Prima Housing Group Limited (202313473)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202313473

Prima Housing Group Limited

28 October 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:

  1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues, damp and mould and other defects affecting the property.
  2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.
  3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
  4. The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Jurisdiction

2.             What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this Service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

3.             After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:

  1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour.
  2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.

4.             The resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour (ASB) are considered outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction because the focus of the resident’s stage one complaint was on repairs and maintenance. The landlord therefore did not investigate the reports of ASB as part of its stage one process. The landlord’s stage 2 Appeal Panel also stated that this aspect of the resident’s complaint was outside the panel’s remit. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the resident’s reports of ASB had not been through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

5.             Paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion…are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”.

6.             The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing is considered outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction for similar reasons. Although it was briefly mentioned in the resident’s stage one complaint, the focus of the complaint was on repairs and maintenance. The landlord’s stage 2 Appeal Panel provided some information on the resident’s options for rehousing. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 27 June 2023, the landlord’s handling of the rehousing request had not been through the landlord’s complaints process. Therefore, this aspect of the complaint is also outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction on the basis of paragraph 42.a. of the Scheme.

Background

7.             The property is a 4-bedroom, end–of–terrace house. The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 20 January 2014.

8.             The landlord has advised this Service that at the time of the resident’s application for housing in 2014, there were no disabilities or vulnerabilities declared for the resident or any other members of her household. However, the resident subsequently advised the landlord that she has various medical conditions and her children also have medical conditions.

9.             The landlord has confirmed that the resident is on its management move list, however, due to a shortage of 4-bedroom properties, it is unable to confirm any timescales of when she will receive an offer.

10.        Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair. The structure includes walls, ceilings and the foundations, staircases, bannisters, internal and external plasterwork. The exterior is the outside of the building, including external walls and the roof. It includes drains, guttering and external pipes.

11.        It is also a requirement under Section 11 that the landlord must keep in repair and working order the installations for the supply of gas, water, electricity, sanitation, space heating, and heating water. These include water and gas pipes, electrical wiring and sockets, boilers and water tanks, radiators and other space heating installations. Installations for sanitation include basins, sinks, baths and toilets.

Summary of events

12.        The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2022 to report various matters, including damp, leaks and cracks on the walls. The MP advised the landlord that the resident’s children had been suffering from respiratory conditions. The MP stated that although jobs had been raised by inspectors, the resident was unable to move the furniture for the work to be carried out due to her health issues.

13.        The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 November 2022 and said that it had been contacted by her MP regarding the condition of the property. The landlord advised the resident that its Repairs Manager would inspect the property on 29 November 2022. The landlord also wrote to the resident on the same day to confirm it had logged a stage one complaint.

14.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2022 and stated that she had submitted various complaints in recent years. She stated there had been numerous inspections and she was previously offered a transfer. She mentioned that her health and that of her children had suffered and her mental health had also deteriorated due to problems with the property.

15.        The landlord’s repairs log shows that it inspected the property on 29 November 2022 and on the same day raised an order to fit thermal boarding (Thermoboard) to 2 bedrooms, carry out repointing, renew the end cap to the guttering and carry out roof works to the shed.

16.        The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 30 November 2022 and referred to the landlord’s inspection of the property on 29 November 2022. The MP said the resident had questioned whether boarding the walls in the 2 bedrooms would resolve the dampness issues she had reported. The resident had also reported that the kitchen ceiling was stained and that the floor coverings were lifting due to water. The landlord replied to the MP on the same day (30 November 2022) and confirmed that the matter had been logged as a formal complaint.

17.        The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 5 December 2022 in which it stated the following:

  1. The landlord confirmed it had received the resident’s complaint on 24 November 2022 via the office of the resident’s MP. The resident had stated that her property had experienced movement over a number of years, which had caused cracks to the walls.
  2. She also stated that water had been entering through the ceiling and there had been dampness and other repair issues. The resident said that her 2 daughters and her son had suffered from medical conditions. She advised that although the landlord had raised jobs, she was unable to move the furniture herself to allow the repairs to proceed and she had not been given adequate notice.
  3. The resident stated that she wanted to be moved and that there had also been issues with a neighbour that were causing her anxiety.
  4. The resident had sent supplementary correspondence after the landlord had visited the property.
  5. The landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property on 29 November 2022. The landlord had used a previous report produced by an independent inspector on 23 November 2020 to see whether the condition of the property had changed during the intervening period.
  6. The landlord said it found the property was generally in good condition and free from mould and serious defect. It found there had not been any deterioration in the property’s condition since the independent inspection in November 2020.
  7. The landlord noted that structural work had been done to the property in the past, including adding an expansion joint, repointing and adding lintels.
  8. The landlord took damp meter readings during the inspection on 29 November 2022 and stated that the readings were within the expected tolerances and did not indicate the presence of dampness or water ingress.
  9. The landlord had found higher meter readings in the bedrooms on the gable wall but attributed these to surface condensation. It did not find any mould on the finishes in the bedroom.
  10. As a result of the inspection, the landlord ordered the following works:
    1. Thermoboard to be applied to the gable wall in the front and rear bedrooms where surface condensation had been found. This would be followed by plastering. The resident at her request would be given an allowance to redecorate afterwards.
    2. The landlord said that these works had previously been ordered but the resident had not been able to move the furniture. The landlord therefore said it would include an instruction in the order for the contractor to move the furniture.
    3. Repointing three areas of the external walls.
    4. Repairs to the roof and guttering of the brick shed in the garden.
    5. Some minor gutter repairs to the rear elevation.
  11. The landlord said it had also offered to replaster the cracks in the stairwell and front bedroom but the resident had declined this work due to the disruption.
  12. The landlord stated that the resident had requested a transfer. It advised her that the condition of the property did not warrant a ‘management move’. However, it agreed to request the housing officer to contact the resident to help her check the availability of properties in the ‘Property Pool’, which is the local choice-based lettings system.
  13. The landlord stated that although it had found the property to be in good condition, it proposed arranging an independent inspection in order to reassure the resident. It would then share the report with the resident and arrange any works resulting from the independent inspection.
  14. Based on its findings, the landlord did not uphold the resident’s complaint and advised the resident that she had the right to appeal to a panel if she was not happy with the response. If so, she should state the reasons for her appeal within 6 weeks.

18.        On 5 December 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord to say she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s reply and wanted to escalate the matter further. She stated that she had attached videos and photos showing water and mould in the property. She also mentioned there were cracks in the wall and staining on the kitchen ceiling.

19.        The landlord replied on the same day (5 December 2022) and advised the resident that she had the option to appeal and go to stage 2 of the complaints process. However, any appeal should be specific in identifying the issues disputed from stage one of the process. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for various jobs to be done and for a third-party inspection to take place. It therefore suggested that the independent survey should be allowed to proceed and then the resident could decide whether she wished to appeal at that stage.

20.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 December 2022 and stated that she had not refused the landlord carrying out work. She stated that, in her view, fitting insulation board would not keep the walls dry. The landlord replied to the resident on 9 December 2022 and recommended that the repairs identified should be allowed to proceed, followed by the independent inspection that had been recommended. The landlord provided a link to its complaints process.

21.        On 18 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord and reported that no repairs had been done and she had been without the use of her shower for weeks. The resident stated that the walls were wet, the kitchen ceiling had been leaking and there were cracks in the walls.

22.        During January 2023, the landlord exchanged emails with the resident and the landlord stated that the contractor had not been able to obtain access to the property to carry out repairs. The resident explained that due to her daughter’s disabilities and her own disabilities, she sometimes had to leave the property at very short notice. The landlord therefore agreed to ring the resident when the contractor was on its way to the property.

23.        The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 13 January 2023 because the resident had reported water was coming in through the roof. She stated that the roof had only been renewed 2 years earlier. The landlord’s records show that its roofing contractor attended on 16 January 2023 and advised the resident that there was no roof leak and the issue was condensation.

24.        On 30 January 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask about the fitting of the insulation boards to her daughter’s bedroom. She requested a decorations allowance to redecorate when the work was completed. She reported that the roof was leaking when it rained, which she said was not condensation despite previously being told this. She also mentioned that the cracks on her walls had not been addressed.

25.        The landlord’s contractor advised the landlord on 31 January 2023 that it had arranged for the insulation board to be fitted on 2 and 9 March 2023.

26.        On 2 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident’s MP and stated:

  1. It had proposed a visit by its Repairs Manager, Housing Manager and a representative from its Complaints team to check the position regarding repairs.
  2. The landlord had previously recommended arranging for an independent survey to be carried out but said it was still waiting for the resident to agree to this.
  3. The landlord’s contractor had experienced “several” no access visits in relation to a reported problem with the shower.

27.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 February 2023 and reported various defects which she said were still outstanding, including a loose banister on the stairs, a leaking roof and damp and mould. The resident said she would be making a disrepair claim as she and her children had respiratory conditions which she said were getting worse. She requested a transfer.

28.        On 9 February 2023, the resident advised the landlord that the contractor had attended the property that day but had not fitted the insulation board because the room was not clear and empty. The resident said she was unable to move furniture because of her physical disabilities. The landlord’s records state that the work was not carried out because the resident had not removed her personal belongings from the room. The landlord said it had previously advised the resident it would move large items, but that she would need to move smaller items and clothes. As these items were still in situ, the appointment was rearranged. The landlord’s records state that the resident was unavailable for a while due to school holidays and therefore the new appointment was booked for 2 March 2023.

29.        On 21 February 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident and requested times and dates when it could visit the property to review the outstanding issues.

30.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2023 and questioned why the landlord had not called her as she had been expecting a call that day. She stated that the property had damp and mould. She mentioned that no jobs had been carried out despite making a complaint in December 2022. She stated that the wall in one of the bedrooms was being lined on the next day and asked whether she would be given a decorations allowance to redecorate the wall. The landlord replied on 2 March 2023 and apologised for not ringing the resident as the officer had been required to take time off at short notice. The landlord advised the resident that it was unclear whether she wished to progress to stage 2 of the complaints process.

31.        The thermoboard was fitted on 2 March 2023. The landlord’s records state that there had been an issue with the contractor not receiving the job prior to Christmas and therefore the landlord had to re-send the order.

32.        The landlord visited the resident on 8 March 2023. The landlord’s records state that although repair issues were discussed, the focus of the discussion was on the resident’s request to be transferred. The landlord therefore provided her with information on how she could apply for a transfer and added her to its transfer list on that day. It was agreed that a second independent property survey would take place to assess the property for repairs and any structural issues. It was also agreed that the landlord would pay the resident £150 to assist with her decorating costs.

33.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 11 March 2023 and asked for the £150 decorating allowance to be paid into her bank account. The landlord confirmed to the resident on 13 March 2023 that it had processed the payment.

34.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 23 March 2023 and advised that her daughter was sleeping on a mattress on the floor as the insulation boards had made the room smaller and as a result her daughter’s bed would no longer fit in the room. She reported that there was mould and draughts present and there were various other defects.

35.        The landlord wrote to an independent, third-party surveyor on 29 March 2023 and requested an inspection of the property to assess its condition and any repairs required. The landlord confirmed that the same company had previously inspected the property in 2020 and therefore asked the company to check for any deterioration since the last inspection.

36.        The landlord’s records show that an independent surveyor inspected the property on 11 April 2023. The surveyor sent his report to the landlord on 14 April 2023. The report provided a copy of the Scott Schedule produced from the inspection in October 2020 and identified any works that resulted from the latest inspection on 11 April 2023. The schedule showed that the works resulting from the 2020 inspection had been completed and there were now just a small number of minor repairs required. Some of the findings from the surveyor’s report were:

  1. Repointing had been carried out since the last inspection in November 2020 and there was no evidence of any re-opening of the pointing (mortar joints).
  2. No further subsidence repairs were needed.
  3. The surfaces in the kitchen, including the ceiling tested dry.
  4. The surveyor had inspected the roof void and found no evidence of holes in the roof, which had been completely recovered since the last inspection.
  5. The surveyor had tested for dampness using a damp meter and had only recorded low moisture readings. He said there was no rising or penetrating damp affecting the property and no pattern indicating weather penetration. He added that there was no dampness affecting the floor inside the property.
  6. The condition of the plasterwork was considered consistent with the property’s age and construction. He added that there were plaster repairs that would require minor plaster repairs during redecoration work.
  7. The surveyor said that the resident should be advised about condensation management, such as not drying laundry inside the property.

37.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 April 2023 to enquire about her complaint.

38.        On 25 April 2023, the landlord sent the resident a copy of the independent surveyor’s report and said it was happy to raise the recommended works. The landlord also wrote to the resident on 28 April 2023 and confirmed that the works noted from the independent report were:

  1. Patch repointing to the side elevation.
  2. Stain blocking to the kitchen ceiling and kitchen cupboard.
  3. Gutter repairs.
  4. Renew a bracket to the staircase handrail.
  5. Fill crack to the wall at the junction with the back wall (it was noted that there was no structural movement and the crack was cosmetic, which could be filled).

39.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2023 and stated she was dissatisfied with the extent of the work the independent surveyor had identified. She listed various defects that she stated had not been identified, including damp and mould, loose plaster and water ingress when it rained. The landlord replied on the same day and advised the resident that it would only carry out the work identified by the independent surveyor and that the resident had the option to request for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2.

40.        On 28 April 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm it would arrange for the works identified in the independent surveyor’s report to be raised and said the contractor would contact her. The landlord requested the resident to advise of her availability to attend the stage 2 appeal meeting.

41.        The landlord’s repairs log shows that it raised an order on 28 April 2023 to renew the roof to the outbuilding, stain block patches on the kitchen ceiling and cupboard, renew a bracket to the stairs handrail and fill a crack in the rear bedroom wall.

42.        The roof to the outbuilding was renewed on 9 May 2023. However, the resident emailed the landlord on the same day to raise concerns about the quality of the work. The landlord’s records state that she also advised the landlord that she could not attend a proposed date for the Appeal Panel meeting. The landlord’s records show that the landlord’s Repairs Manager subsequently post-inspected the roof of the outbuilding and signed off the works as satisfactorily completed (the date of the post-inspection is unclear from the evidence seen).

43.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2023 and advised that she was unavailable to attend the stage 2 review meeting until 5 June 2023 due to a course. She included the following points:

  1. She stated that the landlord had not addressed the condition of her home.
  2. She stated that there was evidence of subsidence, which had caused cracks.
  3. She reported that there were problems with the lintels above the windows, the roof leaked when it rained, skirting boards were coming away from the walls, the floorboards were loose and there were damp stains on the kitchen ceiling.
  4. The resident questioned whether the last survey by a consultant had been independent as it had been based on the previous survey.
  5. The resident stated that the conditions had affected her health and that of her children. For example, her son had been referred to a respiratory clinic.
  6. The resident stated that one of her neighbours had been harassing her, which she had reported to the landlord and the police.

44.        The landlord confirmed to the resident on 22 May 2023 that it would log the stage 2 request.

45.        The landlord confirmed to the resident on 1 June 2023 that the stage 2 appeal review had been booked for 8 June 2023. The meeting was then rescheduled as the resident advised the landlord on 8 June 2023 that she could not attend the meeting as she had received an urgent call to be elsewhere.

46.        During June 2023, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails to agree the rescheduled date for the stage 2 appeal meeting. The appeal meeting took place on 21 June 2023.

47.        The landlord sent its stage 2 reply to the resident on 27 June 2023 in which it stated the following:

  1. The Appeal Panel had met on 21 June 2023 to consider the resident’s stage 2 complaint and the resident had been present during the meeting.
  2. The landlord noted that the resident had advised the panel about concerns regarding her mental health and of the physical health of her children, which she said were linked to some of the issues in her complaint.
  3. The resident had advised the panel that the inspections carried out by the landlord and companies acting on its behalf did not fully address the concerns she had. She felt that the proposed repairs were just “masking” the underlying problems.
  4. The resident had advised the panel that she wanted to be transferred to an alternative property.
  5. The resident had advised the panel about ASB issues she had reported. However, the panel had explained that this would fall outside of the complaint it was considering as the matter had not been considered as part of her stage one complaint.
  6. The panel stated that it had seen no evidence to confirm the resident’s views that the landlord was deferring essential repairs due to costs. The panel added that the landlord had incurred costs by arranging the independent surveys and had given an undertaking to carry out any resulting repairs. The panel therefore did not uphold this part of the resident’s complaint.
  7. The resident had questioned whether the inspection by the third-party company had been independent and comprehensive. However, the panel said it was satisfied about the company’s independence and professionalism. It also explained that it had been reasonable to compare the current findings against the previous report carried out 2 years ago. The panel said it was satisfied that the report produced was comprehensive.
  8. The panel said it would seek assurances that all the repairs noted in the independent report had been completed or booked in.
  9. The panel said it had noted various defects raised by the resident during the meeting but said it was satisfied that the independent survey report covered many of the points raised by the resident. These would be ordered, together with the hole around the door and the plywood to the landing.
  10. Given the lack of availability of 4-bedroom homes, the panel said it was unable to provide any guarantees as to the likelihood of the resident moving or the timescales for such a move. The panel therefore outlined various options, such as a mutual exchange or registering on housing associations’ direct waiting lists.
  11. The panel agreed the following actions:
    1. The landlord would send the resident a physical copy of the latest independent survey report.
    2. To address the resident’s continued worries about dampness, the panel said it would recommend that a surveyor places ‘moisture meters’ around the property to identify levels of moisture over a period of several days or weeks.
    3. The panel said it would recommend carrying out some work to the flooring on the upstairs landing.
    4. The panel recommended that the resident send in any videos showing water running down the walls.
  12. The panel concluded that having considered the results of the independent survey in April 2023, it was unable to uphold the resident’s complaint.

Events after the landlord’s stage 2 reply

48.        The landlord’s records state that following the Appeal Panel meeting on 21 June 2023, the landlord agreed to consider the resident for a management move and she was added to this list.

49.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 July 2023 to advise that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response. She added that her daughter was sleeping on a mattress on the floor because her room was too small for a bed after the landlord had fitted insulation board.

50.        The landlord’s records show that it placed ‘data loggers’ in the property from 10 to 16 July 2023 to monitor the moisture/humidity levels in the property over time.

51.        The resident contacted this Service on 13 July 2023 to report that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s response regarding the condition of the property. She stated that the condition of the property had led to her depression and anxiety increasing significantly, she had increased chest pains and her children had respiratory issues. The resident stated that she wanted to be moved to alternative accommodation. She also mentioned that her disabled daughter was sleeping on a mattress on the floor as her bed would not fit in the room. The resident confirmed that ‘damp detectors’ had been delivered 3 days ago. Finally, the resident said she had reported ASB issues caused by her neighbour but nothing had been done.

52.        The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2023 and confirmed that although the external works had been completed, its contractor had not been able to gain access to carry out the internal work. The work consisted of stain blocking the kitchen ceiling, renewing a bracket to the handrail on the stairs, filling a crack in the rear bedroom and replastering near the lounge window.

53.        The landlord’s records show that its contractor was unable to obtain access to the property on 31 July 2023 and 8 August 2023 and therefore left ‘no access’ cards.

54.        The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 20 September 2023 and referred to various outstanding repairs from the previous complaint. The MP also referred to reported problems regarding the bed used by the resident’s daughter. The landlord replied to the MP on 25 September 2023 and explained that it had not been able to progress the jobs agreed as part of the stage 2 panel meeting due to no access.

55.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 7 and 8 September 2024 and stated that water was still leaking through the door frame onto the floor inside her property. She attached a video, which she said showed the problem. She also stated that in her view the previous surveys had not been carried out fairly.

56.        The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2023 and explained that the resident had to change an appointment due to her disabilities.

57.        The resident wrote to this Service on 2 October 2024 and stated that the ongoing issues had not been resolved. She mentioned that the roof still leaked when it rained and the outer walls were still wet. She stated that although the back door was replaced in December 2023, it still leaked when there was heavy rain. The resident also wrote to this Service on 3 October 2024 and stated that the landlord had painted the kitchen ceiling with ‘stain block’ paint, rather than identifying the cause of the leak.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

58.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 25 November 2022 and stated that she had submitted various complaints in recent years. She stated there had been numerous inspections and she had previously been offered a transfer. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the events from November 2022. Reference to the events that occurred prior to this date is made in this report to provide context.

59.        The resident advised the landlord on various occasions that her family’s health had been affected by the conditions within the property. For example, on 25 November 2022 she advised the landlord that her health and that of her children had suffered and her mental health had also deteriorated due to problems with the property. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option. The Ombudsman has, however, assessed the service the landlord provided and any overall distress or inconvenience this may have caused.

60.        The Ombudsman has received information regarding various events that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 27 June 2023. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed its investigation on the events up to 27 June 2023 and events after this have not been investigated because the Ombudsman has not considered it fair and reasonable to do so. This means, for example, the Ombudsman has not investigated the exchange of correspondence between the landlord and the resident regarding the reported problems fitting the resident’s daughter’s bed in the bedroom. Reference has been made to some of the events that took place after the stage 2 reply for contextual purposes.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues, damp and mould and other defects affecting the property

61.        The landlord’s Tenant Handbook states that it prioritises repair requests into the following categories:

  1. Emergency Repairs – these are completed within 24 hours of the repair being reported.
  2. Urgent Repairs – these are completed within 48 hours of the repair being reported.
  3. Routine Repairs (5 days) – these are completed within 5 working days of the repair being reported.
  4. Routine Repairs (15 days) – these are completed within 15 working days of the repair being reported.
  5. Major Repairs – these are completed within 90 working days of the repair being reported.

62.        The resident’s MP wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2022 to report various repair matters including damp and leaks. The landlord contacted the resident on 25 November 2022 and arranged for its Repairs Manager to inspect the property on 29 November 2022. As the resident had reported damp, leaks and other repairs through her MP, it was reasonable for the landlord to inspect the property. This would enable it to identify the outstanding repairs and to diagnose the causes of any dampness. It was appropriate that the landlord had agreed the appointment with the resident and carried out the inspection within a reasonable timescale after receiving the MP’s letter.

63.        The resident’s concerns with the property can be summarised as:

  1. Damp, mould and leaks in the property.
  2. Structural movement causing cracks.
  3. Other repairs and the general condition of the property.

64.        The Ombudsman’s assessment of the landlord’s response to each of these concerns is assessed below.

65.        The resident reported damp and mould in the property due to leaks. In response, the landlord took the following action:

  1. The landlord inspected the property on 29 November 2022 and reported that damp meter readings were within the expected tolerances and did not indicate the presence of dampness or water ingress. It also reported that the property was free from mould.
  2. During the inspection on 29 November 2022, the landlord found there was condensation present in 2 bedrooms and ordered its contractor to fit thermoboard as a solution to improve the thermal insulation of the walls.
  3. In its stage one reply, the landlord proposed to arrange an independent inspection to provide further reassurance to the resident. The landlord agreed with the resident on 8 March 2023 that it would arrange the independent property survey and the inspection was carried out on 11 April 2023.
  4. The landlord raised an order on 13 January 2023 because the resident reported a roof leak. The roofers attended on 16 January 2023.
  5. The landlord agreed at the Appeal Panel meeting that it would recommend the landlord placed moisture meters in the property, which would record moisture levels over a period of time. The moisture meters were placed in the property and monitored the moisture levels from 10 to 16 July 2023.

66.        The landlord took appropriate action to inspect the property on 29 November 2022 and take damp meter readings. This allowed the landlord to determine whether there was dampness present. The landlord advised the resident that the readings were within the expected tolerances.

67.        On the day of the inspection, the landlord raised an order to fit thermoboard to the bedroom walls to reduce condensation and it ordered other repairs. The landlord therefore took prompt action following the inspection to ensure that the repairs were raised.

68.        The thermoboard was fitted 2 March 2023, which was 3 months after the order was raised. There was therefore a delay in completing the work, which the landlord’s records show was partly due to a problem in issuing the repair to the contractor. However, other factors that contributed to the delay were:

  1. The contractor attended on 9 February 2023 but said it could not proceed with the work because the resident had not removed personal belongings and clothes from the room.
  2. The resident was unavailable for a while due to school holidays.

69.        Therefore, taking these factors into consideration, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord fitted the thermoboard within a reasonable timeframe as the work was not a standard repair.

70.        The landlord also agreed to pay the resident a decorations allowance after the thermoboard had been fitted. This was reasonable as the bedroom walls would require redecoration after the work had been completed.

71.        Although the resident questioned whether the thermoboard would resolve the issues, the landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its expert who had recommended it as a solution to the condensation he had found in 2 of the bedrooms.

72.        On 8 March 2023, the landlord advised the resident that it would arrange for an independent surveyor to inspect the property. This was reasonable as the landlord wanted to provide further reassurance to the resident regarding the condition of the property. The surveyor found there was no evidence of rising or penetrating dampness or leaks affecting the property. He stated that the areas he tested with a damp meter were dry. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the findings from the independent surveyor.

73.        The landlord’s roofing contractor visited the property on 16 January 2023 following the resident’s report of a roof leak on 13 January 2023. The contractor therefore attended within a reasonable timescale. The contractor advised the resident that it had found no roof leak and any issues were from condensation. The landlord was therefore entitled to rely on the findings of the contractor.

74.        The landlord placed moisture meters in the property from 10 to 16 July 2023 to monitor the moisture levels. This was a reasonable step by the landlord to provide further reassurance to the resident regarding her reports of dampness.

75.        The Ombudsman has found that the landlord took reasonable and proportionate action to check the property for dampness and leaks and to reassure the resident that it had not found any evidence of damp, mould and leaks.

76.        In terms of the resident’s reports of structural movement and cracks, on 24 November 2022 the resident’s MP reported cracks on the walls inside the property. The landlord inspected the property on 29 November 2022, which was reasonable to assess any cracks and other defects. The landlord used a previous report that had been produced by an independent surveyor following an inspection in November 2020. As the resident had complained about structural movement and cracks in the walls, it was reasonable for the landlord to refer to the previous report in order to understand whether the condition of the property had deteriorated since the previous inspection. This is particularly important when assessing potential structural movement in order to assess the extent of any continuing movement.

77.        The landlord stated in its stage one reply that it had previously carried out structural work to the property and the inspection on 29 November 2022 had found the property to have been generally in good condition and free from serious defects. The landlord identified the need to carry out some external repointing and filling of internal cracks in the stairwell and front bedroom. However, according to the landlord, the resident had declined to have the cracks filled due to the disruption this might cause.

78.        The landlord arranged for an independent surveyor to inspect the property on 11 April 2023 and he found that no further subsidence repairs were needed. He also found that there was no evidence of any re-opening of the mortar joints that had been repointed following the inspect in November 2020. The landlord had therefore arranged for 2 inspections to be carried out to determine if there was evidence of structural movement, one by its Repairs Manager and the other by an independent surveyor. In both cases, the conclusions were there was no evidence of further structural movement, subsidence or serious defects. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the expert views of the Repairs Manager and the independent surveyor.

79.        The landlord confirmed to the resident on 28 April 2023 that it would only carry out the work recommended by the independent surveyor, even though the resident had reported further repairs. The landlord therefore raised an order on 28 April 2023 for its contractor to carry out the recommended work, including filling a crack in the rear bedroom wall, which the surveyor had said was cosmetic and not structural. It was reasonable for the landlord to follow the recommendations of the independent surveyor and raise the orders.

80.        In its stage 2 reply, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the independence and professionalism of the independent surveyor. It stated it was satisfied about the surveyor’s experience and qualifications and was satisfied that his report was comprehensive. Given the resident’s concerns, it was reasonable that the landlord had reviewed the surveyor’s experience and qualifications and satisfied itself that the surveyor was qualified to give an expert opinion about the condition of the property. It was also reasonable that the landlord reviewed the surveyor’s report to ensure it was comprehensive. Having done so, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the surveyor’s findings that the property was not suffering from subsidence.

81.        The resident raised concerns about other repairs and the general condition of the property. However, one of the findings from the landlord’s inspection on 29 November 2022 was that the property was generally in good condition. The independent surveyor came to a similar conclusion when he inspected the property on 11 April 2023 and only recommended relatively minor repairs.  These repairs were ordered on 28 April 2023, which was reasonable as the landlord was entitled to rely on the recommendations from the surveyor.

82.        It is not clear from the evidence seen when the repairs recommended by the surveyor were completed. However, the resident wrote to the landlord on 22 May 2023 and stated that there were still stains on the kitchen ceiling. It was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not carried out the stain blocking to the kitchen ceiling a month after ordering the work.

83.        The landlord agreed at the Appeal Panel meeting on 21 April 2023 to seek assurances that all of the repairs noted in the independent surveyor’s report had been completed or booked in. This was reasonable as the notes of the meeting indicate that some of the repairs were still outstanding.

84.        The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 July 2023 and confirmed that although it had completed all the external works it had not been able to access the property to carry out the internal works.

85.        Overall, the Ombudsman has found there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues, damp and mould and other defects affecting the property because:

  1. The landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on 29 November 2022 and on 11 April 2023. The latter inspection was carried out by an independent surveyor. In both cases damp readings were taken and the inspectors found there was no evidence of damp, mould or leaks affecting the property.
  2. Both of the inspectors concluded that any issues with moisture were due to condensation and the landlord therefore arranged for thermoboard to be fitted in 2 bedrooms to improve the thermal properties of the walls.
  3. The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 16 January 2023 to check the roof and concluded that there were no roof leaks. It stated that any issues were likely to be due to condensation.
  4. The landlord agreed to place moisture meters in the property to monitor moisture levels and provide further reassurance to the resident.
  5. The inspectors also found that there was no evidence of subsidence or structural movement. The surveyor concluded that internal cracks were cosmetic and would require minor repairs during redecorations.
  6. The landlord had concluded that the property was generally in good condition with no serious defects.

 

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaints

86.        The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints process. It will reply to stage one complaints within 10 working days. Where complaints are more complex and more time is needed to respond, the landlord will contact the resident to explain the reason for the delay and agree a timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason. 

87.        If the resident is unhappy with the response to their complaint, they can appeal to a panel. A full response will be provided to the resident within 20 working days of the request to escalate the complaint. However, this may be varied either by mutual agreement, or if required due to key members of the panel being unavailable. This should not exceed a further 10 working days without good reason.

88.        The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, which was in operation during 2022 and 2023, stated:

  1. “If all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage one it must be progressed to stage two of the landlord’s procedure”.
  2. “Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay”.

89.        The resident’s MP submitted a complaint on her behalf to the landlord on 24 November 2022. The landlord sent its stage one reply to the resident on 5 December 2022. The landlord therefore took 7 working days to respond, which was within its advertised timescale of 10-working days and was therefore appropriate.

90.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 December 2022 and stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one reply and therefore wanted to escalate her complaint. The landlord replied on the same date and said that the resident had the option of proceeding to stage 2 of the process, which would be the Appeal Panel. However, the resident would need to specify which aspects of the stage one reply she was unhappy with. The landlord also said that as it had arranged for works to be carried out and for an independent surveyor to inspect the property, the resident might wish to wait until after the works and the inspection before deciding to take her complaint to the Appeal Panel (stage 2).

91.        As per the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code, this Service would expect the landlord to have escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2. The resident had clearly requested this as she was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code makes it clear that a landlord should not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or introduce any unreasonable delays in progressing complaints because they are attempting to resolve the resident’s concerns.

92.        The landlord requested the resident to identify the reasons she was dissatisfied with the stage one reply. However, the landlord’s complaints policy does not stipulate this as being a requirement before escalating a complaint. Furthermore, the Ombudsman’s view is that residents should not be required to explain their reasons for making a stage 2 complaint. Landlords are expected to make reasonable efforts to understand why a resident remains unhappy as part of its stage 2 response. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord did not immediately escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 after receiving her email dated 5 December 2022.

93.        The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 April 2023 and advised that she was dissatisfied with the extent of the works recommended by the independent surveyor. The landlord replied on the same day and requested the resident to confirm her availability to attend a stage 2 Appeal Panel meeting.

94.        The landlord initially booked the stage 2 Appeal Panel meeting to take place on 8 June 2023. However, the meeting was rescheduled to 21 June 2023 because the resident could not attend on 8 June. The meeting therefore took place 35 working days after the resident had expressed her dissatisfaction with the results of the independent inspection. This was longer than the landlord’s 20-working day timescale for responding to stage 2 complaints. However, the evidence shows that there were issues regarding the resident’s availability to attend the Appeal Panel meeting.

95.        The landlord sent its stage 2 reply on 27 June 2023, which was 4 working days after the meeting. The landlord had therefore issued its stage 2 reply within a reasonable timescale after the meeting had taken place.

96.        Overall, the Ombudsman has found that the landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2022, even though she had specifically requested the landlord to do this. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account the wording of the landlord’s email dated 5 December 2022, which suggested to the resident that she wait until the works were completed and the inspection had been done. Therefore, the resident had the opportunity to respond and to advise the landlord to proceed with the escalation of her complaint, rather than waiting. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was a service failure by the landlord in its complaint handling

97.        This Service has ordered the landlord to pay compensation of £100 in relation to its complaint handling. The amount ordered is within the range of sums recommended in the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance for service failures.

Determination (decision)

98.        In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of structural issues, damp and mould and other defects affecting the property.

99.        In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social behaviour by a neighbour is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

100.   In accordance with paragraph 42.a. of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing is outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman.

101.   In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in its handling of the associated complaints.

Reasons

102.   The landlord arranged for the property to be inspected on 29 November 2022 and on 11 April 2023 and the inspectors found there was no evidence of damp, mould, leaks or subsidence affecting the property. The landlord concluded that the property was generally in good condition with no serious defects. The landlord arranged for thermoboard to be fitted in 2 bedrooms to improve the thermal properties of the walls. The landlord’s roofing contractor attended on 16 January 2023 to check the roof and concluded that there were no roof leaks. The landlord agreed to place moisture meters in the property to monitor moisture levels and provide further reassurance to the resident.

103.   The landlord did not investigate the reports of ASB as part of its stage one process. The landlord’s stage 2 Appeal Panel also stated that this aspect of the resident’s complaint was outside the panel’s remit. Therefore, the Ombudsman is satisfied that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply, the resident’s reports of ASB had not been through the landlord’s complaints procedure.

104.   The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing is considered outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. Although it was briefly mentioned in the resident’s stage one complaint, the focus of the complaint was on repairs and maintenance. The landlord’s stage 2 Appeal Panel provided some information on the resident’s options for rehousing. However, the Ombudsman is satisfied that at the time of the landlord’s stage 2 reply on 27 June 2023, the landlord’s handling of the rehousing request had not been through the landlord’s complaints process.

105.   The landlord failed to escalate the resident’s complaint to stage 2 on 5 December 2022, even though she had specifically requested the landlord to do this.

Orders

106.   The landlord is ordered within 4 weeks of this report to:

  1. Write to the resident to apologise for the delay in escalating her complaint to stage 2.
  2. Pay the resident £100 for the delay in escalating her complaint.