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

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited (202231408)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202231408

Poplar Housing And Regeneration Community Association Limited

15 November 2024

 

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:
    1. Handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
    2. Handling of outstanding repairs.
    3. Complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a ground floor 2-bedroom maisonette. The landlord is a housing association and was made aware, on 30 November 2022, of the resident’s young son having chronic lung disease that required 24 hour oxygen.

Summary of events

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 6 February 2023. He told the landlord about outstanding repairs and said:
    1. It completed an asbestos survey on 18 August 2022 and due to his son having a chronic lung disease, he asked for detailed information on work completed relating to asbestos.
    2. He told the landlord about no gas and electricity at the property due to an outstanding bill from a previous tenant. He was given electricity on 14 December but was told it would take 5 weeks for gas to be installed.
    3. There were a number of repairs for the property which included issues in the kitchen.
    4. He was given a property with a shower. A contractor told him that due to the small bath he needed an electric shower and not one connected to the tap. Instead the landlord decided to install a tap shower.
    5. He had paid rent for a property that he was not living in and wanted a refund of rent and bills paid from 28 November 2022 onwards. He had spent £4,000 on works and believed the landlord should contribute to the costs due to the condition the property was let.
  2. The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 17 May 2023. It apologised for the distress caused to the resident and his family. It said:
    1. It would raise work which included, fitting a new electric shower and issue a decoration voucher to assist with costs of work.
    2. It had previously fitted new flooring to the kitchen as part of voids work, if the resident had removed this it was his responsibility to install a replacement. Its voids manager would arrange for an inspection of the floor tiles in the living room and hallway due to concerns about asbestos. It would ‘make good’ the sub floor/tiles if the resident wanted to install his own flooring.
    3. The property was habitable since the start of the tenancy and no rent refund or reduction was due to the resident.
  3. The resident told the landlord that he was unhappy with its response on 30 May 2023. He repeated his request for a rental refund from the start of the tenancy and said the landlord should compensate him for the stress caused. He said:
    1. The walls in the property had 3 layers of wallpaper and were not prepared for decoration. He had to do this work himself and attached invoices for the costs.
    2. He did not agree the property was habitable from the start of the tenancy. He had to wait 8 weeks for electricity and longer for gas.
    3. It did not address asbestos concerns that he raised with it. He told it of concerns about his sons medical condition.
  4. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2023. It thanked the resident for speaking with it on 6 July 2023 and said:
    1. It accepted the issues with communication experienced by the resident but was unable to find evidence that the property did not meet its lettable standard.
    2. The resident arranged works in the property himself which included plastering and changes to the kitchen flooring.
    3. It had removed the shower as it was its policy to remove over bath showers during the void period. It had since reinstated the shower and explained its process for adaptation works. It apologised that this process was not made clear to the resident.
    4. It had arranged for the floors to be screeded as a goodwill gesture due to its previous lack of communication. It explained this would usually be the resident’s responsibility as he had decided to remove vinyl flooring. It would complete the work on 18 July 2023.
    5. It listed the work the resident would be completing and the remedies he was seeking. It repeated its position on the lack of evidence to show the property was not habitable from the start of the tenancy and said it agreed to complete works it would not normally do (including reference to the shower). It explained it would not reimburse expenses.
    6. It accepted its communication fell short and offered the resident £500 compensation.
  5. The resident remained unhappy with the outcome of the landlord’s internal complaints process and contacted this Service in July 2023.

Assessment and findings

The condition of the property when it was let

  1. The landlord’s void repair process explains that it will complete a void checklist, raise work and conduct post works inspection. The landlord has not provided a copy of its void checklist or inspections. It has not explained why it could not provide this, but its repairs log shows some work completed in August 2022, during the void period. The landlord has accepted that some work highlighted by the resident should have been identified as part of its voids process. As such, it is reasonable to conclude with the evidence available, that the landlord’s failure to provide a void checklist and inspection indicates it did not follow its void repair process. This was not appropriate.
  2. While the landlord appropriately conducted an asbestos survey as part of its void process, it took 6 months to provide a copy of this to the resident, on 18 May 2023. This timeframe was unreasonable. The resident told the landlord of his concerns about asbestos and his young son having chronic lung disease. However, despite this the landlord failed to provide the requested information to help alleviate the resident’s safety concerns. This was unreasonable in the circumstances.
  3. On 5 December 2022, the resident told the landlord that there was no gas or electricity at the property and explained that he needed a standard meter for his son’s oxygen equipment. The landlord appropriately attended the property the same day and was made aware of debt on the meter from a previous tenant. While the landlord acted appropriately in assisting the resident with the debt on the meter, its internal emails from December 2022 accepts that the issue should have been looked at during void. The landlord’s failure to identify the debt on the meter during the void process was not appropriate. This meant that between 28 November 2022 and 8 December 2022, 11 days, the resident was unable to change his meter.
  4. It is understood that the utility provider resolved the electricity issue on 14 December 2022 and gas at a later date. It is accepted that this would have been a difficult time for the resident especially in light of the needs of his vulnerable child. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that once the landlord was made aware of the needs of the resident and his family it acted quickly in trying to resolve the issue. As such, the failing identified for the meter during the void process is limited to the timeframe from the start of the tenancy until 8 December 2022. This is because there is no evidence to show the landlord was aware of the resident’s needs prior to this and any delay in installing the meter was outside the landlord’s control. Furthermore, the resident was not living at the property at that time and this would have limited the impact further.
  5. It is noted that the resident said the property had 3 layers of wallpaper and how he felt the landlord should have removed the wallpaper and skimmed walls in preparation for painting. The landlord’s void repair process explains that the property should be ready to decorate. There is no evidence to show that the property was not ready to decorate and the landlord’s void repair process does not say it would remove wallpaper and skim walls. Instead it says the resident is responsible for decorating the inside of the property. As such, when considering the wallpaper and skimming issue the landlord’s position was reasonable in the circumstances.
  6. The resident has said the property was uninhabitable at the time it was let. Landlords have a responsibility to ensure properties are safe and free from any hazard. While the landlord met its wider obligations in conducting an asbestos survey, it took too long to provide information about this to the resident to help alleviate his safety concerns. In addition to this, the landlord’s failure to identify the issue with the electricity meter would have meant the resident was unable to use the property for some time due to the vulnerabilities of his family. When considering all these failings combined there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
  7. This Service’s remedies guidance allows for payments of actual financial loss. For the failings in relation to the electricity meter, the weekly rent was £155, for the period of 11 days identified above his would amount to rental compensation of £244 (rounded up). The Ombudsman does not consider it fair and reasonable to order further rental compensation in these circumstances.
  8. In addition to rental compensation, to acknowledge the impact caused by the landlord’s overall failings in relation to how it handled the void work and it taking 6 month to provide the resident with an asbestos survey, a further compensation amount has been decided as appropriate in the circumstances. When considering an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered along with the scale of the landlord’s failings and the impact this would have had on the resident. As such, £500 compensation has been decided as appropriate to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused. This amount falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance.

Handling of outstanding repairs

  1. The resident raised a number of repairs on 5 December 2022 and 6 February 2023. For the purposes of this report these have been grouped together under kitchen and shower repairs.

Kitchen repairs

  1. The resident reported issues with the condition of the kitchen on 5 December 2022. This included a cabinet not being covered, a hole in a wall, live connection wires, exposed water pipe and a missing plasterboard. The landlord appropriately attended the property the same day. However, the landlord’s repairs log does not show it completed work relating to these issues at that time. This was not appropriate and exceeded its 20 working days timeframe for a non-emergency repair.
  2. On 3 February 2023 the resident repeated some issues with the kitchen and added further issues. It took the landlord until 20 February 2023 to complete work to the kitchen, while this was appropriate for the new issues. It was not for those raised in December 2023.
  3. In April 2023 the resident told the landlord about damp kitchen wall and issues with kitchen floor. The landlord appropriately conducted an inspection at that time and found there was no damp but old water staining on the kitchen wall and the kitchen floor was damaged when the resident removed flooring. While the landlord found the flooring was the resident’s responsibility it adopted a resolution focused approach in agreeing to make good the flooring so the resident could install his own flooring. This was reasonable in the circumstances.

Shower

  1. The landlord has said a defective electric shower was left at the property after void stage. Its internal notes show its contractor attended in February 2023, and said a new electric shower was needed but the landlord raised work for new mixer taps and a shower head. The resident declined this work. It is noted that on 21 February 2023 the landlord “gifted” an electric shower to the resident. However, it did not raise the work order for a further 3 months. This means it took the landlord 4 months to install an electric shower for the resident. This timeframe was not appropriate.
  2. It is noted that the landlord has said the resident’s availability may have impacted an appointment date. While the landlord’s comments have been considered, it has not provided evidence to show that the delay in fitting the shower was due to this or of its attempts to contact the resident about the installation of the electric shower during this time. Instead, the evidence shows it took the landlord 4 months to install an electric shower and this also exceeded its non-emergency repair timeframe.
  3. Overall, the landlord’s handling of repairs at the property were not always in line with its non-emergency repair timeframe of 20 working days. It took 2 months to resolve issues with the kitchen and 4 months to resolve the electric shower. This would have added to the resident’s frustration with the landlord especially during an already difficult time for him. However, it is important to note that the landlord completed some additional work and in doing so it has demonstrated it had adjusted its approach in light of the vulnerabilities of the household and this would have lessoned the impact of it delay in handling some kitchen repairs and resolving the electric shower issue.
  4. Within the landlord’s stage 2 response it appropriately recognised its communication about repairs fell short and it offered the resident £500 compensation. The amount of £500 falls within the maladministration banding of this Service’s remedies guidance. When considering this and the landlord’s approach with the flooring, it has offered reasonable redress in relation to its handling of repairs at the property and the compensation amount satisfactorily resolves this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident raised his complaint on 6 February 2023. On 21 February 2023 the landlord told him that it had resolved the majority of the reported issues. However, it did not issue its stage 1 response until 17 May 2023. The timeframe of 3 months to formally respond to the complaint was not appropriate and exceeded the 10 working days timeframe stated in the landlord’s customer care policy.
  2. The resident escalated his complaint on 30 May 2023 and the landlord took a further 2 months to issue its stage 2 process, in July 2023. This exceeded the 20 working days timeframe mentioned within its policy and was not appropriate.
  3. The landlord’s complaint handling delays meant it took 5 months to conclude its internal complaints process. It failed to acknowledge this delay within its complaint responses. When considering this and the landlord’s lack of insight into its complaint delays, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. When deciding an appropriate remedy, this Service’s remedies guidance has been considered and a compensation amount of £200 has been decided as appropriate to recognise the impact of the landlord’s delayed complaint handling.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s:
    1. Handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
    2. Complaint handling.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of outstanding repairs.

Orders

  1. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Arrange for a senior manager to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report. This should be in writing.
    2. Pay the resident a total of £944 compensation. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears.
      1. £244 rental compensation for its handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
      2. £500 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its handling of the condition of the property when it was let.
      3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling delays.

Recommendation

  1. The Ombudsman recommends the landlord pays £500 it previously offered the resident for its communication about the handling of outstanding repairs.