Stafford & Rural Homes (202009884)

A picture containing logo

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009884

Stafford & Rural Homes

21 October 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

The complaint concerns the landlord’s response to reports of repairs required at the property and a bedbug infestation.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background and policies

The resident has been an assured tenant of the landlord, at the property, from 9 November 2015, having mutually exchanged into it.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that a leaking roof will be repaired within seven days. Other repairs will be carried out according to varying priority schedules.
The landlord has confirmed it has no policies or procedures in place in respect of dealing with pests, although this is covered in the tenancy agreement, and has directed this Service to particular paragraphs within that agreement. Those paragraphs refer to “pets” rather than “pests”, however and there is no mention of pests or infestations at any other point of the tenancy agreement.
The landlord had a three stage complaints procedure at the time of the complaint being made. The landlord has said that on 1 April 2021, it changed its complaints procedure to two stages, rather than three.
The updated complaints policy provided to this Service also sets out three stages of a complaint, although the first stage is an informal one; stage zero, which will be dealt with informally, with stages one and two thereafter. A complaint will be dealt with within one working day at stage zero and with stages one and two, timescales will be agreed with the complainant.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that discretionary compensation may be considered where there has been damage to belongings due to a service delivery failure. There is an expectation of “reasonable evidence” where any compensation claim of this nature is made.

Summary of events

The resident has said that she first reported problems with a leaking roof at the end of 2016 and has since contacted the landlord “hundreds of times” about the issue.
The landlord’s records evidence it being aware of issues with the roof leaking and damp, from September 2017, with further contact about the issue in October 2017 and works carried out in 2018. The resident has said that earlier works were carried out in 2017 which did not resolve the problem.
Records indicate that issues were reported again in March, April and August 2019, with works being arranged in September and October of that same year, although there is no information as to whether any works took place.
On 17 August 2020, the resident telephoned the landlord to complain that repairs required to the property had still not been carried out and that as a result, there was damp and mould in the property.
On 18 August 2020, the landlord had a telephone conversation with the resident about her complaint and concerns.
On 30 August 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord complaining of the number of repairs required at the property, which the landlord had not remedied, despite her contacting it over the years on numerous occasions, including by telephone, email and three previous complaints. The resident listed a number of issues including a leaking roof, mould and infestation with bedbugs.
On 15 September 2020, the landlord provided its stage zero response to the complaint. The landlord said that it “agreed” with the complaint and that it had raised repairs for the leaking roof as a priority and said that once this had been remedied, it would be able to look at the issues of damp within the property. The landlord advised that it had also raised repairs for the front and back door and a bedroom window latch.
On 21 September 2020, the resident telephoned the landlord to ask for her complaint to be escalated. The landlord advised that the resident would need to specify the reasons for her request. The resident explained that she had no data on her phone to email in and the landlord suggested that she use a local library or fast-food restaurant, or alternatively write a handwritten letter and post it. The following day, the resident sent a letter setting out her points, which included:
1. There had been no mention of extermination of bedbugs at the property.
2. There had been no mention of the mould at the property.
3. Damage caused to items by the mould, needed replacing.
The resident was also dissatisfied with the suggestion that she use a local library or fast-food restaurant to send an email, given the pandemic.
On 23 September 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, acknowledging her escalation request and said that it would respond by 30 September 2020.
On 26 February 2021, the landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint. In its response, the landlord explained that it had tried to contact the resident to discuss the issues and also to arrange an inspection but had been unsuccessful and asked the resident to contact it by 12 March 2021.
On 8 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord expressing her dissatisfaction with its response to her complaint and requesting escalation of the matter through the complaints procedure.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, advising that it had arranged an inspection to take place on 18 March 2021.
Around 18 March 2021, the landlord inspected the property and agreed to carry out works to repair the leaking roof and works to resolve damp and mould.
On 26 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident, declining her request for her complaint to be further escalated. It explained that it would not escalate the complaint because as from 1 April 2021, it had adopted a two, rather than three stage complaints procedure. The complaint had already been investigated twice.

Post complaint

On 19 May 2021, the resident’s medical surgery wrote to the landlord, advising that her physical and mental health were being detrimentally affected by her housing situation, namely, bedbugs, a leaking roof and mould at the property.
On 21 July 2021, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord, requesting disclosure of the complaint file and relevant evidence by 11 August 2021.
Having not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again on 12 August 2021, requesting the information by no later than 19 August 2021.
On 23 August 2021, having still not received a response, the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord again, reminding it of its obligations as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and advising that failure to provide the requested information by 31 August 2021 would result in a complaint handling failure.
On the same date, internal communication documentation provided by the landlord indicates it confirming the repairs it would be carrying out as follows, within 60 days:
1. Removal of false ceiling and coving in kitchen.
2. Removal of makeshift pully system in kitchen.
3. Adjust and rehang front external composite security door and replace missing uPVC trims.
4. Minor plaster patch repair on landing and around light switches and plug sockets.
5. Redistribute loft insulation to a consistent depth of 270mm throughout loft space.
6. Antifungal wash down of ceiling & wall in both bedroom 2 and bathroom.
7. Replace pane of glass in rear external door.
8. Installation of new door handles both internal and external to rear door.
9. Installation of new window handle in bathroom.
The following additional repairs were raised separately:
1. Investigate low pressure on combi boiler by gas services operative.
2. Investigate roof gully.
3. Electrical safety check to be carried out.
4. The kitchen will be replaced due to health and safety concern (resident had removed all cupboard fronts).
The resident has said that the landlord cancelled an appointment on 27 August 2021, due to it advising it would first need to be fumigated if bed bugs were present.
On 17 September 2021, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that it would be carrying out the repairs required. It advised that no notice of bedbugs had been raised prior to the complaint and that this was a matter for the resident in accordance with the terms of her tenancy, although as a gesture of goodwill it would take steps to eradicate this.
The landlord did not agree to compensation to replace items, as no evidence of the said damaged items had been provided.
On 1 October 2021, the landlord provided the requested information.

Assessment and findings

Repairs and infestation

Once on notice, the landlord was obliged to carry out the repairs it was responsible for in accordance with the tenancy and in law, within a reasonable period of time. The law does not specify what a reasonable period of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of a case.
In this case, the landlord’s repairs policy states that a leaking roof should be repaired within seven days; it does not differentiate time, depending on the severity of the leak.
Whilst the resident has stated that she has contacted the landlord about the issues with the roof and mould “hundreds” of times and across a number of years – and the landlord’s records, although not evidencing hundreds of times, do indicate the issues were reported a number of times in 2017, with works being carried out in 2018 and reports made again in 2019 – the Ombudsman is unable to consider the historical aspect to the complaint.
This Service is unable to investigate the historical matters, as the Housing Ombudsman Scheme requires a complaint to be brought to the attention of the landlord within a reasonable period of time, that is, within six months of the matters occurring.
Further, the Ombudsman requires a complaint to be brought to the Ombudsman no more than 12 months from it being concluded by a member. These points are in accordance with paragraphs 39(e) and 39(d) of the Scheme respectively.
Prior to the resident’s report in August 2020, records indicate the previous reports being a year earlier and there is no evidence of the resident bringing the matter to the attention of the landlord as a formal complaint within that time, or reports being made about ongoing issues with the roof and mould. No prior complaint has been brought to the Ombudsman either.
This does not mean that the Ombudsman doubts the resident’s credibility, however, as an evidence-based service, in the absence of evidence of prior complaints or notifications of a problem (besides the ones mentioned), this Service is unable to investigate and assess the landlord’s response to any such reports or complaints, as the information does not exist.
Notwithstanding this, considering the matter from the 17 August 2020 report of the issue, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not inspect the leak or carry out associated repairs within the time scale set out in its own policy or indeed, within a reasonable period of time thereafter. This is despite it stating that it had prioritised the roof repairs. Further, the nature of the repair is an aggravating factor, being one which was reported to be causing secondary problems with mould. Depending on the severity, mould can become a hazard to health.
There is no information as to why there was such delay to carrying out an inspection or repairs, besides reference in its February 2021 response – six months later – to it trying to get hold of the resident to discuss the issues and arrange an inspection and being unsuccessful in doing so. There is no evidence of the landlord making these attempts at contact or further information as to type of contact or whether any messages were left.
There was little by way of communication or expectation management by the landlord throughout the period of time of 17 August 2021 to the conclusion of its complaints procedure on 26 April 2021, which was further inappropriate.
Not only did the landlord not carry out the repairs within a reasonable period of time but there is no evidence that the landlord carried them out at all; no confirmation has been provided to this Service of the landlord remedying the issues with the roof or addressing the secondary issues with mould, which undoubtedly had a detrimental impact on the resident and her family over time.
Turning to the infestation, depending on the nature of the infestation – including whether it was contained within the property itself or was the fabric of the building and whether the infestation was caused by the landlord’s failure to carry out the repairs – and the clauses of the tenancy, this is something which may or may not be the landlord’s responsibility.
It is the case that the landlord did not carry out the repairs it was responsible for within a reasonable period of time, however, there is no expert report on whether this caused the infestation, nor whether the bedbugs were contained or spread more widely. The landlord’s reference to the tenancy talks of “pets” rather than “pests” and there is no explicit reference to infestation contained elsewhere within it.
However, the landlord did agree to carry out a fumigation of the property, although again, there is no information as to whether this was carried out and if so, when. What is clear, however, is that even in the case of this not being reported until 17 August 2020 (as evidenced by the records and not earlier), the landlord decided to act on this and did not do so for an unreasonably lengthy period of time.

Complaint handling

The landlord’s “stage zero” response should have been provided within one working day in accordance with its policy but was not, instead taking two weeks for the landlord to send. This delay was not acknowledged, apologised for or explained in its response.
While it was appropriate that the landlord had previously spoken with the resident about her complaint over the telephone, its response did not reflect any summary, reflections or findings from this or any associated investigation of the complaint, besides stating that it “agreed” with the resident. There is no detail around what exactly the landlord agreed with, its findings or any apology or rectification of what went wrong.
The complaints process provides an opportunity for the landlord to demonstrate that it has heard and understood the concerns, taken them seriously in investigating them thoroughly and a chance to put things right. Putting things right is not always about compensation; often an apology or learning from the complaint and putting things in place to help prevent a future recurrence are equally if not more important. The landlord missed opportunities to do these things.
Raising repairs alone does not provide redress to the complaint and in particular, the landlord provided no dates for inspection or repair or asked for the resident’s availability, leaving the matter unresolved and no expectation management of timeframe.
When the resident requested escalation of the matter, the landlord’s suggestion that she use a library or fast-food restaurant during a national pandemic to email her reasons was an unreasonable and insensitive suggestion. It was, nonetheless, a suggestion which the resident was not under obligation to accept.
The complaints process should be accessible but the landlord did not facilitate this, by declining to take the escalation reasons over the telephone in circumstances where the resident was unable to access the internet.
The length of time the landlord took to respond at stage one of its complaints procedure was inappropriate and unacceptable. The landlord took five months in total to respond, with its response simply stating that it had been unable to make contact with the resident.
The landlord has not explained when or how it tried to make contact nor evidenced this to this Service. There was no apology or explanation for the delay and no expectation management during the five months it took to respond, following its letter advising it would respond by the end of September 2020, which ultimately ending up being on 26 February the following year. It took a further month and a half to decline the resident’s request for escalation of her complaint thereafter, citing that it had already been investigated twice.
The length of time the landlord took at all stages was completely unacceptable and without apology, explanation or insight into the impact this had on the resident. Moreover, its responses were brief and perfunctory, without having evidenced any investigation of the issues or understanding as to the impact.
The landlord’s rationale for refusing to escalate the complaint because the matter had already been investigated twice was erroneous; there is no evidence of the matter having been investigated at stage zero or stage one. Moreover, it was inappropriate for the landlord to rely on a change in policy which took place many months after it was due to provide a response to the complaint; the complaint fell under the original policy which was not adhered to.
Turning to compensation for items the resident has said were damaged by the leaking roof and associated mould, the landlord was not obliged to offer compensation and chose not to do so in the absence of evidence of the damaged items and their cost. The landlord chose not to compensate, however, in the face of recognised service failure, which it appears to acknowledge at stage zero. Whilst this is not obligatory, the landlord is able to exercise discretion as to compensation and where something has gone wrong, this is one way to seek to put things right. There is no evidence of the landlord considering this as part resolution of the complaint which was unreasonable in the circumstances.
Finally, the landlord has an obligation as a member of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme to provide documentation requested by the Ombudsman in a timely manner. This Service requested this information in July 2021, and it was received three months later after a number of follow up chasing letters. The landlord was warned in the third reminder letter, that failure to provide the documentation within the time period requested would result in a finding in respect of complaints handling. It did not provide the information in the time requested at that point either.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to reports of repairs and an infestation.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaints handling.

Reasons

There was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its response to repairs and an infestation insofar as it took too long to carry out the repairs it was responsible for and in respect of the infestation, having agreed to take action, took too long to address this, also.
The landlord did not manage expectations or keep in contact with the resident. There is no evidence of reasonable attempts at contact which failed or any obstruction of the process on the part of the resident. There is no explanation of delay or apology for this.
The landlord took too long to respond at both stages zero and one and did not acknowledge, explain or apologise for this, nor keep the resident updated in the interim.
The complaint responses evidenced no investigation of the issues and did not manage expectations going forward or demonstrate a proactive approach on the part of the landlord to get matters resolved. Its decision to refuse escalation to stage two was based on flawed reasoning.
The landlord failed on a number of occasions to provide the information requested by the Ombudsman within the timescale set out.

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £1000 compensation, comprised of:
1. £500 compensation for the maladministration found in respect of its response to repairs and infestation, and;
2. £500 compensation for the maladministration found in respect of its complaints handling.
If it has not done so already, the landlord to contact the resident to arrange for a date for the infestation fumigation works it agreed to do.
If not done so already, the landlord to contact the resident to arrange for a date to carry out the repairs it is responsible for.
The landlord to write the resident a letter of apology with respect to the significant failings identified in paragraphs 43 to 61 of this report.
The landlord to confirm compliance with the above orders within three weeks of this report.
Within six weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to carry out a lessons–learned/self-assessment exercise into this case and in particular:
1. Why it failed to carry out the required repairs at the property.
2. Why it failed to respond to the formal complaint in a timely and comprehensive manner and further failed to provide documents to this Service within reasonable timescales.

Recommendations

The landlord should strongly consider carrying out any relevant training to staff in respect of its handling of the issues in this complaint, and review its policies and procedures, to help prevent a recurrence.