Settle Group (202122039)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202122039

Settle Group

5 September 2022


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 the resident’s reports of:
    1.  the property’s poor condition including damp and mould and damage to the windows. 
    2. damage to the flooring.
    3. heating issues.

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspects of the complaint are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  3. The resident had raised to this Service that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of the heating issues in her property.  Under paragraph 39 (a) of the Ombudsman Scheme, we are unable to consider complaints that are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. If the resident has any further concerns with the other repair works, it is recommended that she raises a new complaint with the landlord. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s final response to her new complaint, she may be able to refer the matter to the Ombudsman as a separate complaint at that stage.
  4. In the resident’s complaint correspondence, she has referred to historical issues regarding the flooring, which she reported on 2 September 2013 and 24 January 2020. It appears from the available evidence that the resident did not raise the issue within the complaint until on 9 November 2021. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live’, and whilst the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events which occurred. As the substantive issues become historical, it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues. This is in accordance with paragraph 39(e) of the Scheme, which states that we will not consider complaints that were not brought to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. We are therefore unable to assess whether the landlord reasonably handled the resident’s reports of repair issues to the flooring. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the issue, she is encouraged to contact the landlord to arrange a repair appointment. The resident has also referenced repair issues over the eight years of her tenancy and the Ombudsman would not consider events dating back that far, as explained above.

Background

  1. The resident raised a complaint on 21 October 2021, as she did not think the landlord had maintained the property to a reasonable standard and she wanted compensation due to the distress she had been caused. In the resident’s complaint escalation, she said that there was mould in the property and there were repair issues to the windows and flooring.
  2. In the landlord’s final complaint response, it said that it had undertaken an inspection on 9 February 2021, but was only able to undertake emergency repairs due to the national lockdown. The landlord said further unavoidable delays were caused by the repair backlog and supply issues and it offered £250 compensation due to the inconvenience caused. The landlord stated it had arranged inspections following the resident’s reports of mould and no works were recommended by the contractor. It also said it had responded to the resident’s reports of flooring issues in 2013 and 2020.
  3. In the resident’s complaint to this Service, she said she remained dissatisfied that the issues with mould, heating issues and damage to the floor had not yet been resolved. She said she did not think the compensation offered by the landlord was satisfactory in view of these issues.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has advised that the ongoing repair issues have impacted her health. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments about her health but we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be more appropriately dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts or the landlord’s liability insurer (if it has one). In this case, the landlord has already provided the details of its liability insurer to the resident, which was an appropriate response to the resident’s concerns about her health. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident. This is an accordance with paragraph 39(i) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme which states the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure. 

The landlord’s handling of the repairs

  1. In accordance with the landlord’s repair policy, it is “responsible for carrying out the majority of repairs to the structure of the property, kitchens, bathrooms and communal areas”. As a result, if the resident reports repair issues, the landlord should assess whether it is responsible and complete any necessary repairs. Its repairs policy states that an emergency repair should be completed within 24 hours and routine repairs are completed within an average of 22 days. 
  2. In the landlord’s stage one complaint response, it advised that it undertook an inspection on 9 February 2021 and identified several required repairs, but was only completing emergency repairs at that time due to the national lockdown. However, it still acted in line with its emergency appointments as it attended on 2 February 2021 to clear sewage from a manhole, as this was an emergency appointment. It also stated a new boiler was fitted on 21 February 2021 and completed external repairs on 30 April 2021, as both appointments were considered as a priority. It then assessed the function of the kitchen extractor fan and installed a new bathroom extractor fan on 12 May 2021 and filled a small hole caused by the contractors completing a damp survey on 16 July 2021.
  3. The landlord said that additional outstanding repairs were identified and raised to the contractor on 7 July 2021 when lockdown restrictions had eased. An inspection then took place on 15 October 2021 and the landlord advised this Service that the repairs were completed on 23 November 2021.
  4. The resident has also raised to this Service, that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of her reports of damp and mould in the property. Following the resident’s previous reports of damp and mould, the landlord had arranged three damp and mould reports. The initial appointment on 6 February 2020 was not completed as the contractor could not gain access to the property. On 21 January 2020, the contractor noted a small amount of mould and requested the resident to clean it as there were no further issues reported and a further survey was completed on 9 February 2021, which concluded there were no further recommended works. The landlord acted reasonably in following guidance provided by its appropriately qualified contractors who concluded that ,no further works were required to address the damp and mould. The resident has advised this Service that she did not think the landlord’s contractors were properly qualified, however, there is no evidence to confirm this.
  5. Despite the fact that there were valid reasons for the delays in completing the repairs, it was appropriate that the landlord recognised the inconvenience caused to the resident and offered compensation in view of this.
  6. In its complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there were unavoidable delays due to the impact of COVID-19. This was a reasonable explanation as the landlord had to adhere to government guidelines regarding lockdowns, which meant the landlord could only complete serious and urgent repairs, preventing it from completing routine appointments. When the landlord’s repair service was resumed, there was a backlog in repairs to be completed and it also explained that it subsequently experienced issues with supply deliveries. It is recognised that COVID was an unforeseen event, which meant landlords had to adapt their service, which was outside of the landlord’s control. However, the landlord correctly prioritised emergency and priority repairs and completed the rest of the repairs within a reasonable timeframe under the circumstances.
  7. If the landlord cannot adhere to its repair timeframes, it is expected to keep the resident regularly updated on the progress of the works. In its final response to the complaint, the landlord offered £250 compensation for delays in completing some of the repairs. In accordance with this Service’s remedy guidance, awards of £50 – £250 are appropriate in cases to “recognise that there has been service failure which had an impact on the complainant but was of short duration”. In this case, the landlord recognised that some repairs were delayed, explained the reasons for this and offered an appropriate level of compensation in light of the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress for the complaint and does not need to do anything further.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has made an offer of redress prior to investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

 

Recommendations

  1. If it has not done so already, the landlord should pay the resident £250, as stated in its complaint response.