Thrive Homes Limited (202432294)

Background

1. The windows of the resident’s flat and those of the communal block were replaced by the landlord in 2021 and 2022.  The resident was unhappy with the cost of the window replacement program and the quality of the installation. She told the landlord damp and mould had appeared in her property and she believed it was due to the new windows having been fitted incorrectly.

What the complaint is about

2. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. The level of service charge for window replacement works.
   2. The resident’s concerns about the window installation and consequent reports of damp and mould.
3. We have also looked at the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Our decision (determination)

4. The landlord’s handling of the level of service charge for window replacement works is outside of our jurisdiction.
5. There was reasonable redress in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about thewindow installation and consequent reports of damp and mould.
6. There was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

We have not made orders for the landlord to put things right.

Summary of reasons

Window installation and the resident’s reports of damp and mould

7. The landlord’s surveyor completed an inspection in January 2023 to a neighbouring property and found the windows had been installed correctly.  The resident confirmed this inspection was sufficient as her neighbour had the same windows installed and was experiencing the same damp and mould issues as in her property. The landlord was entitled to rely on the findings of its surveyor, who wasan appropriately trained member of staff.
8. The resident did not raise concerns regarding any other defect that might be causing the damp and mould, and which was within the repairing obligations of the landlord. Therefore, in accordance with the resident’s lease agreement, the landlord was not obligated to take any further action and had adequately addressed the resident’s concerns at this stage.
9. However, it was positive that the landlord completed independent inspections in November 2023 and June 2024. The independent surveyor also concluded the windows were installed correctly and were not directly causing damp and mould in the resident’s property.
10. It might have been beneficial for the landlord to have invited the resident to the final inspection in June 2024 and explained the delays in the final inspection. However, this did not have a significant impact on the outcome of the complaint, and the landlord offered compensation to recognise the inconvenience this caused the resident.

Complaint handling

11. The landlord delayed responding to the complaint at both stages. However, it agreed extensions with the resident and responded within its published timescales for extended complaints.
12. It mistakenly recorded the resident’s stage 2 complaint at stage 1 of its process. However, it identified this error and contacted the resident promptly to apologise. It was positive that it offered compensation for the inconvenience this caused. However, the mistake does not amount to service failure as it did not have an overall impact on the outcome of the complaint.

Putting things right

Where we find service failure, maladministration or severe maladministration we can make orders for the landlord to put things right. We have the discretion to make recommendations in all other cases within our jurisdiction.

Recommendations

Our recommendations are not binding, and a landlord may decide not to follow them.

Our investigation

The complaint procedure

What we found and why

The circumstances of this complaint are well known by the parties involved, so it is not necessary to detail everything that’s happened or comment on all the information we’ve reviewed. We’ve only included the key information that forms the basis of our decision of whether the landlord is responsible for maladministration.

13. We do not investigate complaints about reasonableness or excessiveness of service charges. As the resident’s complaint centres on the disparity between the estimated costs of the window replacement works and the actual cost related to Section 20 changes, the complaint is ultimately about the level of service charge and so we will not investigate it.
14.  We will also not investigate complaints where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the court, tribunal or other procedure. In this case, the actual cost assessment and the justification of any increase is better suited to be dealt with by the First-tier tribunal, who have the expertise to make decisions on liability or the reasonableness of the service charge costs calculation. If the resident would like to pursue this aspect of her complaint, she may want to seek independent legal advice or contact the Leasehold Advisory Service.

15. The landlord acted in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the lease agreement as its surveyor attended to inspect the windows in January 2023 following the resident’s concerns about the quality of the installation. The resident was not present at the time, but it appears the surveyor was asked by the resident’s father and neighbour to inspect the neighbour’s flat instead. It is unclear why the surveyor could not inspect the resident’s property at the same time as they were willing to do so. In later communications with the landlord, the resident confirmed this was sufficient as both properties had the same windows, and both were dealing with the same issues of damp and mould. The landlord’s surveyor found the windows had been installed correctly in the neighbour’s property.
16. The surveyor suggested that as the windows had been fitted tighter to the wall, there was less natural ventilation. They said this could be contributing to mould in the resident’s property but could only give general advice as they had not been able to access the resident’s property. At this stage, it might have scheduled an appointment to inspect the resident’s own property. However, as the resident had said it was sufficient to inspect the neighbouring flat as both properties had the same issues, this was not a failure by the landlord.
17. We would expect the landlord to ensure the damp and mould was not caused by a defect that fell within its repairing obligations such as those relating to the structural or external aspects of the building. In this case, however, the resident did not suggest any further causes of the damp and mould. She was also content that the windows in her property were the same as her neighbour’s.
18. Therefore, at this point, the landlord had adequately addressed the resident’s concern regarding the cause of damp and mould as it had inspected the window’s installation and found it to be correct. As a leaseholder, it would then be the resident’s responsibility to address any defects that fell within her repairing obligations that might be an underlying cause of damp and mould within her property as suggested by the inspection relating to ventilation.
19. The resident raised further concerns that the window installation did not meet standards set out by the National House Building Council (NHBC). Although the NHBC do have building standards related to windows, the landlord was under no obligation to comply with them when replacing windows unless specified in the lease. However, we have not seen such a provision.
20. The landlord was entitled to rely on the expertise of its surveyor, who was an appropriately qualified member of staff, to assess the windows. Through its complaint responses, it demonstrated that it had considered it legal obligations in line with relevant legislation such as the Decent Homes Standard, and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 and building regulations.
21. It was positive that the landlord later employed an independent surveyor to assess the windows again given the resident’s continued concerns. Although it was not obligated to do so, this demonstrated it wanted to reassure her of its position in order to resolve her concerns.
22. The first of 2 independent inspections took place around November 2023. The surveyor did not find mould present in the resident’s property at the time but suggested that the landlord might consider a thermographic survey to identify areas of heat loss associated with the windows. Whilst we have not ignored the resident’s comments that the surveyor gave her the impression they weren’t happy with the window installation, this was not reflected in their communication with the landlord after this inspection.
23. The landlord asked the independent surveyor whether they might complete a joint visit with its own surveyor in January 2024 to finalise the inspection report. This visit went ahead in June 2024, and it is unclear why there was a delay. While we consider the landlord’s own inspection in January 2023 to have been sufficient in investigating this issue at the time, and any further inspections were above and beyond its obligation, there were still delays However, we have seen the landlord engaged during this time to identify a suitable surveyor.
24. The window contractors who installed the window were also in attendance to the second inspection. It was agreed that a thermographic survey would not be useful given the time of year. Instead, the independent surveyor carried out an intrusive inspection of a random selection of windows. Their overall findings were in keeping with the landlord’s inspection in January 2023, and they concluded the window installation was adequate. They also reviewed technical literature from the window contractors who installed the windows, and who were present at the time of the inspection. They found the method used to install the windows was in accordance with the installation guidance.
25. Although we understand the resident would have liked to be present for this inspection and that it might have been beneficial if she had been invited, this did not impact the overall outcome and does not amount to service failure by the landlord. This is because the inspection did not require access into her property, and we have found the landlord had already completed an inspection which it was entitled to rely on at the time. The landlord also shared the results of this independent survey with the resident promptly. We note that landlord attempted to restore the relationship with the resident and acknowledged its actions might have caused some inconvenience by offering compensation, part of which made up the total offer of £75. We recommend the landlord pay the £75 it offered during the complaints process.

26. The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to acknowledge complaints at both stages within 5 working days. It says the resident should receive a formal response to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaints within 20 working days of acknowledgement. It also says where an extension is required, this will be for no longer than 10 working days for stage 1 complaints and 20 working days for stage 2. It will seek to agree an extension with the resident. This is in keeping with our Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
27. The landlord delayed responding to the resident’s complaint at both stages. It responded to the stage 1 complaint in 17 working days and the stage 2 complaint in 40 working days. However, it acted in accordance with its policy by contacting the resident at both stages to agree an extension. Furthermore, the delays did not fall outside of its published timescales for the extension dates at either stage. This was also in keeping with the Code.
28. It mistakenly recorded the resident’s stage 2 escalation request as a stage 1 complaint. However, it identified this error and contacted the resident to inform her it would be handling the complaint at stage 2 of its process. This was appropriate and as the mistake did not have an impact on the overall outcome of the complaint, this was not a failure on its part. However, it was positive that the landlord offered the resident compensation, part of which made up the total offer of £75 which also included the inconvenience caused by its handling of the independent inspection.

Learning

Knowledge information management (record keeping)

29. The landlord was able to provide clear records of its communications with the resident going back a number of years. This helped it form detailed responses to the resident at both stages of the complaint.

Communication

30. The landlord responded promptly to questions about often complex issues such as the section 20 process and the specification of the window installation in detail and in a way that was easy to read and understand.