Soho Housing Association Limited (202111856)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202111856

Soho Housing Association Limited

30 August 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

The complaint is about:
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of water ingress, damp, and other repairs to the property.
2. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s temporary decant and his request for a permanent move.
3. The landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

The resident occupies the property, which is a 1-bedroom first floor flat, under an assured tenancy agreement with the landlord.
The resident states that there have been ongoing issues with water ingress into his property since 2015. In 2019, the resident reported a leak affecting his bathroom, kitchen, and the utility cupboard. The resident contacted his Local Councillor in March 2020 to ask for assistance, as he felt there had been unreasonable delays in the landlord addressing the leak. He noted that the property had been inspected and photos taken “months ago” but there had been no further action and the damage to the property was worsening. The landlord subsequently identified that the water ingress was due to a roof leak that was affecting several properties.
In June 2020 the resident raised a formal complaint about the landlord’s handling of the leak. He stated that the property had been inspected multiple times in 2019 and that contractors had been sent to carry out a mould wash and redecoration, but no works were undertaken as the underlying cause had not been dealt with. Following the involvement of the local Environmental Health team (EH), the landlord agreed to temporarily decant the resident but he had not heard back since accepting a property. The resident noted that four other residents had already been rehoused and asked why he had been left in the same “dangerous” conditions. He requested compensation for inconvenience, poor communication, and the landlord’s failure to fulfil its repairs obligations. The resident was subsequently decanted from the property whilst works took place.
The resident moved back into the property in February 2021, although he reported that some works were outstanding and questioned why he had been returned to the property before all necessary works were completed. The resident submitted evidence of out-of-pocket expenses totalling £729.55, in addition to which he requested £10,300 compensation, calculated at £50 per day for the 206 days he had been decanted from his property. The resident also requested a permanent move to another property that he was aware was vacant.
The landlord upheld the complaint, as it agreed that “the process could have been managed more proactively”. It explained that the resolution of the issues had been complicated by the extensive nature of the works, the availability of alternative accommodation and the impact of COVID-19 on its resources. The landlord agreed to pay the resident’s expenses but stated that it was unable to offer him a move to the property he had specified. The landlord also made a final offer of £750 compensation, in addition to reimbursement of the resident’s expenses, in its final complaint response.
The resident has advised this Service that he considers compensation in excess of £5,000 would be appropriate in recognition of the stress and inconvenience he experienced, in addition to payment of the agreed expenses. He also wants to be permanently rehoused.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s handling of reports of water ingress, damp and repairs

The landlord’s Responsive Repairs Policy does not cover major works, but the Ombudsman would expect these to be completed within a reasonable time, taking into account all the circumstances.
The landlord has not provided contemporaneous records of the resident’s first report of a leak in 2019 and the action it took in response. The landlord’s internal emails show that when it was contacted by the resident’s Local Councillor in March 2020 it could not identify any jobs raised at the resident’s address that were related to the roof leak. It did, however, note that some inspections had been completed.
The landlord carried out a further inspection of the property following contact from the Local Councillor, and it is clear from email correspondence and the content of the resident’s formal complaint that it arranged “tests and surveys” and a mould wash to the hallway cupboard. On 26 May 2020, the landlord reported to the Local Councillor that its investigations were ongoing. Although the landlord was taking some steps to address the resident’s concerns, there are no repairs records or evidence that an update was provided to the resident in the period between March 2020 and 26 May 2020.
The absence of a detailed repairs history for the property raises concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, and its failure to provide this information has limited the Ombudsman’s ability to investigate the resident’s complaint. The Ombudsman is unable to assess whether the landlord responded to the initial report of water ingress within a reasonable time and whether it appropriately followed-up on the outcome of any inspections or surveys.
Once the landlord had established that the water ingress and damp were related to the roof leak, the resident moved out of the property into temporary accommodation on 10 July 2020. The landlord did not provide a schedule of works to the resident’s property until 10 November 2020 and it did not start the repairs until 14 December 2020. It is noted that the works may have been impacted by restrictions imposed due to the COVID-19 pandemic, and that internal repairs to the resident’s property may have been delayed until the major roof works were completed. However, the Ombudsman is unable to comment on whether the delay was reasonable in the circumstances due to the lack of records.
The landlord has not provided any evidence that it provided regular updates to the resident between 10 July 2020 and 14 December 2020, although it frequently liaised with him after that date to arrange access for its contractor to complete the repairs within his property. Overall, the landlord’s communication with the resident about the progress of the works was poor.
The landlord relied on confirmation from its contractor that the works had been completed on 15 January 2021. On 18 January 2021, the resident highlighted that there were some outstanding repairs to a leaking cistern and door handle, and that final some final redecoration was required. According to the evidence provided, a plumber attended the leaking cistern and the redecoration was completed on 21 and 23 January 2021. Despite the landlord advising that the leaking cistern had been rectified, the resident reported that it was still leaking on 4 February 2021 and complained that he should not have been moved back into the property until all repairs were resolved.
The resident has complained that the landlord did not post-inspect the works before he was moved back into the property and states that when he returned the property was “uninhabitable”. The Ombudsman acknowledges that it was frustrating for the resident to return to his property after several months only to find that further works were required. The Repairs Policy provided to this investigation does not refer to post-inspection of major works, however, the Ombudsman considers that it is best practice for a landlord to inspect works on completion to ensure nothing significant is outstanding, particularly where a resident has already been inconvenienced by a lengthy decant.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that it was not unreasonable for the landlord to return the resident to his property, on receipt of advice from its contractor that the works had been completed. Although some redecoration works were outstanding and the leaking cistern had not been effectively repaired, there is nothing to suggest that the property was “uninhabitable”, or that these minor works could not be completed with the resident in situ. It is understandable that the landlord wished to return the resident to their property at the earliest opportunity, as it needed to make its limited housing stock available for other tenants.
The landlord noted in its final complaint response that some further replastering works were required. It is not known whether these works are related to the previous issues. The landlord has offered to complete these works and to arrange a property condition survey, which is a reasonable means of addressing the resident’s ongoing concerns about the condition of the property.
Based on the evidence provided, the Ombudsman considers that there was poor communication by the landlord in respect of the repairs and that its record keeping was inadequate. The landlord has offered £750 compensation to the resident in recognition of its lack of proactivity and the stress and inconvenience this caused. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, £750 compensation is sufficient to reflect the failings identified. According to this Service’s Remedies Guidance, this amount is at the higher end of the recommended awards for financial redress, and includes circumstances where the resident has experienced a long stay in temporary accommodation due to the mishandling of repairs. The Ombudsman therefore makes a finding that the landlord has provided reasonable redress to the resident in relation to this aspect of the complaint

Landlord’s handling of temporary decant and request for a permanent move

It is sometimes necessary for the landlord to decant residents to carry out major works to their existing property. Where this happens, the landlord’s Compensation Policy states that rent will remain payable under the terms of the existing lease, but the resident will not be charged rent on their temporary accommodation. The resident will receive a “disturbance allowance” to cover any actual expenses but the resident will not ordinarily be entitled to payment for loss of use of their property.
There is little evidence about the circumstances of the resident’s decant. In the formal complaint of 17 June 2020, the resident reported that the landlord had agreed to a decant following contact from the Council’s EH team but noted that he had not yet been moved. Neither party has provided evidence of its initial communications with the EH team, including any comments it made about the property’s condition. This again suggests poor record keeping.
The Ombudsman does not have the technical expertise to assess whether the condition of the resident’s property necessitated an immediate move to temporary accommodation. In the absence of notes from the landlord’s inspections, or details of its discussions of the EH team, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether the resident should have been decanted earlier.
In its final complaint response, the landlord explained that residents were rehoused according to the severity of the issues within their property and based on the availability of suitable properties. The landlord’s approach was reasonable, although in the absence of additional records the Ombudsman is unable to verify whether the action it took in the resident’s specific case was appropriate. In the absence of a separate Decants Policy, the Ombudsman does not consider that a delay of just over 1 month from the resident accepting the property until his move date was unreasonable. The purpose of the decant was to minimise the disturbance caused to the resident by the major works and the landlord maintained that the resident’s current property posed no risk to his health.
In order to resolve the complaint, the resident requested that he be moved to a property he knew was vacant. The landlord explained in an email dated 22 February 2022 that it could not transfer the resident to the requested property as, “the Housing Team have to take nominations from the local authority and therefore cannot accept an internal transfer”, which was a reasonable response. It also noted that other residents had requested a transfer to the same property, which had been refused on the same grounds. This demonstrated consistency and fairness in its approach.
In its final response the landlord confirmed that it had inspected the property on 14 May 2021 and found it to be habitable, therefore it would not agree to a permanent move. Although the landlord could have done more to explore the resident’s housing transfer options with him, as offered in its stage 1 response, it was entitled to rely on the advice of its surveyor that a move was not required due to the condition of the property.
The landlord has complied with the requirements of its Compensation Policy by reimbursing the resident for his expenses whilst decanted from his permanent property. It has also offered additional compensation to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the repairs, and the resident is not entitled to further compensation for the loss of use of his property, as he was suitably rehoused for the duration of the decant. The Ombudsman therefore concludes that the landlord has provided satisfactory redress to the resident to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Landlord’s complaints handling

The resident raised his formal complaint with the landlord on 17 June 2020, but the landlord did not provide a stage 1 response until 23 March 2021 when the resident had returned to his property. Paragraph 5.5 of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code reminds landlord’s that a complaint response should be sent to the resident when the answer to the complaint is known, and not when the outstanding actions required to address the issues are completed. In this case, it took the landlord 9 months to respond to the complaint, which was particularly unreasonable given that the complaint focussed on a delay in taking action to address the leak and in organising a decant. These issues could have been investigated and responded to within a significantly shorter timeframe and the landlord did not need to wait until the repairs had been completed.
When the resident indicated that he was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage 1 response, the landlord entered into a lengthy email exchange in which it attempted to persuade the resident to discuss the resolution to his complaint by phone. This was not an appropriate means of resolving the complaint, as the resident had indicated that he wished to communicate in writing and had already clearly set out his outstanding concerns. The landlord’s failure to provide a stage 2 response prevented the resident from escalating his complaint to this Service.
The Ombudsman considers that there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaints handling, due to the length of time it took to progress the complaint through its internal complaints process, and its poor communication.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves his complaint about its handling of water ingress, damp and other repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Scheme, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord has made an offer of redress to the resident that satisfactorily resolves his complaint about its handling of his temporary decant and request for a permanent move.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Orders and Recommendations

Order

Within 28 days of the date of this report, the landlord must confirm to this Service that it has paid the resident £100 compensation in recognition of the landlord’s poor complaints handling.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord:
1. Re-offer the resident the £750 compensation awarded in the final complaint response, together with reimbursement of his expenses, if these sums have not yet been paid.
2. Contact the resident to discuss his options for rehousing.
3. Arrange a property condition survey, as offered in the final complaint response, if it has not already done so.
4. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that clear and accurate repairs records are maintained and available to be delivered up to the Ombudsman for the purpose of its investigations.
5. Review its complaint handling processes to ensure that a response is provided in line with the landlord’s published timescales and the requirements of the Ombudsman’s Complaints Handling Code.