St Mungo Community Housing Association (201910473)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201910473

St Mungo Community Housing Association

8 February 2021

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 failing to carry out void works prior to the resident moving into the property;
   2. the length of time it took the landlord to carry out repairs;
   3. the landlord’s communication, including complaint handling and staff conduct.

Background and Summary of Events

Policies and procedures

2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will carry out emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within five working days and routine repairs within 20 working days.
3. The landlord has adopted a two-stage complaints procedure, whereby the landlord aims to provide a response within 10 working days at stage one and 30 working days at stage two.
4. The landlord’s compensation policy sets out circumstances in which it will consider compensating residents, which includes where the landlord “has not completed repairs within a reasonable timeframe on two or more occasions and where this results in significant distress or discomfort for a client due to them not being able to use part of their accommodation”.
5. The same policy states that compensation will be paid at a flat rate of £21, plus £4 for each day by which the agreed completion date is exceeded, up to a maximum of £106.

Background

6. There is extensive email correspondence in this case, with the resident contacting the landlord about a number of issues over time, including issues with the boiler, carbon monoxide alarm, cooker, garden issues and rubbish, pest issues, damp, mould, a leak, the behaviour of staff including attitudinal issues, the electric metre, a door handle/locks and the fridge/freezer. This report does not go into the detail of each and every incident reported but provides a broad overview of the main issues raised and the wider overall context of the situation and associated complaints. The resident made three complaints, with only one of these being progressed to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process. 

Summary of events

7. One month after the resident moved into the property, around 15 July 2019, an issue with damp in the hallway cupboard was raised. The landlord approved remedial works to install a vent and to treat and paint the area, although due to communication failures between it and its repairs contractors, these were not carried out. 
8. The following day, on 16 July 2019, the resident reported that slugs were getting into the property and that there was rubbish in the garden left from the previous tenant, which needed clearing. The landlord raised works for these issues to be addressed but they were not carried out and the landlord’s follow-up check to ensure they had been completed was also missed.
9. Around a month later, on 21 August 2019, the resident reported that the garden shed contained rubbish left from the previous tenancy and required clearing, however, works were not raised to address this. 
10. On 6 September 2019, the resident made a formal complaint about having issues with the property since she moved in, which she had been repeatedly reporting and felt “passed around”.  Specifically, she referred to damp and snails in the property and that furniture and other items from the previous tenancy had been left in the garden and required removal.  She also referred to the behaviour of a contractor who she had asked to clear the garden shed and he had replied that it was not his job to do so and had later accused her of reporting him to head office for not doing his job. She added that she had not been informed of her new housing officer either, following her previous one leaving.
11. In the landlord’s stage one response of 19 September 2019, it recognised that there had been failings on its part and the associated stress this had caused the resident. It accepted that there were voids works that should have been carried out prior to the resident moving in but were not, explaining that there was a rush to let the property which is why this had happened. It advised that it had since changed its voids procedure to prevent a reoccurrence of this situation for someone else. In terms of other works that were reported, it also upheld this aspect of the complaint, acknowledging that they had not been carried out and should have been.
12. Regarding the contractor, the landlord agreed that his behaviour was unprofessional and unacceptable but also stated that it was not the case of the contractor not doing his job as the works to clear the shed had never been raised.
13. The landlord also acknowledged that its communication with the resident had been poor and that it had not kept her updated, nor informed her of who her new housing officer was. It said that it would ensure that the outstanding works were completed in a timely fashion and contact her to ensure that they had been done.  It added that it would ensure emails and phones were properly monitored in order to improve its communications and response times and that it would ask the new housing officer to contact the resident once they had started and provided contact details for the interim.
14. It is unclear what, if any, works were then carried out or whether updates were provided but, on 9 November 2019, the resident’s boiler broke down, which she reported to the landlord. This was responded to and repaired three days later on 12 November 2019. The resident has stated that she was without gas during this time.
15. The resident then contacted the landlord regarding a gas leak on 22 November 2012 and it told her to contact the national gas emergency service instead, which she did. As no works were raised by the landlord, its system did not create a record and the landlord did not create a log of the telephone call, which lead to a later problem of the landlord stating that the resident did not report a gas leak on this date, which it later accepted that she did.
16. Around 16 December 2019, following a gas leak which resulted in the gas having to be turned off again, the resident has stated that she requested temporary heaters from the landlord’s contractors, who responded that they did not have these. In response to the leak and the condition of the property in general, the landlord arranged to carry out a comprehensive inspection of the gas pipes, heating and plumbing, as well as the dampness and general condition.
17. The resident has stated that a decant was not offered, so she requested this and the landlord provided her with decant accommodation from 18 December 2019.  The landlord had identified that the works to assess the gas pipes would require three whole days because of the layout of the property and their original installation. The decant, however, lasted around three weeks in total.
18. On 7 January 2020 the resident raised another complaint (stating that she had made two previously, one of which had never been responded to) about the condition of the gas pipes, questioning whether there had been a safety check prior to her moving in. She was also dissatisfied that it had been three weeks and she had still not heard from the repairs team about the issues in the property.  She stated that she would now not be available for works to be carried out until 4 and 5 March 2020. 
19. An inspection of the property was carried out on 9 January 2020, which identified a number of issues that required addressing, including:
    1. An issue with the main door handle;
    2. There was no fire alarm in the corridor;
    3. Damp had been identified in the store cupboard;
    4. The external gutter down pipe required repair;
    5. The architrave around the back door required repair;
    6. Repair was needed to the kitchen window;
    7. The laminate floor in the property was lifting at various locations;
    8. The hallway under the stairs, walls, floor and plaster were damp and had a high moisture reading; 
    9. There was a leak from the flat above into kitchen of the property;
    10. The noisy fan in the bathroom window needed removing or dismantling;
    11. The source of draft from under the bath needed to be found and blocked;
    12. The condensation and mould growth in the bathroom needed to be cleaned off and treated with an anti-fungal cleaner;
    13. Works were required to the bedroom radiator, and;
    14. There was a lack of ventilation in bedroom causing mould growth.
20. On 13 January 2020 the resident raised further concerns about the property. On 20 January 2020 access was gained and the issue with the pipes was resolved.
21. In the landlord’s second stage one response of 23 January 2020, it did not uphold the complaint. In terms of the length of time to carry out repairs, it found that it had acted reasonably and in accordance with its policies and procedures. It said there was no record of the resident having contacted it to report issues with the gas until 14 December 2020 and there had been access issues, including refusal of access, denying access in her absence and absence over the festive period. It said the resident had not responded to its contact on 3 January 2020 and had said she was not available between 8-10 and 15-17 January 2020 yet had allowed access to the Environmental Health Team (EHT) on 17 January 2020.
22. In terms of gas safety checks at the property not being carried out before the resident moved in, the landlord did not uphold this aspect of the complaint, stating that it had carried out the mandatory gas check at the property on 18 February 2019 (and since) and that it had carried out work to get the property ready for occupancy. Regarding the general condition of the property, it stated that the January 2020 inspection had identified a number of works, for which it hoped the resident would provide access, providing its target timeframes for completing these of 27 January and 14 and 17 February 2020.
23. On 28 January 2020 the resident requested to appeal the outcome of the above complaint, setting out a number of issues, particularly around the landlord’s communication. She contested the landlord’s assertion that she did not call it in November 2019, stating her recollection of events and attaching evidence of her contact at different times. She questioned why the works identified as being needed in the property had not been identified and resolved before she moved in. She also stated that, having been decanted, she had not been contacted in respect of completing the works (despite the landlord’s assertion that it had) and referred to a missed appointment on 11 December 2019. She acknowledged that she had allowed access on 17 January 2020 to the EHT, but this was for a half hour appointment, which was entirely different to the three days access the repairs team had requested.
24. The landlord carried out a ‘Pre-Inspection Survey’ on 29 and/or 30 January 2020, to inspect works which had since been carried out and areas of damp and following this, recommendations were made as follows:

a.     Plaster needed to be hacked off and then bonded and skimmed;

b.     A damp specialist needed to be called out to treat the concrete floor (with suspicions that the membrane underneath had ruptured), and;

c.      The poorly rendered walls in both areas underneath the stairs required hacking and the walls needed to be treated with damp injection and damp-proof rendering applied.

25. During the inspection, the resident has stated that the contractor asked her lots of questions about repairs of which she was unaware, that he used a part of her fridge equipment to test the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and that there was general confusion around what works needed to be done. The resident asked the contractor to stop using her fridge equipment to press the smoke and carbon monoxide alarms and the contractor in response, called her “hostile”.
26. In an internal email of the same date, the landlord’s repairs contractor discussed that the issue appeared to be rising damp “caused by a rupture in the DPM beneath the cupboard” which needed urgently addressing. He stated that it looked like this was identified some time ago but covered up with plywood which delayed the effects.
27. On 27 or 28 February 2020, in a conversation with the landlord about a boiler repair, the resident has stated that the landlord had a “terrible attitude”. She confirmed in this conversation that the boiler was working but it kept going off and she believed there to be an underlying problem that she wanted the landlord to look into.
28. On 2 March 2020, the resident reported an electrical fault with the shower to the landlord’s out of hours contractor and was advised that the landlord had instructed all calls to be diverted to it instead. On the same date, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord about it instructing her calls to its repairs contractor be diverted to the landlord and the attitude of its staff, referring to the incidents above, which she felt had led to her being “blacklisted” from contacting the repairs team. She was particularly dissatisfied with the landlord’s treatment of her, given the length of time it was taking to carry out repairs required at the property and did not want any further contact with the repairs team. Instead, she asked for everything to go through her housing officer.
29. The landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging her complaint on 13 March 2020 and, on 25 March 2020, it contacted her to advise that her complaint was being “paused” due to COVID-19. The resident responded stating that she was not happy with this and did not understand why COVID-19 would impact a complaint response. She said she expected a reply by the end of April 2020.
30. In the landlord’s stage two response of 30 April 2020, it upheld the complaint in respect of the amount of time it took it to carry out identified repairs, recognising that, whilst the repairs required were complex, the work should have been completed more quickly. It recognised too that the resident had had to do a lot of chasing and that this and the decant around the festive period and the slowness with which it responded was disruptive and inconvenient, for which it apologised.
31. The landlord explained that it had learned from the complaint. In respect of the initial call record from November 2019 not having been logged, it stated that it was working with its repairs team to remedy this. It had also updated its repairs page to emphasize that where there is a suspected gas leak, calls should be made to the emergency gas service, rather than its repairs team. Regarding the repairs not carried out prior to the resident moving in, it also upheld this aspect of the complaint. It explained that whilst a void check was carried out, a surveyor was not present, which led to maintenance issues being missed. It stated that it had since incorporated a surveyor’s attendance into its voids process.
32. In terms of providing access to the property and its previous comments about the resident letting in the EHT, it also upheld this aspect of the complaint, stating that it was wrong to conclude that she could have granted access to its contractor because she had granted access to the EHT as the duration and purpose of the visits were different. It apologised for this and the way the relationships had developed, with “perceptions of conflict”. It noted the resident’s request for all communication and appointments to be made with/through her Housing Officer or another appointed person and it said it would contact her to make sure it fully understood the request.

 

 

Post complaint

33. On 1 May 2020 the landlord telephoned the resident to discuss the complaint and her request regarding contact. She remained dissatisfied and stated that she would be taking the matter further and that she had smelt gas in the property from when she moved in. The landlord agreed that her housing officer would be in attendance for completion of the damp works but for other new works, she would need to facilitate access. In terms of reporting repairs, this could be done via her housing officer or the landlord’s online reporting service.
34. Two months later, on 13 July 2020, following reports of worsening damp, a ‘Damp Investigation and Condition Survey’ was carried out and a schedule of works was drawn up as follows:

a.     Remedy blown window units;

b.     Address the redundant extractor fan in bathroom;

c.      The heating requires recommissioning;

d.     The damp under the stairs requires investigating and better ventilation grills are required;

e.     The render requires repair;

f.        The fascia to bathroom roof needs re-fitting and re-painting;

g.     The roof should be replaced, and;

h.     The cladding inspected.

35. The landlord has stated that the resident requested an independent survey shortly thereafter which meant that the identified works were put on hold pending the outcome of this. On 17 August 2020 the landlord wished to attend the property to inspect the source of the damp, but the resident did not grant access.

Assessment and findings

Void works

36. The landlord has accepted that it failed to carry out void works as it should have done prior to the resident moving in. It was unacceptable that void works were not completed as the fact that they were not, meant the property did not meet the lettable standard when the resident moved in.
37. The void works having not been completed meant that the resident moved into a property which, amongst other things, had rubbish in the garden from the previous tenant and stored in the shed. Further, life in her new home began as stressful, undoubtedly exacerbating the situation and later concerns and contributing to the demise of the landlord-tenant relationship, undermining trust and confidence from the very outset.
38. Part of responding to a complaint is to indicate that learning has taken place and the landlord did do this, explaining the reasons why the situation had occurred and that its policies and procedures had since changed, to help prevent the situation from happening again to someone else. The learning identified was important and it was appropriate that the landlord recognised what had gone wrong and sought to put things right in the ways it advised.
39. However, having accepted that something had gone wrong, the landlord continued to delay in respect of the pressing and current issue, with it not acting swiftly to remove the rubbish and address any other early tenancy concerns. Delay and failures in communication are endemic throughout this case and require robust investigation by the landlord; this was not a one-off situation but one of ongoing delay, communication issues and lack of joined-upness over time.

Delays to repairs

40. There is no doubt that the landlord extensively and repeatedly delayed in carrying out the required repairs in this case; delay which it has accepted in its response to the complaint. Once on notice, the landlord was required to carry out the repairs it was responsible for, within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with the tenancy agreement and in law.  The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
41. In this case, the landlord has a target timeframe of 20 working days in which to carry out routine repairs, which has been far exceeded here. Moreover, many of the repairs and works required were crucial and required an urgency about them; namely, the fitting of a smoke alarm, the addressing of the leak, the addressing of the damp and the issue of slugs/snails. Despite acknowledging the delay and the landlord stating in its initial stage one response that it would oversee the timely completion of works, this still did not happen. This indicates a lack of learning and of taking things seriously and putting them right, in respect of this.
42. Although the landlord at times has referred to refusal of access, this Service has not seen evidence of this and the landlord has later stated that this was not the case. In terms of the issue with the three days being required for repairs to be completed and the resident letting in the EHT for half an hour, its response was entirely inappropriate. The resident has been repeatedly chasing repairs to be carried out, rather than obstructing the process. Even when the resident stated in January 2020 that she did not have availability until March 2020, the lengthy delays on the part of the landlord remained. 
43. Notwithstanding this, there is a reasonable expectation on the resident to grant access and this is indeed part of her tenancy obligations. The works that remain outstanding will need to be scheduled as a priority and carried out in a timely manner and the resident is required to reasonably provide access in respect of these, however inconvenient, as they must get done.
44. Turning to the situation of the gas and decant specifically, the landlord did carry out its mandatory gas checks at the property both prior to the resident moving in and later on, which it is required to do in law. The voids process was indeed lacking overall, but it is not clear to say (and is not the role of the Ombudsman to determine) whether something more serious such as a gas leak and issues with the erosion of the pipes was the direct result of this.
45. It was inappropriate that the resident was not offered temporary heaters when her gas was turned off in November 2019, as this was a winter month. The landlord was unprepared for the situation in this way and even where heaters are not carried, this is something the landlord could and should have expedited to arrange. The resident has stated that the landlord was not proactive about offering a decant either and it was her who suggested this. It was appropriate for the landlord to offer a decant where the repairs rendered the property without gas during a winter month and no heaters and where the works required were as extensive as in this case and it is not clear how forthcoming the resident was with this.

Communication, conduct and complaints handling

46. The landlord responded to the initial complaint at stage one, in a timely manner, in accordance with the timescale set out in its complaints policy. It recognised its failings and sought to put things right by way of apologising, getting the works carried out and overseeing this being done, as well as explaining changes it had made to prevent a recurrence.
47. It did not appear to do these things however, which led to a further complaint from the resident which she has said was not responded to at all and a further one again, where the landlord contradicted its initial response, stating that the property was ready to move in when she took up the tenancy. The response and complaints handling in this regard further undermined trust and confidence in the landlord’s integrity and any assurances previously made that things would be put right.
48. Moreover, its reference to the resident’s absence over the festive period was due to her being decanted because of repairs required at the property and not because she was away. Irrespective, the landlord’s response could be perceived as defensive and blaming, rather than seeking to repair both the relationship and the issues identified in the property. This response was also inaccurate in that it referred to the resident having not reported the gas issue in November 2019, which she had. The investigation carried out was not sufficiently robust, did not seek to remedy the issues and the response provided by the landlord was inappropriate for the reasons mentioned.
49. In terms of the landlord advising that the complaint would be paused, this was inappropriate. Whilst COVID-19 has impacted non-emergency repairs, it did not impact emergency repairs, nor the landlord’s ability to respond to a complaint.  Moreover, the issues complained of were serious and ongoing, with several complaints being made previously and it was insufficient to tell the resident that the matter would be paused for an indeterminate amount of time.
50. The landlord’s stage two response accepted various failings in terms of the void works, delay to other identified works and staff conduct and communications, as well as its failure in record keeping in respect of the November 2019 gas report. However, whilst it sought to put things right, the repairs were still not carried out in a timely manner, with a further inspection being carried out three months after the final response. This identified that many works which had previously been identified, most notably the damp, had still not been addressed, a year after the resident had moved into the property.  
51. Although COVID-19 meant that there were national restrictions in place for a time and routine repairs could not be carried, there is no evidence of the more urgent matters being carried out when possible, nor as soon as it could when restrictions were lifted, but again, a survey was commissioned and no works were done.
52. The landlord has stated that the resident wished for an independent survey and did not allow the identified works to go ahead. This Service has not been provided with evidence of this but, if this is the case, the resident should note that the landlord is not responsible for delay which is caused by her refusing access and this will not be viewed favourably.
53. Turning to staff conduct and communications, the landlord has also accepted that staff conduct was poor. It is striking that the repairs team blocked access to the resident contacting it – this was wholly inappropriate, as she should have access to reporting repairs both during the day and to its out of hours service and any restriction of contact should be explained and follow due process.  It is not clear what, if any, action the landlord has taken to address the staff conduct issues.
54. The landlord communicated with the resident poorly, infrequently and there was a lack of expectation management and overall management and cross-working in respect of the repairs. This filtered through insofar as the resident was unaware of all of the repairs and the repairs team were questioning repairs; generally, a complete lack of a joined-up approach.
55. Responding to a complaint is an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the concerns raised, that it has taken matters seriously and provides a chance for it to put things right. Whilst well-intentioned in its initial stage one response and eventual late stage two response, these things still have not come fully into fruition and furthermore, the landlord did not consider its compensation policy in resolving the complaint.
56. Compensation is not the most important or only way to resolve a complaint and is also not an automatic right. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider compensation here, given the extent of the issues and its findings.  Its own policy allows for compensation where there has been delay to works and a resident has been unable to use part of their home. This was the case here and the landlord erred in not considering this, which would go towards demonstrating its recognition of the issues and errors made as well as help to repair the landlord-resident relationship.

Determination (decision)

57. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Scheme, there was:
    1. maladministration by the landlord in respect of the complaints about it failing to carry out:
       1. all of the void works prior to the resident moving into the property;
       2. repairs in a reasonable period of time.
    2. service failure by the landlord in respect of its communication, complaint handling and staff conduct.

Reasons

58. The landlord failed to complete void works before the resident moved into the property and then did not promptly remedy them thereafter. It then delayed in carrying out repairs, there was confusion and a lack of joined-upness in addressing them, and a number of the repairs required prompt action.
59. The landlord did not communicate effectively with the resident about the repairs throughout this case, nor the complaints process; missing one complaint, delaying in issuing a response to another, contradicting its previous response, providing inaccurate information, failing to follow through on its actions, and not considering its compensation policy in providing redress. It also has not demonstrated how it has addressed the staff conduct issues it identified.

Orders

60. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
    1. pay the resident £500 compensation (£200 for the handling of the voids process; £200 for the delay in carrying out the repairs; and £100 for the poor communication, complaint handling and handling of the staff conduct issue);
    2. carry out all required works at the property as a matter of priority; the landlord to provide a copy of this schedule of works to this Service and confirm completion of them;
    3. carry out a root cause analysis of what went wrong in this case in respect of the communication issues and delay to works being carried out.  The landlord to put together a plan of action to help prevent a future occurrence and to provide a copy of this – with reasonable timeframes tor completion – to this Service.

Recommendation

61. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord should review its compensation policy with a view to bringing its compensation amounts in line with the Ombudsman’s compensation guidance as set out in its published ‘Guidance on Remedies’.