Town and Country Housing (202314271)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314271

Town and Country Housing

18 December 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the resident’s concerns regarding the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reports of a defective balcony door.
2. The resident’s reports of damp.
3. A subject access request made by the resident.
The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a leaseholder through a shared ownership scheme and has held the lease since January 2015. The landlord does not hold a record of the resident having any vulnerabilities.
The property is a second floor flat in a medium rise block of flats. When the resident moved into the property it was newly built.
After moving into the property, the resident raised concerns about their balcony doors during the snagging process. Due to the resident’s concerns a new set of balcony doors were installed to the property in 2017.Snagging is a process which occurs in newbuild properties, when the leaseholder identifies flaws and imperfections to the property which they feel should be repaired or replaced.
On 20 January 2021 the resident told the landlord water was seeping into the balcony doors, and this was causing a damp patch to form inside the property. To prevent water ingress from occurring, the landlord re-applied sealant to the door frame. The resident said this only resolved the issue for a short amount of time. On 22 November 2021 the resident told the landlord the damp patch had returned, and water was seeping in through the doors.
After conducting further inspections to the doors, the landlord decided to submit a claim to the National House Building Council (NHBC) to recoup the costs for repairs to the balcony door from the property’s builder. This application was denied because the balcony doors were not the original doors the builder had fitted, as the door had been replaced during the snagging process.
During their communication with the landlord the resident became unwell, and a family member began to communicate with the landlord on the resident’s behalf.
On 9 March 2023 the resident’s representative complained to the landlord. In this complaint the resident’s representative said:
1. The landlord’s attitude had been inappropriate.
2. The landlord had not taken the resident’s repairs requests seriously.
3. The process was affecting the resident’s mental health.
4. They made a subject access request for material the landlord held in relation to the resident.
On 27 March 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s representative via a stage one response. In its response the landlord said:
1. There had been delays in submitting a claim with the NHBC.
2. The landlord had contacted the NHBC out of good will, as this was the responsibility of the resident.
3. The landlord had learnt from this experience and would not be submitting claims to the NHBC in future.
4. The landlord offered the resident compensation of £50 as a good will gesture.
On 11 April 2023 the resident’s representative asked for the complaint to be escalated to a stage 2 complaint. The resident’s representative said they were unhappy with the stage one response for the following reasons:
1. They felt the landlord did not understand the situation.
2. The landlord was not taking accountability for its own actions.
3. The landlord had not acted appropriately to reports of damp and mould.
4. The stage one response was inaccurate as the NHBC advises leaseholders to contact their landlord to pursue a claim.
5. The level of compensation offered by the landlord was inappropriate.
6. The landlord was not communicating adequately, and its letter templates contained incorrect contact numbers.
7. The landlord had not completed the subject access request.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord responded to the resident’s representative via a stage 2 response. In its response the landlord said:
1. Its previous stage one response had fallen short of a full response, and it apologised for this.
2. The information about the NHBC claim in the stage one response was incorrect, and contacting the NHBC was the responsibility of the landlord.
3. It apologised for delays in completing the repair. It said there had been staffing issues, and this had affected its ability to complete the repair. It told the resident’s representative it would assign a single point of contact for the repair, and produce an action plan for the resident.
4. It committed to training staff on the role of the NHBC and on matters relating to repairs for leaseholders, and to update its letter templates.
5. It offered the resident £150 in compensation for its poor communication.
On 11 August 2023 the resident contacted this Service as they remained dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
The landlord sent the resident an additional complaint response on 28 April 2024. In this response the landlord offered to pay the resident compensation of £825. The resident’s representative declined this offer, and they asked for the landlord to pay £1200 in compensation, and for the landlord to waive the resident’s future sales fees.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
Paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme notes as follows:
The Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, fall properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
The resident has raised concerns about the time it took for the landlord to respond to a subject access request. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns about the landlord’s handling of the subject access request falls within the jurisdiction of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO).

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the balcony door

The landlord operates a responsive repairs policy, this policy outlines the landlord’s commitment that their properties are watertight and weatherproof. When a resident reports a repair to the landlord the landlord will assign the repair as either being an emergency repair, which the landlord will attend within 24 hours, or a routine repair where the landlord will aim to complete the work within 28 days.
The landlord has produced guidance on whether it, or a leaseholder, is responsible for various repairs. The guidance says:
1. The landlord is responsible for repairs to external walls.
2. The responsibility for repairs to external window frames and sills are dependent on the contents of a resident’s lease.
3. The responsibility for repairs to external doors and door frames are dependent on the contents of a resident’s lease.
4. The responsibility for repairs to the glazing on windows and doors are dependent on the contents of a resident’s lease.
On 21 January 2021 the resident reported to the landlord that water was seeping into the property via the balcony doors. The landlord exchanged emails with the resident about how a surveyor inspection could occur given the covid-19 restrictions in place at the time. Following this email exchange the landlord did not make arrangements for a surveyor to inspect the doors.
The resident chased the landlord about an inspection 4 times before the landlord responded and made plans for an inspection to occur. This was unreasonable given the landlord’s repairs policy outlines it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 days. The landlord’s action would have caused the resident stress as they had to chase the landlord on several occasions.
The landlord conducted an inspection on 27 July 2021, during the inspection the landlord re-applied sealant between the balcony doors and external walls. This work occurred 189 calendar days after the resident initially reported the repair, this was an inappropriate length of time for the repair to be outstanding.
From evidence supplied to this Service it appears delays occurred as the landlord was not sure if the responsibility for the repair fell with itself or the resident. On 30 June 2021 the landlord confirmed it was responsible for the repair, citing its responsibility for the structure of the property which included the windows/doors.
The resident’s lease says the landlord is responsible for the structural elements of the property, this includes external walls. Under the lease the resident is prohibited from making changes to, or to interfere with the exterior of the building. The lease does not refer to who is responsible for repairs to external doors and windows, it only notes that any replacements to external doors and windows must be like for like items, and that the landlord must consent to the changes.
The landlord accepted it was responsible for the balcony doors under the terms of the resident’s lease, however, it was inappropriate that it took the landlord 6 months to reach this conclusion. The landlord should have taken timelier action to clarify who was responsible for the repair, and it should have kept the resident updated on this process.
On 22 November 2021 the resident told the landlord water had started to seep into the property via the balcony doors again. On this occasion the landlord took steps to conduct an inspection on 8 December 2021, this was appropriate and in-line with the landlord’s timescales for routine repairs. During this inspection a contractor suggested that when the weather was dry the sealant around the doors should be entirely replaced, and any voids should be filled. The landlord did not take pro-active steps to complete this work when the weather improved, and this was inappropriate.
On 19 April 2022 another survey occurred after the resident chased the landlord. Following this, the landlord sent contractors to the property on 13 May 2022. The landlord did not inform the resident contractors would be attending the property on this date, so the resident refused access to the contractors. The landlord’s actions were inappropriate, it should have been more proactive in its communication with the resident, considering the length of time in which the repair had been outstanding. The landlord later apologised for its lack of communication about the appointment, which was appropriate.
On 28 June 2022 another contractor attended the property to inspect the balcony doors, the contractor suggested that new doors should be installed. A further inspection occurred on 9 August 2022 where a contractor determined the doors were not fitted properly which was causing them to flex, this allowed water to seep in.
The landlord decided to make a claim via the NHBC for the cost of a new balcony door. This decision was not appropriate in the circumstances, as the landlord had already replaced the balcony doors in 2017. Therefore, it could not make a claim against the property’s original builder, as the builder had not bought or installed the balcony doors.
The landlord’s actions in seeking a claim via the NHBC delayed the period in which the repair was outstanding. The landlord contacted the NHBC on 30 September 2022, and it took until 17 May 2023 for the NHBC to conduct an inspection. On 23 May 2023 the NHBC denied the landlord’s claim, noting the landlord was not covered by NHBC insurance as the doors had been refitted. The landlord’s oversight in seeking a claim via the NHBC meant no action was taken by the landlord to repair the doors for 236 days. The landlord’s decision making was inappropriate considering the landlord knew that it had previously replaced the balcony doors.
In its stage 2 response dated 27 April 2023 the landlord apologised to the resident about the time in which the repair had been outstanding. The landlord told the resident it would produce an action plan for completing the repair and assign a single point of contact to the resident, so its communication with the resident would be more effective. This was an appropriate course of action as the landlord apologised, took steps to complete the repair, and took steps to improve its relationship with the resident.
The landlord informed this Service that it replaced the balcony doors on 14 November 2023.
In its stage two response the landlord offered the resident compensation of £150. In a follow up email after the stage 2 response, the landlord increased its compensation offer to £575. On 28 March 2023, after the resident had contacted this Service, the landlord offered the resident compensation of £875.
The landlord’s policy says in exceptional circumstances it will make resident’s good will gestures of up to £500. If compensation in excess of £500 is required, this must be approved by a director or head of service.
The resident did not feel the compensation offered was satisfactory. The resident wanted compensation of £1200, alongside the landlord waiving any fees associated with the sale of the property.
It is the Ombudsman’s view that the landlord’s offer of £875 compensation was reasonable in the circumstances. Had the landlord made this offer during its internal complaints procedure, the Ombudsman would have made a finding of reasonable redress. As the offer was made after the resident contacted this Service, the Ombudsman cannot make a finding of reasonable redress, therefore, the Ombudsman considers maladministration to have occurred.
However, evidence Supplied to this service showed when the landlord reviewed its own actions, it recognised its own failures and took steps to make things right by offering further compensation. The offer of £875 was in-line with this service’s dispute resolution principles, which are to be fair, learn from outcomes and put things right. The amount also adequately reflected the detriment the resident experienced with the repair being outstanding for a significant period, and the time and effort the resident took to chase the landlord.
This Service finds maladministration after considering:
1. The landlord made a compensation offer which was fair and reasonable and was within the highest band allowed within its internal complaints policy.
2. The time it took for the landlord to complete the repair.
3. The time and effort the resident took to chase the landlord.
4. The landlord’s actions led to significant delays.
The Ombudsman has made an order for the landlord to pay the resident the £875 in compensation it has previously offered to the resident, if it has not already paid this sum to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of reports of damp

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of a property in repair. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its properties. Damp and mould growth are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any damp and mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard which require remedying.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, and to consider if current policies and procedures achieve this.
2. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken to resolve reports of damp and mould.
3. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used.
The landlord has told this Service that at the time of relevance to this report, it did not have a damp and mould policy in place.
On 21 January 2021, when the resident reported the defective balcony door, they informed the landlord that water ingress had led to a damp patch forming within the property. Throughout the period when the repairs to the balcony doors were outstanding, the resident raised concerns about the damp on several occasions. From the evidence supplied to this service, it appears the landlords focus was on repairing the balcony doors, rather than the reported damp.
The resident was concerned the damp could lead to a wider problem in the property and cause mould to grow. In the resident’s representative’s complaint, they told the landlord they were concerned it was not taking the damp, and the risks associated with damp and mould, seriously. In its stage 2 complaint response the landlord said it took damp and mould seriously and apologised for the time taken to conduct repairs. The landlord did not outline any steps it would take to repair or inspect the damp. This was inappropriate considering the length of time since the resident reported the damp, and considering the landlord’s assertion that it took reports of damp and mould seriously.
Evidence supplied to this service shows the first occasion where the landlord assessed or treated the damp was 30 October 2023. On this date the landlord removed plasterboard to inspect the damp patch. During the inspection no mould was identified, and the plasterboard was subsequently repaired. It was appropriate for the landlord to inspect the damp, as it had taken responsibility for the balcony door repair which was causing the damp patch to form.
The time in which the landlord took to complete the damp inspection was inappropriate. From the date the resident first reported the damp on 21 January 2021 it took the landlord 1013 calendar days to inspect the damp. This was inappropriate given the landlord’s repairs policy states it will aim to complete routine repairs within 28 calendar days.
The resident and their representative informed the landlord the damp was causing the resident stress as they were concerned about mould. The landlord could have taken steps to inspect the affected area for mould to allay the resident’s concerns, but it did not do this. The resident’s representative also repeatedly told the landlord the resident wished to sell the property, but was concerned no one would want to buy the lease if there was ongoing damp and mould issues. They said this caused the resident stress for a prolonged period.
This Service finds maladministration on behalf of the landlord after considering:
1. The length of time the landlord took to inspect the damp.
2. The length of time it took for the landlord to inspect the damp indicated it did not appropriately consider the risks associated with damp and mould.
Evidence supplied to this Service showed the damp patch was small in size, and it was isolated to an area by the balcony doors. From the size and position of the affected area, it appears the damp would not have limited the resident’s ability to use the room. The resident did not advise the landlord that they experienced any physical ill health from the damp. As such, the detriment the resident experienced would have been limited to the stress and inconvenience linked to:
1. Their concerns about the risk of mould forming.
2. The length of time the repair was outstanding.
3. The occasions where they were required to chase the landlord.
4. Their concerns about selling the lease.
In light of the finding of maladministration by this Service, The Ombudsman has ordered the landlord to pay the resident £150 compensation after considering the detriment caused to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling process

The landlord operates a complaint policy. Under this policy the landlord adopts this Service’s definition of a complaint. This definition is, ‘an expression of dissatisfaction, however made, about the standard of service, actions or lack of action by the organisation, its own staff, or those acting on its behalf’.
The landlord’s policy notes complaints can be made in writing, via email, over the phone or in person.
The landlord’s policy outlines its expected timescales for communicating with residents during the complaints process. Under this policy the landlord should:
1. Acknowledge a resident’s complaint within 2 working days.
2. Send a stage one response to the resident within 10 working days of the acknowledgement date.
3. Send a stage 2 response to the resident within 20 working days of a resident’s request for the landlord to escalate their complaint.
Upon review of the evidence supplied to this service, the Ombudsman considers there to be occasions where written communication from the resident’s representative met the definition of a complaint. Such examples include:
1. On 6 June 2022 the resident’s representative told the landlord they were unhappy, and they had lost confidence in the landlord.
2. On 5 August 2022 the resident’s representative expressed dissatisfaction with the timeliness of the landlord’s responses to their emails. The resident’s representative said they were considering filing an official complaint.
It was inappropriate for the landlord to not consider the resident’s representative’s communications to be a complaint. The Code says complaints are expressions of dissatisfaction, and notes that the word ‘complaint’ does not have to be used for a resident to raise a complaint. The Ombudsman considers that the landlord should have either classed the resident’s representative’s earlier emails as complaints, or it should have clarified with the resident’s representative if they wanted to make a complaint.
On 9 March 2023 the resident’s representative sent the landlord an email which explicitly outlined that they were making a formal complaint. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on the same day it was received. In accordance with its own policy the landlord should have supplied its stage one response within 10 working days from 9 March 2023. The landlord supplied its stage one response 13 working days after it acknowledged the complaint, this was inappropriate as it was not in-line with the landlord’s policy.
The Ombudsman also considers the content of the landlord’s stage one response to contain inappropriate information. The landlord’s stage one response contained an incorrect contact number. The stage one also said the landlord had contacted the NHBC out of good will, as it was the resident’s responsibility to contact the NHBC. The landlord said it had learnt from this experience and would not contact the NHBC for leaseholders in future. This was not accurate, as the NHBC advises leaseholders to contact their landlords regarding NHBC claims.
The resident’s representative raised these points with the landlord, and in its stage 2 response the landlord apologised for the contents of its stage one response. The landlord made assurances that it would ensure all letter templates contained accurate information, and that it would conduct internal learning for staff around leaseholder repairs. This was an appropriate response to the resident’s representative’s concerns.
The Ombudsman has reviewed the landlord’s stage 2 response. The stage 2 response was sent to the resident within the timescales outlined in the landlord’s policies, and the contents of the stage 2 were accurate and appropriate.
This Service has found there was a service failure in the landlord’s complaint handling process after considering:
1. The landlord’s stage one response was delayed by 3 days.
2. The landlord failed to identify occasions where the resident’s representative had expressed dissatisfaction with the landlord, and to log such comments as complaints.
In light of the finding of service failure by the Ombudsman, an order of £50 redress has been made. Compensation of £50 is in-line with this Service’s remedies guidelines, and reflects the limited detriment caused to the resident by the landlord’s inefficient complaints handling.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 42.j. of the Scheme, the resident’s concerns around a subject access request is outside the jurisdiction of this service.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its repairs to the balcony doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in respect to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in respect to its complaints handling.

Orders

Within 6 weeks of this determination, the landlord is ordered to pay compensation of £1075 to the resident. The compensation is broken down as follows:
1. The £875 it previously offered to the resident relating to its handling of the repairs to the balcony door, if this amount has not already been paid to the resident.
2. £150 for any distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failures to inspect the damp within a reasonable timeframe.
3. £50 for the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
The landlord is to provide this service with evidence of compliance with this order by 6 February 2025.