Southern Housing Group Limited (202011687)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202011687

Southern Housing Group Limited

29 March 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 concerns the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs to resident’s bathroom, roof and front door.
2. response to concerns he raised about rubbish in the communal areas and the car park.
3. response to resident’s request to be transferred.
4. handling of the resident’s request for service charge information.
5. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant. The property is 2-bedroom end of terrace house. The tenancy started on 30 April 1999.
The resident raised concerns complaints with the landlord in 2018 and in June 2019 about issues including communal parking and its decision not to provide the resident with a management move. However, as these complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints process at the time, this review will start from February 2020. This is when the resident reported a leak from his bathroom ceiling which, amongst other concerns, was raised as formal complaint on 31 July 2020 and exhausted the landlord’s complaints process on 26 March 2021.
In February 2020 the landlord’s repair contractor attended the property to address the resident’s report of water dripping from the ceiling in the bedroom. It cleared the guttering to stop the water ingress and identified works needed to address the damage caused by the leak. These were booked in for 26 March 2020, however, the landlord cancelled these on 24 March 2020 due to the restrictions as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic. It told the resident that the works would be rebooked when its repair team returned to business as usual.
On 25 March 2020 the resident told the landlord’s repair contractor that a tile had come off his roof and the felting had come loose.
On 5 June 2020 the resident requested documents relating to his service charges. This was logged by the landlord as a service charge enquiry on 8 June 2020.
On 16 June 2020 the resident reported to the landlord that there was a hole in his roof. The landlord’s contractor attended on 17 June 2020 who recommended that a roofing company attend to fix the lead flashing and tiles to the valley. An appointment was arranged for 15 July 2020 when the roofing company reported that they had completed the repair by providing a tower, overhauling the section of roof, refixed the leadwork and loose tiles.
The landlord’s repair contractor attended the property to complete bathroom repairs on 18 June and 8 July 2020 when it replaced smoke detectors, fitted carbon monoxide and heat detectors, replaced the fan in the bathroom and replaced the external vent cover. It was unable to replace the bath panel as it had been unable to source a suitable one.
The resident contacted the landlord on 10 July 2020 regarding rubbish in the communal area. He said the property had its own designated and secure area built for dustbins in his front garden yet the landlord had previously moved the rubbish collection to a communal area so it could charge residents for bulk rubbish removal through the service charge. He said this was because it could not always identify who had left bulk rubbish. He wanted the reinstatement of his individual bin as the ongoing issues had not been resolved.
The landlord’s repair contractor attended the property on 30 July 2020 to carry further out repairs to the bathroom including replacing the taps, shower hose and head, straightening the bath mixer tap and adjusting the basin tap. They also replaced the loft hatch.
The landlord called the resident on 31 July 2020 regarding his concerns. The landlord sent an email to the resident on the same day confirming the parameters of its investigation:
1. The outstanding repairs to his bathroom.
2. The outstanding roof repair.
3. A lack of response to his request for the service charge accounts.
4. A lack of response to his communication dated 10 July 2020 regarding rubbish in the communal area.
The landlord acknowledged that the outcomes the resident sought were compensation, completion of outstanding repairs and a response to his 10 July 2020 email. The landlord then added communal parking to the resident’s complaint. It also raised a work order for its repair contractor to fit the bath panel.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 4 August 2020 to fit the bath panel however as the resident was unhappy with the workmanship, they agreed to return on 24 August 2020 to fit a bath panel chosen by the resident.
During a phone call with the resident on 17 August 2020 the landlord discussed the communal parking issues. The parking bays for the resident’s estate were being operated on a first come first serve basis and there was no system of enforcement in place at that time. The resident reported he was unable to have reasonable use of the carpark as the bays were occupied or parked vehicles blocked him in when he had been able to park. The landlord’s notes indicate the resident had reservations about whether CCTV would resolve the issues as he felt it would be vandalised and the landlord would not take any action if it got proof about who was misusing the car park or dumping rubbish.
The landlord’s internal communications show it took steps to progress the repairs to the resident’s roof and bathroom.
The landlord’s repair contractor returned to the property on 24 August 2020 to fit the bath panel however as the resident raised a concern about the bath panel, this was not fitted at this time.
On 28 August 2020, the landlord replied to the resident’s 10 July 2020 communication regarding refuse in the communal area. It said it had sympathy for his position and shared his desire for no build up of refuse leading to additional clearances and subsequent additional costs. However, said that it was reasonable for it to recover the cost via the scheme service charge when it had had to pay for clearances, and where it was unable to recharge an individual because of lack of evidence. It explained the action it had taken in the past to address this issue including increasing inspections and speaking to residents which did not rectify the problem.
The landlord said its proposal to install CCTV would hopefully reduce the impact of refuse clearance on the service charge. It clarified that it would consider using CCTV footage as evidence to support legal action if it felt all other avenues had been exhausted. It added if he wanted it to work with him in trying to get individual collections to his own home reinstated it would do so.
The landlord called the resident on 22 September 2020 to discuss his complaint. The landlord’s notes show the resident advised the car park and rubbish bins continued to be a problem and that he had a video of the rats/maggots in/by the bin area.
The resident asked that the landlord add to his complaint that the leak from the roof had caused £1000 worth of damage to furniture in the room below due to mould from the leak.
The repair contractor’s supervisor inspected the roof on 28 September 2020 and found there was still a leak from the roof. The job was passed back to the roofing company.
On 30 September 2020 the landlord provided a stage one complaint response which said:
1. It was sorry that the repairs to his bathroom were not completed within a reasonable timeframe and for the missed or failed appointments in relation to the bath panel including the 24 August 2020 appointment. It advised that major bathroom works had been arranged for three days from 19 October 2020. These works would include removing the tiles and plasterboard, re-boarding and re-tiling, installing a new concealed shower unit and pump and replacing the toilet, basin and flooring. The landlord offered £50 for the delayed bathroom works and £25 for the missed appointments for the bath panel.
2. Regarding the roof repair, its supervisor confirmed from the inspection on 28 September 2020 that the inside of the roof space had not been attended to and so the works needed to be sent back to the roofing contractor. It would update him when an appointment had been made.
3. Service charge information relating to a previous financial year was not usually available until the autumn and so this may not be available yet. However, it recognised that his requests for the information were not acknowledged within the timeframe it would expect, and it was sorry for this. It had discussed this with his Housing Officer (HO) who apologised for the delay. It offered £25 in compensation for the lack of response to his request.
4. A response was sent to his 10 July 2020 communication on 28 August 2020. However, it was offering £25 in compensation for the delay in responding.
5. Rubbish and car park issues in the communal area. It understood these were long term issues that were the subject of on-going monitoring and investigation. It reiterated it was investigating the possibility of installing CCTV to monitor the car park and bin area, in the hope of identifying and acquiring evidence of who was leaving bulky rubbish and causing problems with parking.
The landlord advised it had now closed his complaint however if he remained dissatisfied with any aspect, he should contact it to discuss the matter.
On 5 October 2020 the resident responded to landlord’s stage one response. He advised:
1. Regarding the bathroom repairs, it had only acknowledged the one missed appointment. There had been many occasions when its repair contractor had needed to make additional appointments to put something right due to work they did incorrectly. There were 12 visits to provide a bath tap, shower hose, bath panel, and loft hatch. The bath panel was still to be replaced. Multiple appointments were needed because of either a rework, not having the correct parts or further inspections of mistakes. He was self-employed and £25 was disproportionate to the number of appointments made that he had to facilitate.
2. Regarding the roof repairs, there had been 6 visits so far. He envisaged another 2 visits would be needed to inspect the area and then to fix it. £25 was disproportionate to the number of appointments made. It had not addressed the issue of mould damage caused to his furniture as a result of the leak.
3. Regarding his request for service charge information, as it had ignored his request, he had been unable to check the accuracy of the cost it had added to his service charge. He asked that it provide this information within 30 days.
4. Regarding the delay in responding to his 10 July communication, he accepted its explanation for this and the £25 in compensation offered.
5. Regarding communal rubbish area, he reiterated the issues with having the rubbish collection in the communal area. He asked that the landlord move him to a new home where he could live in peace. He asked for a full refund for service charge costs 2019 -2020.
6. Regarding communal parking, he reiterated the issues with parking and asked that the landlord move him to a new home and for £75 per week for not being able to use the parking area.
The landlord acknowledged his dissatisfaction with its stage one response advising it would consider escalating his complaint to stage two.
On 9 October 2020, the roofing company attended to repair a section of roof to address the leak coming from the vent tile unit.
The landlord’s repair contractor carried out bathroom works to the property from 19 October to 6 November 2020.
On 30 October 2020 the landlord provided an update to his complaint. In regards to rubbish in the communal area, it referred to steps it had taken in the past to address the issue of people not using the bin area correctly. These measures had failed and it reiterated its plan to install CCTV which it said would act as a deterrent. It said in view the measures taken it did not believe a payment of compensation was appropriate.
Regarding parking, it referred to the parking enforcement measures it previously tried to install which it said were thwarted by unknown persons removing the signs that had been erected and further parking enforcement as a whole was not well supported by the other residents. It said the installation of CCTV would help it understand what was going on. It referred to his requested outcome to be moved to another property but said this was not an outcome it could offer. It had previously explored the option of an urgent management transfer for him however it was concluded that whilst there were issues on the estate, the situation did not meet the criteria to support an urgent move.
On 1 November 2020 the resident asked to escalate his complaint to stage two.
On 12 November 2020, the resident’s HO emailed him with information regarding the service charge for the period 2019/2020.
The resident emailed the landlord’s repair contractor on 16 November 2020, copying in the landlord, advising he was “appalled” by service provided. He said it had taken 20 working days and one Saturday to complete the bathroom works when he was told it would take three days from 19 October to 22 October 2020 or 4 days in case of any unforeseen circumstances.
The landlord’s repair team attended the property on three further occasions between 11 November and 3 December 2020 to: collect rubbish; complete the installation of shower screen; finish the grouting and silicone; replace bath panel; cleared trap to bath and fill the hole on the outside wall where the old overflow was removed.
On 19 November 2020, the landlord advised the resident that his complaint had been escalated to stage two of its complaints process. It asked if he would prefer a senior manager review or a panel review which were being held virtually due to Covid-19 and so this would not take place until the New Year. The resident replied on 24 November 2020 advising that he would prefer a stage two panel review.
On 5 December 2020 the resident emailed the landlord’s repair contractor, copying in the landlord outlining problems with the bathroom works that had been carried out meaning that the shower pump needed to be changed. He also raised a concern about reaching pipes due to the lack of an access panel in the tiled wall. The landlord acknowledged his communication on 10 December 2020 advising it was sorry to hear the works were not completed as expected. It reiterated it would let him now when it had a date for his stage two panel.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 December 2020 advising its repair contractor’s supervisor had visited on 11 December 2020. He confirmed that the pump had not been fitted to the manufacturer’s instructions and would therefore not function as designed to do so. They also inspected the setup and layout of the bathroom, shower and airing cupboard and advised that the pump should be changed, as well as the pump location that some of the pipework underneath the bath needed to be removed and reconfigured. The necessary work had been scheduled for 17 December 2020. The resident also advised its contractor had damaged his front door during the works.
The landlord replied on the same day acknowledging an appointment had been arranged for that week in order to complete the identified works.
The resident advised the landlord on 17 December 2020 that plumbers had attended that day to carry out the necessary works including to the pump however its supervisor had confirmed it was not possible to fit the pump to the manufacturer’s correct specification that day. The resident said that again he was “so disappointed’ that lessons had not been learnt and his time and personal space had been wasted. This had had an emotional impact.
The resident wrote to the repair contractor on 22 December 2020 about the bathroom repair issues and asked the landlord to add this to his stage two complaint.
The landlord subsequently asked its repair contractor for a timeline of the resident’s bathroom works. The timeline it received set out events and included statements from its repair contractor’s supervisor and contract manager in which they acknowledged that the quality of workmanship was not to the required standard, an example of this was tiles being incorrectly fitted. They said this partly was because the scope of the bathroom works was so enhanced, their operatives were working with materials they do not ordinarily work with.
They also acknowledged that operatives incorrectly fitted the pump beneath the bath which was not as per the shower pump manufacturer’s instructions, despite protestation from the resident. This meant the shower pump did not provide an adequate flow of water. This created problems which necessitated the contract manager’s involvement. They tried to resolve this issue by installing another pump in an alternative location at the end of the bath and by removing as many bends and other obstructions in the pipework as possible. However, they were unable to make this set up work.
Within the statement, they proposed a solution involving installing the shower pump in the airing cupboard which would require its heating contractor to provide a quote to remove the hot water cylinder and install it on a platform to enable the shower pump to be installed beneath it. Pipework would need to be run around the bathroom under the floor to the shower position to ensure that the feed to the shower was fitted as per the manufacturer’s instructions.
The resident contacted the landlord on 11 and 15 January 2021 asking for an update on his stage two complaint. On 18 January 2021, the landlord advised it was currently experiencing a high volume of cases and so its response times had been delayed for which it apologised. Due to the Covid-19 pandemic, it was currently finding it difficult to arrange Stage Two panels as its panel members were often unavailable. It was able to offer a Senior Manager Review as an alternative if necessary.
The heating contractor attended on 26 January 2021 to survey a raise of the water cylinder. In an email to the landlord dated 27 January 2021 the contractor said their main concern with this was that pressure would be lost out of all other hot outlets. They said the best solution would be to convert to a combination boiler, as this would give equal pressures on hot and cold outlets. This option would require no pump so no noise when the hot outlet turned on.
The resident called the landlord on 28 January 2021 and left a message advising he wanted to discuss his ongoing complaint.
On 8 February 2021 the landlord replied apologising for the delay with his complaint being reviewed. It advised that as a result of Covid-19, it could not offer a review panel but its Customer Relations Team would be in touch to discuss his complaint with a senior manager. The resident replied on 10 February 2021 advising he was unhappy about this. The landlord sent a further email to the resident on the same date explaining that volunteers from a resident’s group they used to make up the panel had to withdraw or were unavailable.
On 16 and 17 February 2021, the resident expressed dissatisfaction about the landlord’s failure to provide a panel review as per its complaints process.
On 1 March 2021 the landlord advised the resident that in view his dissatisfaction with this, he could escalate his complaint to the Ombudsman.
On 3 March 2021 the resident wrote to the landlord setting out all the outstanding issues. He advised that the outcomes he sought were for the issues to be resolved, his losses recouped, to be moved to a different property and to be paid compensation for further service failing during stage two process. He requested:
1. £4696 for the bathroom works -£3300 for 22 working days away from self-employed work, £500 for being unable to enjoy his home whilst works were ongoing, £800 for stress and inconvenience and £96 for 8 boxes of spare tiles its repair contractor used or wasted.
2. £900 for 6 unnecessary appointments for the roof repair. This was a 2 person job which required 8 appointments.
3. £350 to £700 for damage caused to furniture including his bed due to leak in roof.
4. £100 for lack of response to his request for service charge information.
5. A refund of service fee from 2019 for its failure to resolve the communal area rubbish issues.
6. £1500 for being unable to use the parking area from March 2019 to June 2021 because of the landlord’s poor management. This amount was based on his valuation of a parking space in the area to be £75 per month.
On 12 March 2021, the resident asked for a “short break from everything” and explained that after the heating contractor had recently attended regarding a leak to his existing boiler, he did not have confidence in their skill set. The landlord agreed to his request and said it would add a reminder for June 2021 with a view to beginning the bathroom works in August 2021.
On 26 March 2021, the landlord provided a stage two final response. It acknowledged that the bathroom works took longer than expected due to issues including with fittings or fixtures, dissatisfaction in the products being used, delays with parts and work needing to be redone due to installation failures. It said that some of which were also exacerbated by the challenges of Covid-19.
It also acknowledged an operative attended who felt unwell with possible Covid-19 symptoms had attended but said he was subsequently removed from the site. It apologised for this on behalf of its repair contractor. It agreed to make a diary note for June 2021 with a view to booking the boiler change for August 2021 which would also require pipework underneath the bath. This will also include a new bath panel. It would also rectify the damage caused to the front door by operatives. It did not agree to replace the door as the damage was cosmetic however it would make enquiries with a window company to see if it can be filled.
Regarding his claim for £4696 in respect of bathroom works:
1. loss of earnings of £3300 as a result of needing to be at home to facilitate visits. This could be reimbursed if he provided proof of direct financial loss.
2. It agreed to his claim for £500.00 in compensation in respect of the 22 working days taken to complete bathroom works. Whilst he still had access to the bathroom and a bathing facility, it recognised the negative impact of the works where he was unable to enjoy his home along with the mess, disruption, and inconvenience of the works. It also offered an additional £200 for disrupted appointments and a Covid-19 symptomatic operative attending his home. Although the operative tested negative, this would have caused worry and stress over the matter.
3. It did not agree to his claim for £800 for stress and inconvenience including time taken to call and email from October 2020 to March 2021. It said the £700 already agreed took into account the inconvenience caused.
4. It agreed to his request for £96 for the cost of his spare tiles that were used/wasted by its repair contractor. Having liaised with its repair contractor, it had become clear that the multi trade operatives were not experienced in using the types of tiles he had provided and this led to errors.
5. Regarding the roof repair, it said that it recognised that there had been delays in works being carried out and said this was due to delays in attendance and due to the pandemic. It did not refer to the resident’s claim for £900.
6. Regarding damage to property from the hole in the roof, it would be happy to refund the cost of the £270 dehumidifier him if he provided the receipt for this. As to his request for £350.00- £700.00 towards the cost of his possessions and property damaged by the hole in the roof, it usually directed customers to claim via their household insurance. However, on this occasion and when taking into consideration the circumstances and the delays, it offered £350.00 for damage caused to his possessions.
7. Regarding his request for service charge information, he requested this information on 5 June 2020, and it was provided to him by his HO on 12 November 2020. It apologised for the delay in the information being sent him and it reiterated its offer of £25 for the delay.
8. For untimely responses, it reiterated its offer to pay £25 for the delay with answering his 10 July 2020 letter and also a further £25 for the lack of a call back provided to his call made during the bathroom works.
9. Regarding his request for a refund of service fee from 2019 for its failure to resolve the communal area rubbish issues, the landlord did not agree to this request as it was reasonable for it to recharge costs of rubbish removal or fly tipping. It felt that the situation had been exacerbated by the Council’s change from weekly to fortnightly collections, which had put additional pressure on the bin space. It had discussed the issue with the Council, and it would not supply larger bins and its only suggestion was to revert to individual bins for each household. However, it felt that this would not solve the issue as the area will be even clearer for people to fly tip. It reiterated it was progressing CCTV installation and a possible bin area design with the Council.
10. Regarding communal parking, it acknowledged that it previously introduced permits for the car park to try to mitigate the problems– one per household which could be applied for by residents free of charge. The car park was being patrolled however the signs were ripped down “more than once” and there were not currently any patrols as a result of this. A CCTV solution was now being progressed to address the parking issues as well as the rubbish/fly tipping concerns. As it had taken corrective action to best manage the parking issues, it did not accept that had been any failure in service. His HO would keep him updated on the CCTV plans and how this could be used to monitor parking and the usage of space.
11. Complaint handling -it acknowledged the stage two review panel was not provided. It apologised this did not go ahead. It explained that during the pandemic and winter months, a number of panel members had withdrawn their services. This resulted in not having the available panel members to host the review. It offered the resident £100 in compensation.
12. Regarding his desire to move property, it had previously submitted a request for a ‘management’ transfer in 2019 but his personal circumstances did not meet the criteria and this was therefore declined. It advised if he felt his circumstances had changed he could let it know however it only moved in high risk priority cases. It said he had the option of a Mutual Exchange and if he wanted more information, it could put him in touch with its Letting team to discuss this.
During calls with the Ombudsman in 2022, the resident advised:
1. the roof repair of October 2020 was not carried out correctly and he made another complaint on 14 February 2022 to the landlord in which he said the situation has led to a rodent infestation.
2. Due to the errors made by the landlord’s repair contractor when carrying out bathroom works, water pressure from the shower is reduced and he has been left with faulty pipework causing a noise every time the shower is turned on. He had reservations about the landlord’s heating contractor installing a combi-boiler as the water pressure is not guaranteed. He also raised a concern about the lack of access panel in the stud wall which he explained meant that if there was a leak, the pipework could not be reached without removal of the wall.
3. the front door damaged by contractors has not been repaired. He said it needed replacing.
In March 2022 the landlord provided an update regarding the CCTV installation advising the person it thought may have been causing the problems moved out in July 2021 after which time parking issues and fly tipping dramatically reduced. It said it did not receive any further reports from the resident and decided there was no longer a need to install CCTV.
Regarding the outstanding bathroom works, as it had not heard from the resident about the works going ahead, it assumed that the flow had increased, which could happen. It had now emailed him regarding booking the boiler works in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s responsive repair policy says the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in good repair, including the roof. It is also responsible to keep in good repair and working order any installations it provides for sanitation and installations for the supply of water including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems, waste pipes. It does not however give timescales except for emergency repairs.

The landlord’s handling of repairs – bathroom

There was a delay by the landlord in completing works to rectify the damage caused by the water leaking from the resident’s bathroom ceiling. The damage was first identified when the landlord’s repair contractor repaired the leak in February 2020 by clearing the front and back guttering. The landlord had booked the work in for 26 March 2020 however due to the pandemic, these were postponed and the resident was told the works would be rebooked when its repair team returned to business as usual. As landlords were only dealing with emergency repairs during the first lock down, given the required works, this was reasonable.
Whilst the repair contractor attended on 18 June and 8 July 2020 to complete these repairs, as they had not completed the required works by 31 July 2020, this formed part of the resident’s formal complaint. Following this, the landlord arranged for the repair contractor to attend to fit the bath panel however despite two further visits in August 2020, this work was not completed due to concerns raised by the resident about the quality of the bath panel/workmanship.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged there had been issues with the bathroom repairs and apologised for the delay in completing the works and for the outstanding issues. It offered £50 for the delay and £25 for the failed appointment on 24 August 2020. It also advised that ‘major bathroom works’ had been agreed and booked in for three days starting on 19 October 2020. These were non-standard higher specification works and included removing the tiles and plasterboard, re-boarding and re-tiling, installing a new concealed shower unit -rainbow head, hand shower and pump and replacing the toilet, basin and flooring.
As the landlord acknowledged and apologised for the delays, confirmed the outstanding works and advised when the majority of these would be completed and offered compensation, overall its response at this stage was reasonable.
The repair contractor began the agreed bathroom works on 19 October 2020 as scheduled which continued until 6 November 2020, the repair contractor then returned on three further occasions between 11 November and 3 December 2020 to complete the works. Therefore, the length of time taken to complete the works was significantly longer than the timeframe advised to the resident. It is clear this was because operatives did not hold all the necessary skills required to deliver the enhanced scope of works that was agreed as such this resulted in errors which took additional time to rectify. This happened with the tiling, painting and fitting of the bath panel. This meant the works continued over a protracted period with the resident having to be at home for an unreasonable number of visits to enable the landlord to address the issues. This was a failure in the service provided by the landlord.
During subsequent visits by its repair contractor in December 2020, it was also identified that the shower pump had been incorrectly fitted under the bath which was not to the manufacturer’s specification meaning the shower did not have adequate flow of water being pumped to it. This caused a noise every time the hot outlet was turned.
The landlord’s contractor explored two options of resolving this issue, the first involved raising the hot water cylinder and fitting the shower pump underneath with new pipework under the flooring and the second was to install a combi-boiler which would allow the shower to be connected to the mains. This would also require pipework underneath the bath. Its heating contractor advised the latter option was the best option and as a result in its final response the landlord proposed to fit a new boiler as a solution. Whilst there were further issues with the incorrect fitting and location of the shower /pipework the steps taken by the landlord to investigate and rectify these issues were appropriate.
It is acknowledged that the resident has expressed reservations about the proposed fix, partly because he believes sufficient water pressure would not be guaranteed. In March 2021 the resident asked for a break from the works to which the landlord agreed. In its final response, the landlord advised it would contact the resident in June 2021 to book in the boiler change for August 2021. This was reasonable in this circumstance.
However, the landlord’s advised the Ombudsman in March 2022 that it had not installed the new combi boiler at the property. It said it had not heard from the resident and so assumed the flow issue had improved as this could happen. The failure of the landlord to contact the resident in June 2021 to book in the boiler works is evidence that it did not do what it promised the resident it would do in the final response regarding rectifying the issues. Whilst the resident may not have contacted the landlord since the final response in regards to resolving the outstanding issues, the landlord’s failure to follow up on its undertaking is a failure in the service provided.
In this circumstance, an appropriate order had been included below for the landlord to contact the resident to try and agree a plan going forward to rectify the outstanding issues of noise and inadequate water pressure with his shower.
Of the compensation for £4696 claimed by the resident in respect of the bathroom works, the landlord advised it would reimburse him the £3300 claimed for loss of earnings if he provided proof of direct financial loss. This was reasonable as it showed the landlord recognised the impact the ongoing works had on the resident’s ability to work.
The landlord also offered £500 for 22 days loss of enjoyment of his home whilst contractors remained at his property, £96 for cost of tiles wasted by operatives and £200 for disrupted appointments and an operative showing Covid-19 symptoms who had attended his home to carry out bathroom works. On balance these compensation amounts offered by the landlord were reasonable as they took into account the additional disruption, stress and inconvenience caused by the longer than anticipated works. However, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to pay the resident additional compensation for its failure to follow up on the action it agreed to in its final response to address the outstanding issues of inadequate water flow and noise.

Roof

The evidence indicates the resident first mentioned to the landlord’s contractor that a tile had come off his roof and the felting had come loose during a call on 25 March 2020.No action was taken at this time and there is no evidence of the landlord or its contractor assessing the impact of the loose tile and felting reported, therefore, this was a failure in the service provided.
The resident reported to the landlord on 16 June 2020 that there was a hole in the roof. Restrictions were being lifted and the landlord referred the repair to a roofing contractor which was appropriate. This was repaired by the landlord’s roofing contractor on 15 July 2020.
However, the resident subsequently advised in his formal complaint that he believed the roof had only been partially repaired. The landlord arranged for the roof to be inspected however as this was nearly two months later on 28 September 2020, this constitutes an unreasonable delay. As the inspector found there was still a leak from the roof, the job was passed to a roofing company. In its stage one response the landlord confirmed the roofing company would return to complete to the roof repair and on 7 October 2020 and the landlord’s repair records confirm that it did so. Whilst the resident recently told the Ombudsman that he told the landlord that he did not believe this repair was done correctly, there is no evidence of any further reports from the resident regarding issues with his roof.
In its final response the landlord said it recognised there has been delays with works being carried out which it said was due to both delays in attendance and due to the pandemic. It advised it was willing to reimburse the resident £270 for the dehumidifier he purchased to dry out the property which he said he had a receipt for. It also said it would be happy to pay him £350 towards damage caused to furniture including his bed due to the leak in roof.
Whilst the landlord’s offer of compensation recognises the losses incurred by the resident due to mould damage caused to his possessions as a result of its delay in providing an adequate repair of the roof, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to offer compensation for the stress and inconvenience caused by its failure to adequately repair the roof within a reasonable timeframe meaning the resident had to make additional reports before it was fully resolved. Its failure to do so is evidence of it not providing adequate redress for this issue.

Front door

The resident’s composite front door was accidentally damaged by an operative during the bathroom works which the resident reported to the landlord on 14 December 2020. The resident described the damage to as being a “gouge” and too deep to repair. In its final response the landlord apologised for the damage but advised it would not replace the front door as the damage was cosmetic but said it would make enquiries with a window company to see if it could be filled.
The landlord told the Ombudsman on 8 March 2022 that the proposed repair of filling the gouge in the front door had been carried out. The resident has disputed this however the landlord has provided evidence of the work carried out including photographic evidence of the repair which supports its stated position that the door had been repaired.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the reparation provided has not necessarily restored the door back to its original pre-damaged condition, as the damage did not affect the security and functionality of the front door, on balance the repair provided by the landlord was reasonable.

Car parking and rubbish in the communal areas.

The landlord is responsible for the communal areas of the resident’s estate, including the communal parking and bin areas. The landlord is also responsible for managing issues reported to it in relation to these areas.
It is entitled under the tenancy agreement to charge for the cost of providing services to the communal area of the estate which include costs relating to the removal of dumped rubbish on the estate and costs relating to the maintenance of the car park. Its service charge policy states one aim is to exclude charges where there is an ongoing dispute about the service charge.
The crux of the resident’s complaint about rubbish removal is that as the landlord had been unable to establish who was responsible for the fly tipping in the communal area, it was unfairly recharging this cost to all residents via the service charge. He also complained that he was often prevented from using the communal parking area due to other tenants’ vehicles blocking the parking area.
In its stage one response the landlord acknowledged that there had been on-going problems with rubbish and parking in the communal area and apologised for not resolving these issues. The landlord advised they had been the subject to ongoing monitoring and investigation and that it was currently looking into installing CCTV to monitor the car park and bin area, in the hope of identifying and acquiring evidence of who was causing the problems.
Whilst the resident explained to the landlord why he did not think CCTV would resolve the issues, the landlord had a duty to find a solution to address the issues raised. It referenced previous efforts made to resolve the communal issues including introduction of a permit scheme and a parking patrol which it said had all been unsuccessful meaning parking spaces had reverted back to being unallocated with usage on a first come first serve basis. Therefore, on balance its suggestion of installing CCTV was reasonable as this would enable it to take action against the perpetrators.
In its final response the landlord reiterated it intended to install CCTV and said it would keep the resident updated with the progress of this. It explained why it did not believe reverting to individual bin collection would resolve the fly tipping problem however it referred to progressing a possible bin area redesign. Further, it said that it would “work hard” to ensure that individuals are recharged for rubbish removal as appropriate moving forward.
Whilst it was appropriate for the landlord to set out how it intended to address the ongoing issues with the communal parking and rubbish removal, as it had been approximately six months since the date of its stage one response, it was reasonable to expect that more progress had been made during this time in regards to addressing the acknowledged issues, either by installing the CCTV or by demonstrating it had taken alternative steps to identify who was causing the issues.
Therefore, as the landlord failed to show it acted sufficiently promptly in relation to addressing the acknowledged problems with the communal parking and the dumping of rubbish, this was a failure in the service provided.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman that the parking issues and fly tipping dramatically reduced after the resident’s neighbour who was the main suspect for causing the problems, left the scheme in July 2021 thereby eradicating the need to install CCTV. Whilst this may be the case, it is reasonable to expect the landlord to provide an update to the resident about this and check with him that its interpretation of the situation was correct as it affected the actions it said it would take in its final response. The landlord’s lack of communication with the resident regarding how it was managing these issues was unreasonable.

The landlord’s response to resident’s request for a housing transfer.

The landlord’s Priority Moves policy (transfer policy) says it will consider a request for a priority move in urgent situations where residents meet its criteria. The criteria set out in its policy includes where there is a need due to: a decant because of major repairs; freeing special unit; medical; under-occupation; domestic abuse or anti-social behaviour/harassment.
In his 5 October 2020 complaint escalation request, the resident made clear that one of his desired outcomes was for the landlord to move him to another property.
In its final response the landlord referred to the resident’s previous request for a ‘management’ transfer and said that his personal circumstances had not met the criteria at that time and so it was declined. It advised the resident however to let it know if he felt his circumstance had changed since 2019. The landlord also reminded him of his option of a Mutual Exchange and offered to provide more information about this.
As its policy makes clear it only moves residents in urgent often high risk situations and as it had considered a similar request from the resident in 2019, the landlord’s response to this request was reasonable as it made clear its position but gave the resident the option of clarifying if he felt his circumstance had changed which meant he met the criteria.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for service charge information

Under the landlord’s Service Charge document titled guidance for tenants, it says every year it gives a service charge statement which includes estimated costs for the next 12 month period and actual costs of the previous 12 month period. However it does not specify when in the year it usually provides this information to tenants.
There was an unreasonable delay by the landlord in replying to the resident’s request for Service Charge information relating to the costs for the previous financial year, 2019/20. He first requested this from the landlord on 5 June 2020 and only received this information on 12 November 2020. In its stage one response the landlord apologised for the delay in replying and explained that information relating to a previous financial year was not usually available until the autumn. Nonetheless it is reasonable to expect the landlord to have given the resident a timescale for providing this information and its failure to do so at any stage was a failure in the service provided.
Its apology and offer of £25 in compensation indicates it recognised its failure in service and on balance this is sufficient redress to resolve this aspect of the complaint.

Complaint handling

The landlord operates a two stage complaints process and its complaints policy states it will provide a stage one response within 10 working days and a stage two response within 20 working says. However if it is unable to adhere to these timescales it will contact the resident and let them know why it is not able to and when it will provide a response.
Its complaint policy also says that at stage two the resident can request either a complaint review panel or senior manager review to conduct the review.
The landlord did not provide a stage one response within 10 days of the resident’s complaint logged on 31 July 2020 but approximately 2 months later on 30 September 2020. The landlord however was in regular contact with the resident during this period regarding the outstanding repairs and complaints in an attempt to progress a resolution to the issues. As there is no evidence of the landlord giving the resident an alternative timescale in regards to providing its stage one response, this constitutes a failure by the landlord to follow its complaints process. This was not acknowledged by the landlord in its stage one response.
In response to the resident’s request to escalate his complaint to stage two on 1 November 2020 the landlord asked if the resident would prefer a complaint review panel or senior manager review to conduct the review, in accordance with its complaints policy. It added however that panel review would not be held until the New Year. On 24 November 2020, the resident confirmed that he wanted a review panel.
The resident contacted the landlord on two occasions during January 2021 asking when the panel review would take place. It replied on 18 January apologising for the delay however on 8 February 2021 the landlord advised the resident that due to a shortage of panel members due to the impact of Covid-19, it was not currently holding panel reviews. Whilst the reason given by the landlord for being unable to hold the review panel is understandable as the country was in lockdown, its delay with informing the resident of its inability to provide the panel review as agreed, was a service shortcoming. However, the landlord’s offer to arrange for a senior manager to review his stage two complaint was appropriate.
It is unclear why the landlord subsequently advised the resident to escalate his complaint straight to the Ombudsman however following the resident clarifying the outcomes he sought from the landlord on 3 March 2021, it provided a stage two final response on 26 March 2021. This was appropriate. Whilst the landlord failed to acknowledge that it did not always provide the resident sufficient communication regarding the timescale of its complaint responses, it did acknowledge its delay with providing a final response and offered the resident £100 in compensation. On balance the compensation offered for failing to follow the timescales in its complaint process, reasonably addressed this complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of car parking and rubbish in the communal areas.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord when responding to resident’s request to be transferred.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when responding to resident’s request for service charge information.
In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress by the landlord when handling the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord did not adequately repair the roof within a reasonable timeframe resulting in mould damage caused to the resident’s belongings. There were also unreasonable delays by the landlord in providing repairs to the resident’s bathroom following a reported leak from the ceiling even when taking into account that some delays were caused by the impact of Covid-19. However, having agreed to provide major bathroom works, the time taken by the landlord to complete the works far exceeded the timescale given to the resident. Moreover, the shower pump and pipework were not fitted correctly resulting in inadequate water pressure in the shower head and noise omitting from the pipe when the shower is switched on. The landlord did offer a solution to resolve this issue in its final response however it did not follow up on this within the timescale agreed. The compensation offered for the delays and repair issues experienced by the resident did not adequately account for the extent of the stress and inconvenience caused.
Whilst it acted in accordance with its service charge policy by recharging residents for the costs of bulk rubbish removal via the service charge, in its complaint responses it acknowledged that it had not resolved the long-standing issues with the communal rubbish area and car park. The landlord made a reasonable proposal during the complaints process to install CCTV in order to help address the issues however it did not show sufficient progression with this proposal during the six month complaint process. It then failed to follow through with promises made in its final response and did not explain to the resident why it had not provided the redress promised in its final response. The landlord failed to offer the resident compensation in recognition of the issues being experienced which would have been reasonable.
The landlord referred to a previous request to move made by the resident in 2018 when he was found not to meet the criteria. It said if his he felt his circumstance had changed such that he qualified for the ‘urgent situation’ grounds set out in its policy, he should let it know. As the landlord clarified its position in relation to the resident’s request to move property as a resolution to his complaint, this was reasonable.
The landlord failed to respond promptly when the resident requested details of his previous year’s Service Charges however it apologised for its delay in responding to his request, offered compensation and also provided the requested information relating to costs for the previous financial year, 2019/20.
Due to delays with providing its complaint responses at both stages of its complaints process as well as insufficient communication regarding when it would provide responses, the resident had to contact it on more occasions that should have been necessary. However, the compensation offered of £100 reasonably addressed its complaint handling failures.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman orders that the landlord:
1. In addition to the compensation offered in its final response, pay the resident further compensation of £850 comprising of:
  1. £400 for stress and inconvenience caused by the shower and associated pipework being incorrectly installed in his bathroom that the landlord offered to rectify but did not follow up in the timeframe agreed.
  2. £200 for the delay in repairing the roof.
  3. £250 in compensation for the delay in tackling reported issues with the communal parking and rubbish and not following up on promises made during the complaint process to manage these issues or explain to the resident why it had not.
2. Contact the resident to agree a plan to rectify the outstanding issues with his shower relating to noise and inadequate water pressure. As part of these discussions the landlord will need to demonstrate it has sought the opinion of a suitably qualified individual as to the most appropriate remedy for the outstanding defects.
3. Provide an update to the resident on how it is managing the issues raised about parking and rubbish in the communal area.
4. Comply with the above orders within four weeks.
The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord:
1. Addresses the resident’s recent reports of further problems with the roof and a rodent infestation and any related formal complaint. This matter should be dealt with urgently within 4 weeks and the repair also aimed to be completed within this timeframe. Further compensation for the continued delay should also be considered.
2. Explains its position regarding the absence of an access panel to the resident.