West Kent Housing Association (202306820)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202306820

West Kent Housing Association

28 January 2025

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 residents’ reports about the landlord’s handling of;
1. A leak in the bathroom and remedial works (including damp and mould within the cloakroom toilet).
2. The associated recharges.
3. Staff conduct.
The Ombudsman has also considered the handling of this complaint.

Background

The residents are joint assured tenants of the property with the landlord. The couple live in the property with 4 of their children, 2 of whom are autistic. One of the joint tenants is disabled, his health issues include mobility problems (including arthritis) and Irritable Bowel Syndrome (IBS). The other joint tenant said that she has anxiety and depression. The couple are in receipt of welfare benefits.
This Service has communicated with both residents, who are husband and wife. It is noted that the husband was the lead complainant to the landlord. For ease of reference in this report, the resident will be referred to as ‘he’.
On 18 October 2013 the landlord granted retrospective permission for the resident to make improvements to the bathroom, this included installing a jacuzzi bath. This was granted on conditions, which included ensuring the work was professional and to the ‘landlord’s acceptable standards’. It said that the resident would be responsible for any future maintenance. It said additional costs when carrying out repairs as a result of the works would be recharged to the resident.
In February 2021 the resident said he reported a leak from his bathroom toilet which he said had also damaged the bathroom flooring. He said the landlord’s contractor fixed the toilet and they also noticed water was leaking from his bath. They said water had been leaking behind the wall panel as it was incorrectly sealed. The leak had damaged the floor, and the resident said the landlord initially promised to replace this. However it later changed its mind. It said it was the resident’s responsibility under the retrospective permission agreement that had been made in respect of the bathroom he had installed.
The resident made a complaint in September 2021 about the landlord’s refusal to replace the flooring. In its final response, the landlord apologised about the miscommunication regarding replacing the flooring. However it maintained its position that replacing it was the resident’s responsibility. It offered to do the work and recharge the resident. It noted the flooring was a health and safety issue and gave the resident a deadline to fix the sealant by 7 December and replace the flooring by 31 January 2022.
On 9 November 2022 the resident reported to the landlord that he had a major leak from his bathroom, which was leaking through the ceiling below. The landlord inspected it the same day and said the poor installation of the bathroom was causing the leak. It said the water had rotted the flooring and caused dampness and mould in the ceiling below. It said the leak needed containing and works were required. These included replacing the bath, wall coverings and the flooring. It said the hand basin needed refitting (or replacing) and the ceiling below needed replastering.
The landlord returned to the property on 21 November 2022. It cut a large hole in the ceiling of the downstairs toilet which it said was to inspect and air the joists. The resident said that this created more damp and mould in the downstairs cloakroom toilet. The landlord partially contained the leak on 2 December however the leak returned on 13 December, and again on 3 January 2023. Several communications took place between the resident and the landlord about who would carry out the replacements and remedial work. On 16 January 2023, the landlord stated that the resident agreed that he wanted the landlord to carry out the works. It is important to highlight that the resident disputes the landlord’s account of events.
The resident had agreed to be recharged for the works but he asked the landlord to provide a quote. The resident said he needed this to compare with the cost of getting his own tradesperson to do the work. After several communications, the landlord said it informed the resident that the estimated cost (for a standard bathroom replacement) was £4192.02. It said it would also need to recharge for the repairs required to the floor and joists, plus administration and management fees totalling 18.15%.
Whilst carrying out the works, the landlord said the structural problem was worse than first thought. It said it agreed with the resident that it would strip out all of the bathroom fittings and replace everything. It offered to decant the resident as he would have limited bathing facilities, and the mould was getting worse in the downstairs toilet. However he declined the offer. He said it would be too much upheaval for his children who were autistic and did not like change. He was also worried about the cost.
The resident said that he had raised complaints about the landlord’s handling of the repairs in October and December 2022 but had not received a response. He complained again on 4 January 2023. In its first response on 24 February, the landlord apologised for its delay and offered £50 in compensation. It disagreed with the resident’s complaint about the handling of the repairs. It said, other than snagging issues, and the resident’s improvement requests, it had successfully completed the works on 12 February. It agreed to provide an invoice of the costs. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint. He wanted compensation and for the landlord to consider the level of the recharge bases on his complaint.
On 13 May 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the cost of the recharge was £12,099.02; this included the administration/management fees that it had explained previously. It also confirmed that the main cause of the significant increase in price compared to the previous estimate was the extent of the structural work that had been required. It said that it could discuss a repayment plan with the resident if he could not afford to pay this in full. The landlord gave its final response to the resident’s complaint on 16 May. It held its position about the repair work, it said it had not mishandled the issues. It said the resident was responsible for paying for the costs. However it agreed it had mishandled the complaint and offered a total compensation payment of £150. The resident was dissatisfied with this response and escalated his complaint to this Service.
In February 2024 the landlord contacted the resident to say that on reviewing its records it had noticed it had not responded to the resident’s concerns about a contractor swearing. It apologised for this and offered further compensation of £200. It said this was broken down into £100 for the staff conduct issues and £100 for not recording the issue as a new complaint. These additional payments resulted in a final compensation offer of £350. The resident remained dissatisfied and asked this Service to investigate.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident raised concerns that the leak, and damp and mould, had damaged his belongings. He was also worried the conditions may have affected the family’s health. Whilst this Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability. It is also unable to determine whether a landlord’s actions or lack of actions have damaged belongings or caused personal injury. Nor can this Service calculate or award damages for such matters. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the damaged belongings and impact on health aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court, or by an insurance, or personal injury claim.

The landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom and remedial works (including damp and mould within the cloakroom toilet).

The resident said his bathroom toilet had leaked in 2016 or 2017. He said the landlord fixed it and replaced all the bathroom flooring with chipboard. He said his toilet leaked again in 2021 and the engineer repaired it. He said there was a prior agreement that it would repair the leaking toilet. The resident said the engineer also noticed that water had been leaking down the wall panel then going under the bath, damaging the flooring. He said the landlord took photographs of the wood underneath the bath which was wet and was crumbling “like Weetabix”.
The landlord’s repair records show that in September 2021 the landlord had inspected damage to the bathroom flooring and a leak from the bath. The resident said following this inspection the landlord initially agreed to replace the flooring, but then changed its mind. The landlord’s repair records show that it raised 2 jobs (to fit a panel and another to replace the floor covering) on 26 October 2021. The records say “following a complaint, job raised for bathroom flooring to be laid” and “do not do any other repairs simply fit the panel and leave, ignore anything he says”.
The landlord’s records show that the jobs that were raised to fit the bathroom panel and flooring (scheduled for 26 October 2021) were cancelled. It is reasonable to conclude from this, and the landlord’s subsequent actions, that it did not carry out the works at this time. This is because it said that the resident was responsible for the remedial works, as they related to the bathroom fittings he had installed.
The resident complained to the landlord on 12 October 2021. He said the landlord had gone back on its promise, as it said it would ‘make good’ the flooring following the toilet leak. The landlord responded on 26 October (reference number 30957).It said the resident was responsible for the damage to the flooring because it was caused by a leak coming from the bath, which was a tenant improvement. It said he had not fitted the pump on the bath correctly, the timber under the bath did not support its weight, and it was inadequately sealed around the bath. It said it could do the work and recharge the resident. The resident escalated the complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaints process.
In its final complaint response (reference number 30957) on 24 November 2021 the landlord agreed there had been “miscommunication regarding the flooring”. It apologised and said this was a misunderstanding. However it said the tenant was responsible for the works. It offered to do the work and recharge the resident. It asked the resident to carry out works “to prevent further damage to the flooring”. It said the resident must replace the silicone sealant to the back of the bath and reinstall the bath panel by 7 December 2021. It said he must also replace the chipboard under the bath and ensure the bath is correctly installed by 31 January 2022. It asked the resident to send pictures of the completed works and said “failure to comply is a breach of tenancy may result in further action”.
Landlords must ensure its properties are safe and are required to look at the condition of them using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Unstable flooring is a potential hazard that can cause risk of falling between levels.
Landlords have a legal duty to ensure their homes are fit for human habitation under Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018. Under this duty, landlords must ensure their properties are safe and free from hazards. In this case, the landlord demonstrated it was aware of the risk, as per its complaint response in November 2021. This said that it was “concerned that the deterioration of the floorboards under your bath present a health and safety risk to you and your family”. It said that because the resident had carried out the improvements, he was responsible for remedying the issue. It gave deadlines for the work to be completed.
This Service has found a gap in the evidence provided since the landlord’s complaint response on 24 November 2021, until 9 November 2022 when the resident next reported a major leak from the bathroom. The landlord has not demonstrated that it tried to engage with the resident during this period about whether the works had been done in accordance with its deadlines. It is reasonable to assume from this absence of evidence and the subsequent issues identified in the same area that the flooring had not been adequately repaired in almost 12 months. This is despite the landlord determining that the flooring was a health and safety risk.
The Ombudsman has found that the landlord should have been more proactive in this case. The landlord was aware that the bathroom flooring was potentially unsafe and posed a risk to the household. Knowing this, it should have ensured that the works had been done within a reasonable timeframe. It should have followed this up with the resident to make sure he had completed the repairs. This Service has found that the landlord missed an opportunity here to remedy the issue at a much earlier stage.
When the resident reported a major leak on 9 November 2022, the landlord came to inspect it the same day, and on 11 November, which was within its policy timescale. It said the leak was caused by the bathroom being poorly installed. It said the leak needed containing and the bathroom needed a partial overhaul. This included fitting a standard bath, toilet, splashback tiles and replacing the flooring. It said it would need to assess the floor joists and provide an “urgent quote” for the works. It would include a quote for the replastering of the downstairs toilet ceiling. The landlord said the floor was rotten and “the bath could fall through at any stage”. It noted that if the resident did not arrange its own plumber it would need to do the works because the leak was “becoming detrimental to building”.
In its first complaint response, the landlord said it told the resident it was his responsibility to fix the leak. The landlord said that the resident had arranged for a plumber to attend on 14 November 2022, then rearranged this for 21 November. The landlord inspected the leak again on 21 November. However the landlord’s records show it did not contact the resident again until 30 November. It is reasonable to assume the landlord did not follow up if the repair had been fixed. The landlord attended the property on 2 December which was 23 calendar days after it had been first reported. The records say it partially stopped the leak by filling a hole in the bath. However it could not reach the other leak coming from the tap under the bath, without removing the sink. Instead it left a flood sack under the bath to collect the drips.
The landlord said the resident reported that the water was leaking through the ceiling below again on 8 and 13 December 2022. On 14 December the landlord carried out an inspection. It said it sealed around the bath as a temporary measure to try and contain the leak that was coming from behind the panel. The landlord said it had fixed it temporarily because the resident had said he would replace the bath himself in the new year.
On 6 January 2023 the resident reported that the leak had come back worse than before. He asked the landlord to fix it and said he would pay. The landlord’s records show that it did not contact the resident again until 4 days later. It was noted by the landlord in internal emails on 10 January that there was “a health and safety issue with the bathroom that has been fitted” and that the leak was “weakening the floorboards”. The landlord agreed in its internal communications that it would need to turn off the taps or replace the bath with a temporary one, to stop the leak.
When the landlord contacted the resident on 10 January 2023 it is noted he was reluctant for the landlord to remove the bath. He said it would leave him with no shower and the landlord’s cost was too high, as he was in receipt of benefits. He said instead he would try and get his own plumber. Then on 11 January, the resident said he could not get a plumber quick enough so wanted the landlord to take the bath out and install a temporary one. The landlord booked this in for 16 January.
Landlords have a legal duty under Section 11, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair and proper working order the installations for the supply of water and sanitation. Under the Act, landlords must also keep in repair the structure of the property. Where landlords have been notified of a repair, they must fix it within a reasonable timeframe. In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that it took appropriate steps to remedy the leak within a reasonable timeframe as per the law, and its own policy.
The resident had carried out his own bathroom improvement to the property and agreed in October 2013 to maintain and repair the bath. However, despite this, the landlord was still responsible for fulfilling its legal repairing obligations, to make sure that the property was safe. Where other contractual agreements are in place, landlords might be able to recharge its residents for any necessary works it undertakes to put the property in a good state of repair. It is noted that the resident in this case did not dispute that he would have to pay for the cost of the repairs.
In this case this Service has found that the landlord could have been more proactive in ensuring that the repair was carried out. The records show that it had known since September 2021 that there was a leak behind the wall panel where the bath was not sealed correctly and also that the floor was crumbling under the bath. It had told the resident that he was responsible and must replace the sealant to the back of the bath by 7 December 2021 and replace the flooring by 31 January 2021. This Service found no evidence that the landlord had taken steps to check that the resident had remedied the issue as per its suggested timeframe.
When the resident reported a major leak on 9 November 2022 the landlord did not take steps to ensure this was contained within a reasonable timeframe. It’s policy says that where there is an urgent risk to the resident’s health, it will carry out the repair within 3 full days. In this case the landlord said it contained the leak on 2 December 2022, which was 23 calendar days after the resident reported it. It is appreciated, however, that the resident had said that he would instruct his own tradesperson. Although this was not going to be until 21 November. It was then not until 30 November that the landlord contacted the resident to see if the work had been done.
It is appreciated that this was a complex problem and some delays occurred as the resident was trying to instruct his own tradesperson. The evidence shows delays also occurred because the resident had wanted a temporary fix. However this was not possible due to the structural damage that was later discovered. As the landlord had intended to charge the resident, it was fair that it allowed the resident a reasonable amount of time for this. However in considering this reasonable timeframe it should have adhered to its own policy. This Service has found that despite the complexities, the landlord could have been more proactive in either fixing the leak, or ensuring the resident had fixed it.
One of the resident’s main concerns in his complaint was the damp and mould in the downstairs cloakroom toilet. The resident had first reported it on 9 November 2022. However despite the landlord attending the property the same day. It did not demonstrate that it had taken steps to treat the problem, or offer to provide a dehumidifier to the resident. The landlord could have been more proactive in this case in line with the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould from October 2021, which requires landlords to adopt a “zero tolerance” approach to damp and mould.
The resident said that the mould had worsened after the landlord had cut a large hole in the ceiling on 21 November 2022. He said this had damaged his vanity unit and radiator cover. The landlord said it had cut the hole so it could inspect the joists and allow them to air. It is noted in emails exchanged between the landlord and its contractor, that it was recommended that the hole was left and not replaced until “after Christmas”. Otherwise it said that fungus could grow on the timber.
This Service would consider it reasonable for the landlord to take necessary steps to inspect and air the structure. However the landlord did not demonstrate that it had spoken with the resident to explain why the hole had been cut. It could have suggested he might want to try and move furnishings, or take steps to protect them. It also missed an opportunity to provide a dehumidifier at this stage, which may have helped to reduce mould spores and dry out the timber.
When the landlord inspected the property on 14 December 2022 it said that the mould “requires immediate rectification before this causes family health issues”. However despite this, and it mentioning about providing a dehumidifier in internal emails, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had offered to provide a dehumidifier to the resident. Instead it is noted that the resident said his own plumber had suggested he got one, which he put in place himself on 23 January 2023.
The landlord’s emails say that it had arranged a mould wash for 6 January 2023. The resident said that this did not resolve the mould, as the property was too damp and needed to dry out. The landlord records show that another wash was booked in for 19 January. The resident reported that this still did not clear the mould and the landlord’s email said it was booked in again on 31 January.
This Service found that the landlord could have been more proactive in its response to the resident’s report of damp and mould. The resident first reported the damp and mould on 9 November 2022 yet the landlord did not demonstrate that it offered a dehumidifier at this time. It had provided mould wash treatments however these did not resolve the problem until 31 January. This was 83 calendar days after the resident had reported the damp and mould.
In his complaint the resident said that the works had caused his family distress and inconvenience. The family had to use washing facilities at a family member’s house and 2 of his children had moved out. It is appreciated that the landlord had offered to decant the household on 17January 2023. However the resident declined as his children are autistic and do not like change. He was also worried about the cost. It is noted that the resident had suggested an outdoor toilet and the landlord had offered to provide one. It asked whether the resident would be ok with this due to his arthritis. The resident said he decided he did not want one as it was too cold to go outside and he had use of the other toilet.
The Equality Act 2010 (the Act) provides a legislative framework to protect the rights of individuals with protected characteristics from unfair treatment. Under the Act, the landlord has a legal duty to make reasonable adjustments where there is a provision, criterion or practice which puts a disabled person at a substantial disadvantage in relation to a relevant matter in comparison with persons who are not disabled. Part 149 of the Act also created the ‘Public Sector Equality Duty’ which requires public bodies to have ‘due regard’ to equality and the elimination of any behaviours prohibited under the Act.
In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that it fully considered the household’s vulnerabilities during the works and prior to the bathroom installation. In accordance with the Equality Act 2010. It was aware that there were vulnerable people in the household and as such it should have consulted with the resident to check if it needed to make any reasonable adjustments, during the works and also regarding the specification of the bathroom. In this case this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord had carried out a risk assessment to consider what, if any, adjustments would need to be made prior to commencing the works.
Had the landlord risk assessed the needs of the household at an early stage, including their disability status and financial circumstances, it may have been able to identify any difficulties faced by the resident in securing and paying for a suitable tradesperson to complete the remedial works at the property. The evidence suggests this was clearly an issue back in late 2021/early 2022 when it identified the need to complete the works. Despite this, the landlord again left it with the resident to resolve the issue when he reported the serious leak in November 2022.
The Ombudsman is mindful that it is not in dispute that the 2013 works instructed by the resident were the cause of the overall issue here. However, it is of concern that the landlord has not done enough to demonstrate that the household’s personal circumstances were taken into account in its decision making throughout. Had it done so, it might have been reluctant to allow the original works back in 2013 (though the Ombudsman is also mindful that it is not aware of the full picture of what occurred at this point). It would also have been more likely to have recognised at a much earlier stage the need for it to take responsibility to complete the works when issues first arose in 2021.
Whilst there was nothing in writing, the resident said he was promised items would be replaced on a like-for-like basis, including a sink with a mono tap. It is appreciated that the landlord said that it normally used its standard items for the bathroom. However it should have checked whether any reasonable adjustments needed to be made. The resident said that when a sink was fitted with 2 separate mixer taps, his children struggled to use them and were burning their hands. It is positive to note that the landlord later replaced the sink, however it is unclear whether this would be at the resident’s own cost.
In his complaint, the resident raised a concern about the type of flooring that the landlord laid in his bathroom. He said that the landlord should have used marine plywood. In this case the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint and clarified its position that it used chipboard wood flooring on all its standard bathrooms. This Service considers that the landlord is free to install the type of flooring it chooses providing it is considered to be safe, this includes conforming with current building standards and regulations.
Another point in the resident’s complaint was that he was wrongly advised on gaining permission about making improvements to the newly installed bathroom. The resident wanted the landlord to install his shower screen and a heated towel rail. It is appreciated that the landlord was not responsible for this and did not need to refit these items. It advised the resident this was the case. The landlord’s policy says that residents need to request to make their own improvements to their property. However this Service found that the resident was wrongly advised to complete a permission form to install a shower screen. It is noted that the landlord said in an internal email that this item was ‘cosmetic’. The resident had requested this on 26 January 2023 and the landlord’s emails suggest he was not given permission until weeks later, on 20 February. This was an unnecessary delay.
Likewise, the resident said he wanted to replace the bath panel and toilet seat. In an email on 31 January 2023, the landlord said the resident would need permission to install a bath panel. Then when the resident asked about replacing the toilet seat, on 2 February the landlord said he would need permission for ‘any improvements’. This was incorrect, as the landlord’s policy says that it is the resident’s responsibility to install bath panels and toilet seats. As such, the landlord had incorrectly advised the resident, as he did not need to get permission to install these items.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the leak in the bathroom and remedial works (including damp and mould within the cloakroom toilet). It was aware that there was a problem with water leaking down the wall panel (which had rotted the flooring) in 2021. Whilst it identified that it was the resident’s responsibility under its agreement in 2013, it did not take proactive steps to ensure he had remedied this. It is reasonable to assume that the flooring had not been replaced or repaired since it was last reported in November 2021. This was 12 months prior to it being reported again. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had checked that the property was safe and fit for human habitation. In reaching this conclusion, the Ombudsman has placed significant emphasis on the concerns identified about how the landlord managed the case given the households needs.
In deciding on a proportionate remedy for this element of the complaint, this Service has taken into consideration all the mitigating factors in this case. It is appreciated that when the resident reported the issue again in November 2022, the landlord had been more proactive in ensuring the leak was fixed as it had realised that the bathroom flooring had become comprised by the severity of the leak. Whilst there were delays in it being contained, they were in part caused by mixed messages from the resident. That said, some delay had occurred due to miscommunications between the parties.
In his complaint, the resident expressed the inconvenience and distress caused to his household. In deciding on a proportionate remedy, it is appreciated that the landlord had offered to lessen the inconvenience to the resident. It had offered a decant and also to install a portable toilet outside, however the resident had declined these options. Although the landlord carried out mould washes, it did not demonstrate that it had tried to alleviate the issues with damp and mould by offering a dehumidifier at an early stage.
When it came to the installation of the bathroom this Service found that the landlord could have better communicated with the resident about any reasonable adjustments it needed to make and about the permissions the resident had requested. Overall, considering all the mitigating factors of this element of the case, this Service considers £400 compensation to be fair and proportionate.

The landlord’s handling of the associated recharges

The landlord granted retrospective permission for the resident to install a jacuzzi bath, toilet, and to lay tiles on the bathroom floor on 18 October 2013. This was granted on the conditions that the resident would be responsible for any future maintenance. It said additional costs when carrying out repairs as a result of the works would be recharged to the resident. The resident agreed to these terms.
It is clear from the evidence, and from the resident’s complaint, that the potential cost of the remedial works that were identified in late 2022 was a concern for him. The resident had cancelled some works (such as checking the electrics on the bath) as he was worried about how much he would have to pay. He was also reluctant to consider a decant as he understood that this would come at a cost to him. It is noted that the resident had agreed that he would need to pay for some of the works. However he wanted the costs kept to a minimum as he said he was in receipt of welfare benefits and could not afford to pay a lot. It is positive to note that the landlord had informed the resident that it would consider his income and expenditure, and would accept a payment by instalments.
The landlord agreed to provide a quote for the cost of the works to the resident. On 15 November 2022 it’s records say it needed to provide an “urgent” quote for the floor repair, a new bath, a new sink, and for the ceiling below making good. This Service found that the resident had asked the landlord on several occasions for quotes of repairing items versus replacing them, so he could compare this with other tradespeople. However despite the resident chasing this the landlord did not demonstrate it had provided a full written estimate to the resident before commencing the works.
The landlord noted in internal emails on 16 January 2023, that the resident had agreed to the full bathroom replacement and to pay the costs. However in his complaint, the resident said he had not agreed to this. In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that the resident agreed to the full bathroom replacement. If the resident did agree, it would have been good practice on the landlord’s part to have asked the resident to confirm his agreement in writing.
The resident complained because he wanted the landlord to reuse some of his existing items and refit them into his bathroom to keep costs down. It is appreciated why the landlord might have refused to refit items if they were not in a good state of repair. However it is noted in the landlord’s repair log on 15 November and 14 December 2022 that it could potentially reuse the existing toilet and vanity unit and basin to reduce costs. This Service found no evidence that this was discussed with the resident despite him raising it, and asking it to provide a quote for the full suite, and a quote without the sink and toilet. If the items could not have been reused, this Service expects the landlord to have better communicated this to the resident.
In emails exchanged between the landlord and its contractors in mid-December 2022, the landlord estimated the cost of a new bathroom would be £4177, plus fees. It said that the actual cost would be “recharged on completion”. In his complaint, and communication with the landlord on 6 January 2023, the resident said he was told that the works would cost around £3,000 to £3500. On this same date, the landlord also gave the resident a written quote for replacing the plaster board and redecorating the bathroom ceiling. It apologised for the delay in providing this. It said the cost was £264.70 plus VAT.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord informed the resident that the structural problem was worse than it had first thought. It said that the joists were rotten and needed replacing, or making good to support the bath. However knowing this, the landlord did not obtain or pass onto the resident a rough estimate for the cost of the works. It informed the resident that he would have to pay for the works. It would have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to obtain a quote from its contractor to pass onto the resident. Had the landlord known what the costs might be at this stage, it might also have been reasonable for the landlord to explore whether it could have made an insurance claim. This Service has not seen any evidence to show that this was considered.
At this point the resident had enquired about whether he could use a void property. He asked if he would need to pay for a decant. The landlord has not demonstrated to this Service that it told the resident whether he would need to pay for the decant, or not. Had this been better communicated to the resident, he would have been better informed to be able to decide whether to move out. This could have limited the inconvenience the works had caused the vulnerable household.
During internal communications on 17 January 2023 the landlord said it had told the resident that the cost would be £4192.02, plus an administration fee of 8.15% (for organising the repairs) and a management fee of 10%. It said the resident had agreed to this. It said it would need to add a cost for the repairs to the flooring and joists but could not provide these until the moisture had dried out.
In its final complaint response, the landlord said it had misadvised the resident on 11 January 2023 about whether it would charge for works to the downstairs cloakroom toilet. It said he would be charged. It apologised for this mistake and offered £50 in compensation. In considering all of the facts in relation to the landlord’s communication of the charges, this Service does not see this figure as a proportionate offer.
In March 2023, the resident contacted this Service to say that the landlord had told him that the total cost of doing the work was £12099.02. It is noted in correspondence to this Service that the main charge was a lump sum of £8867.32, which it said was for “floor structure concrete/timber”. It said this included removing detective timber and joists, renewing the flooring and ceiling below. However, this figure had not been itemised.
This Service has not seen any evidence of the landlord querying the accuracy of the figures with the contractors. As the final sum is not clearly itemised the resident is also unable to check whether the figures are correct. It is noted that the resident had informed the landlord that the contractors were absent on some of the days, as they were off work or attending other jobs. As the figures are unclear, the resident would not have been able to check whether the charges were legitimate and fair.
This Service understands that the final costings would have come as a shock to the resident as he said he was not expecting the cost to be this high. The total sum was more than twice what the resident was anticipating. The landlord also added its own charges. It said that there was a “Management / Admin Fee” of 8.15% and in addition to this, it added 10% on top of the total sum as a “Recharge fee”. The total amount of fees added was £1,928.78.
The landlord has a Recharge Policy. This says that “Interest may be charged after appropriate legal and tax advice has been sought”. However the policy does not make it clear what it will charge as a percentage for its fees. Nor did the landlord demonstrate that it had given prior notice of these percentages to the resident in this case. This Service expects that where such fees are going to be levied, in the interest of fairness, it should be transparent about these.
The resident said that he and his wife were in receipt of welfare benefits and the landlord was aware of this. The landlord was also aware that the resident and other members of his household had vulnerabilities. The landlord’s Recharge policy says when it will recharge, and what for. The policy says “Any request for payment will have considered any known vulnerability of the resident to ensure that is appropriate to make the charge”. In this case the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered whether it was appropriate to charge the resident before providing the final bill. It also missed an opportunity to revisit this in its final response to the complaint.
In its Recharge policy, the landlord says “it is expected that any debt is cleared within a maximum of 12 months”. In this case given that the resident and his wife are in receipt of welfare benefits and have 4 children living with them, it seems unlikely that the debt would be repaid within this timeframe. The policy suggests that it might consider writing off a debt “after due consideration of all the facts including any vulnerability known”. This Service cannot see that the landlord took this into consideration in this case.
In deciding on the level of recharges, the landlord did not demonstrate that it had considered the deterioration of the property since the damaged flooring had been reported in September 2021. The landlord had told the resident to remedy the leak by December 2021 and replace the flooring by January 2022. It offered to do the work and recharge the resident. Yet it did not demonstrate that it had taken steps to ensure the issue had been remedied until it was reported again in November 2022. It is reasonable to conclude that the property condition had deteriorated during this time and that the landlord was at least in part responsible for this as it had not retained sufficient oversight of the works to ensure they were completed. As such the landlord should have taken this mitigating factor into consideration when determining what was proportionate and fair to recharge the resident.
The Ombudsman has found maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the recharges. Prior to, and during the works, this Service found that the landlord’s communication about the charges was unclear. It is appreciated that this was a complex repair issue, and the structural problem had been worse than it anticipated. However the landlord could have tried to obtain an estimate from its contractors at an earlier stage. It could have been more open and transparent about the level of recharges and the additional fees it would apply beforehand.
When the landlord provided the final bill to the resident, this was around 3 months after it said it had completed the work, albeit for snagging issues and improvements. The final bill did not provide an itemised list of the costs so the resident could not check whether the costs had been applied fairly. The landlord also did not evidence that it had considered the vulnerabilities of the household in deciding whether to make the charge, in line with its policy.
In deciding on an appropriate remedy in this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s communication and reasonableness of applying the charges. It is not for this Service to determine whether the actual amount recharged was reasonable and offered value for money as the Ombudsman does not have the expertise to assess the level of costs for the specific services provided. Instead the landlord is ordered to provide a breakdown of the charges and reconsider the level of recharge and payment arrangements in line with the order detailed below. This is based on the issues identified in this report and in line with its policy.

Issues with staff conduct

On 24 February 2023, on escalating his complaint to the next stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure, the resident said that he had a video of a contractor swearing in his property. He clarified in an email on 27 February that the contractor did not swear at him, but swore at another contractor. The landlord failed to acknowledge this in its final response to the complaint.
It was not until the resident escalated his complaint to this Service that the landlord noticed that it had missed this element of the resident’s complaint. It contacted the resident to apologise for missing this. It offered the resident compensation of £100 for the stress caused by this incident.
The Ombudsman considers that this offer was proportionate to the detriment experienced to the resident and in accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme it was reasonable redress for this element of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint

The landlord operates a 2-stage complaints procedure. It says it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days at both stages of its process. At stage 1, it aims to respond within 10 working days and at stage 2, within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. It says that it may extend the timeframe for responding by 10 working days at each stage of the process. This is line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The resident said that he had made online complaints in October and in December 2022 that had been ignored. It is noted that the resident said that the landlord’s online complaint system is “a joke”. He informed the landlord that he had made complaints in the past that had not reached them. It was noted by this Service in an internal email that sometimes its online complaints ‘get stuck’. The landlord also did not demonstrate to this Service that it had a copy of the resident’s original complaint. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out checks to ensure that its online complaints system is robust and functioning as it should.
This Service found that the resident raised a complaint by email on 13 December 2022. This was not acknowledged and the resident chased the landlord for a response to this on 4 January 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 5 January and said it would respond by 18 January. On 17 January the landlord said it would need to extend its response. The resident chased the landlord for a reply on 3 occasions (3, 15 and 22 February). The landlord responded on 24 February. This response was outside of its policy timeframe as it was 50 working days since the resident had complained in December.
In its first complaint response, the landlord apologised for the delay in its complaint handling and offered compensation of £50 to the resident. The resident asked to escalate the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints procedure on 27 February, whereby he added that a contractor had sworn whilst in his property. The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint the same day and advised him to outline the issues he remained unhappy with. The resident duly did this on 28 March 2023. The landlord acknowledged this on 3 April and said it would respond by 2 May. On 2 May 2023 it asked to extend the response to 16 May, and responded on this date.
The landlord’s final response was delayed, although it had communicated this and told the resident it would need to extend the response time. As such it’s stage 2 response was within its policy timeframe. It offered an additional £50 for its delay in not responding to the resident’s complaint in December. However, it was only through involvement with this Service that the landlord observed that it had missed an element of the resident’s complaint (about staff conduct) in its stage 2 response. It did however apologise to the resident and offered a further £100 in compensation for this.
In total, the landlord offered £200 for its failures in its complaint handling. It is noted that the resident did not accept this offer. It is our view that this was not proportionate to the failures identified in this report. An order has been made for an increased amount of compensation. The landlord must pay the resident compensation of £300. The landlord must also review the case to understand why the complaint handling failures happened, in particular checking that its online complaints system is robust and functioning properly. A senior level manager must conduct the case review.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of a leak in the bathroom and remedial works (including damp and mould within the cloakroom toilet).
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated recharges.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord has offered redress to the resident about its staff conduct. This, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves this part of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to pay total compensation of £900 to the resident. This figure is made up of:
1. £400 in recognition of the handling of the repair and remedial works.
2. £200 in recognition of its amount offered to the resident for its staff conduct.
3. £300 in recognition of the handling of the complaint.
The above amounts to include the £350 compensation already offered in relation to all elements of the resident’s complaint, which it is understood has not yet been accepted.
It is the Ombudsman’s position that compensation awarded by this Service should be treated separately from any existing financial arrangements between the landlord and resident and should not be offset against arrears where they exist.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above compensation orders within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide an itemised breakdown for all the costs that are to be recharged to the resident.
2. Reconsider the level of recharges based on the mitigating factors outlined in this report. These include:
  1. Whether the recharges were fair when compared to the itemised costs.
  2. Whether it could have reused existing bathroom fixtures.
  3. Whether it should accept partial responsibility given the failures identified in this report and the potential impact this might have had on the overall cost.
  4. How long it might take the resident to pay off the debt based on the household’s income and expenditure.
  5. Considering what is fair to recharge a vulnerable household, as per its Recharge policy.
3. Indicate to the resident and this Service whether the above consideration has resulted in a significant reduction in the overall recharge, with a clear and feasible plan for the resident to clear the debt within a reasonable timeframe.
4. In the event that the above consideration does not result in a situation whereby the resident’s debt will be cleared in a reasonable timeframe (for the purposes of this order this is considered to be a maximum of two years from the date of this determination) then additional compensation of £500 is to be paid directly to the resident to reflect the distress and inconvenience experienced with respect to the failures identified.
Within 8 weeks from the date of this report the landlord is ordered to review the case to understand why the complaint handling failures happened, in particular checking that its online complaints system is robust and functioning properly. A senior level manager must conduct the case review and provide feedback to this Service.
The landlord is to confirm compliance with the above orders within 8 weeks of the date of this report.