had caused mould to spread to her bedroom and damage her possessions. She requested replacements for the damaged items.
11. In its stage 1 and stage 2 responses, the landlord gave the resident its insurance provider’s details so she could make a claim for damage to her possessions caused by mould. This action was reasonable.
12. The landlord identified that it needed to replace the bath panel, which was damaged during the repairs. It did not complete the other repairs to the bathroom until 29 November 2023, which is not in line with the landlord’s repair policy. The bath panel replacement remained outstanding.
13. It is likely that the delays in the bathroom repairs caused frustration and inconvenience to the resident. She and her daughters were unable to use the shower for 3 months, but the bath was usable during this time.
14. In its stage 1 response, the landlord acknowledged delays in the bathroom repairs and offered £350 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused, which the resident rejected.
15. The resident contacted the landlord on 6 January 2024 to report that the bath panel was still not replaced. She chased this again on 15 and 16 January 2024.
16. The landlord sent a contractor on 12 February 2024 to replace the bath panel and inspect the underside of the bath for mould and leaks. The resident refused this and asked for a surveyor to complete the inspection instead. The landlord assured her that the contractor was qualified to carry out the inspection before installing the new bath panel.
17. The landlord reasonably relied on its contractor’s expertise. Under the tenancy agreement, the resident must allow contractors access to carry out inspections and repair works. If the resident had granted access, the contractor may have been able to identify and address any additional damp and mould issues, if necessary, and complete the bath panel replacement at that time.
18. Although the resident’s refusal delayed the installation of the bath panel further, the landlord offered an additional £150 compensation for delays in its stage 2 response. The landlord said it would rearrange the appointment, but it did not complete the bath panel replacement until 14 August 2024.
19. Regarding the resident’s request for compensation for damaged items, we found that the landlord acted fair and reasonably in providing its insurance details for her to make a claim.
20. We found maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs, as it failed to complete the repairs within its policy timescales. While it offered of £500 compensation overall, which is in line with our remedies guidance and the landlord’s policy, the bath panel remained outstanding for 6 more months. Had no repairs been outstanding at the end of the landlord’s complaint process, or had it replaced the bath panel before the resident referred her complaint to us, we would have found reasonable redress.
21. Due to the additional 6-month delay in replacing the bath panel, we have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay £100 compensation for the further inconvenience, in line with our remedies guidance.

22. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) requires landlords to acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints within 10 and 20 working days, respectively.
23. The landlord has a published complaints policy which complies with the terms of the Code in respect of timescales.
24. The landlord acknowledged the stage 1 complaint and issued its stage 1 response on time.
25. The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2023 expressing her dissatisfaction with the stage 1 response. The Code states that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1, it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure. Acknowledgement of the escalation must take place within 5 working days.
26. The landlord failed to identify the resident’s email as a stage 2 escalation, which indicates a training need. Although the landlord replied to the resident and asked her to provide photographs and indicate the compensation she would accept, it did not escalate the complaint to stage 2.
27. The resident emailed the landlord on 6, 15 and 16 January 2024 about her complaint. The landlord responded on 16 January 2024, apologised for its lack of contact, and said it would escalate the complaint to stage 2. It sent official acknowledgement of the escalation on 17 January 2024. As the landlord failed to recognise the resident’s email on 29 November 2023 as an escalation, its stage 2 acknowledgement was 26 working days late. This did not comply with its policy or the Code.
28. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 14 February 2024, which met the required timescale. However, its failure to recognise the resident’s escalation email in November 2023 caused the resident unnecessary time and trouble chasing updates.
29. We therefore found service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling. We have ordered the landlord to apologise and pay the resident £50. This amount reflects the inconvenience and distress experienced by the resident in pursuing her complaint and aligns with our remedies guidance.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

30. Overall, the landlord’s recording keeping was good.

Communication

31. In general, the landlord’s communication with the resident was good, but there were delays in the landlord responding to the resident’s emails following the stage 1 response being issued.