Platform Housing Group Limited (202439162)

Background

1. The resident moved into the property in February 2022. On 5 August 2022 she reported to the landlord that weeds were growing into the living room through the floors and skirting boards.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of reports of plants growing into the resident’s living room.
3. We have also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Our decision (determination)

4. We found that there was:
   1. reasonable redress in how the landlord handled the resident’s reports of plants growing into the living room
   2. no maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

The landlord’s handling of reports of plants growing into the resident’s living room

5. There were significant delays in the landlord’s investigations into the cause of the issues reported by the resident. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, it had agreed appropriate next steps and offered an amount of compensation which satisfactorily resolves the complaint.

Complaint handling

6. The landlord followed its policies and dealt with the resident’s complaint appropriately. Shortcomings in its complaint handling at stage 1 of its complaints process were put right in its stage 2 response.

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.

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.

7. Between 5 August 2022 and 2 December 2024 the landlord visited the property in response to the resident’s reports of weeds growing into the living room. It took several different approaches in response to each report, such as to:
   1. remove and treat the weeds August 2022
   2. refit the affected skirting boards in March 2023
   3. replaster walls in May 2024
   4. fill cracks with cement in October 2024
8. The landlord’s actions proved to be only temporary measures which failed to prevent the weeds from coming back. The landlord was right to later acknowledge that it had failed to appropriately investigate the underlying cause of the issue. It also acknowledged that it was wrong to advise the resident that it was her responsibility to deal with the issue in its stage 1 complaint response.
9. The repair logs, internal emails, and the inappropriate advice that was given to the resident, demonstrate that the landlord lacked an effective response to the issue. The landlord missed opportunities to recognise that its approach was failing to resolve the issue. As a result, appropriate investigations by suitably qualified specialists to look beneath the living room floor were not carried out until 2 December 2024. This was over 2 years after the resident’s first report. The landlord’s repairs policy states that major repairs should be completed within 90 days of the landlord’s first assessment. Due to the complex and unique nature of the issues, some delays beyond this may have been reasonable. However the landlord should have consulted specialists earlier than it did.
10. It was important that it used this case to conduct appropriate learning. In its stage 2 complaint response it noted that the issue was unique. It said that it had fed back the time it had taken to diagnose the issue and to consider what steps should be taken if it were to encounter this issue at properties in the future. This was reasonable.
11. The impact the issue caused to the resident was avoidable. She told the landlord that she had been unable to have full enjoyment of her home, or decorate downstairs, for the duration of her time living there. She had experienced significant and repeated disruption accommodating works and inspections, some of which were unnecessary or ineffective. This was especially disruptive as she often had to arrange childcare or time off work.
12. This impact was heightened by instances of inadequate communication by the landlord. For example, it told her work to resolve the issue would be done on 14 May 2024, but this appointment was for an unrelated repair. There was also an appointment on 30 October 2024 which the landlord missed. It could not be reattended until 2 December 2024, adding to the already significant length of time the issue had been unresolved for.
13. According to the landlord’s internal emails, the works identified would take ‘at least 2 weeks, assuming there were no complications’. To complete the works, the resident would need to be temporarily relocated. It was reasonable that, to minimise further disruption, the landlord agreed to her request to support a permanent move and arrange to lay a temporary floor in the meantime. On 15 December 2024 the resident advised that the outstanding point of dispute remaining was the landlord’s offer of compensation.
14. To determine if the landlord’s offer was reasonable, we have considered the impact the landlord’s failure to resolve the issue had on the resident. We have looked at its compensation policy, alongside our own remedies guidance. The landlord’s offer of £2,935.50 was made up of:
    1. £1,435.50 for the resident’s loss of enjoyment of her property from August 2022 to December 2024, calculated as 10% of the value of the rent paid during that period
    2. £1,050 for the resident’s distress and inconvenience
    3. £350 for the landlord’s failure to diagnose the cause of the issue
    4. £100 for incorrectly telling the resident that the weeds were her responsibility
    5. £150 at stage 1 for poor communication around the repair on 14 May 2024
15. The landlord’s policy sets out the levels of compensation it will consider based on the impact its failings have had. Where it finds ‘serious or prolonged’ failures resulting in distress, inconvenience and disruption, it states that it will offer at least £850 compensation. It also states that where there is a loss of a living room, it will offer compensation equal to 10% of the rent paid by the resident during that period.
16. The landlord offered an amount which falls within the appropriate bracket for the impact described by the resident. This amount also falls within the brackets set out in our remedies guidance. It offered additional amounts to reflect the added impact of its communication failings, which was reasonable.

17. The landlord’s complaints policy sets out the expectations it should meet when dealing with complaints. For example, the landlord should log all complaints within 5 working days. It should respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days of being logged and to stage 2 complaints within 20 working days.
18. The landlord logged the resident’s stage 1 complaint in 5 working days. It responded in a further 9 working days. It also logged the resident’s stage 2 complaint in 5 working days and responded in a further 20 working days. The landlord met its expected timescales.
19. The landlord acknowledged that its stage 1 complaint response did not identify the majority of its failings. It gave the resident inappropriate advice and did not resolve her concerns. The landlord was able to put this right in its stage 2 complaint response.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

20. The landlord’s record keeping in this case was adequate. The landlord’s repairs logs for individual jobs contained good detail about the work that was required.However, once the work was done, not much further detail about the works that it completed was recorded. This may be an area where the landlord could improve its record keeping.

Communication

21. The resident raised specific concerns with the landlord about its communication around 2 particular repairs. One in which it gave inaccurate information about the work was to be carried out, and another where it did not inform the resident that it would not be attending. While the landlord dealt with this appropriately in its complaint responses, there may be elements of learning it could conduct from these instances.