Your Housing Group Limited (202234964)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202234964

Your Housing Limited

29 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
   1. Repairs to the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and downstairs wet room.
   2. Reports of damp and mould.
   3. Reports of a rat infestation.
   4. The complaint.

Background

2. The resident is an assured tenant and has lived in the 2-bed house since 2017. The property was adapted by the local authority in 2021 to accommodate the resident’s medical needs. While a bedroom and wet room was added downstairs, the property has a standard bathroom upstairs.
3. The resident reported a potential leak in the wet room on 5 January 2023. She said it was affecting the flooring and skirting boards. She reported mould in her bedroom on 20 January 2023, and in February 2023 she raised an issue with rats and the wet room flooring that was not anti-slip.
4. The resident raised a complaint on 22 February 2023. The resident was unhappy with:
   1. the rat problem, the flooring in the wet room and the mould in the bedroom. As a resolution she asked for compensation, new flooring in the upstairs bathroom, the wet room, and the hallway and kitchen as she said these were damaged by the leak from the wet room. She asked for the woodwork in the wet room to be repaired, and the mould and rat problem to be resolved.
5. The landlord responded to the complaint on 21 April 2023. It confirmed the completion of mould treatment on 18 April 2023 and said the outstanding work had been arranged for 7 and 8 June 2023. The landlord apologised for the delays in the repairs and the inconvenience caused and offered a total of £400 compensation.
6. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 May 2023. She said she was unhappy with the lack of communication regarding the outstanding work and was unhappy with the repair dates. She said her disability meant she was unable to use the bathroom upstairs but said she had been told not to use the wet room until the issues were resolved. The resident asked the landlord to pay £5,400 compensation for lack of communication, repairs service failure, pest control costs and a hotel stay.
7. The landlord provided its final complaint response on 3 July 2023. It agreed the repairs to the wet room should have been done sooner and said the work should be completed mid-July. It confirmed the mould treatment had been completed and agreed to investigate the presence of rats in the ground floor bedroom loft space. The landlord apologised for the delays and the impact on the resident and acknowledged the lack of clarity in communication which led to the resident making regular contact with the landlord. It offered a total of £3,990 compensation.

Post completion of the complaint process

8. In February 2024, the resident told this Service she accepted the compensation in July 2023 but wanted to pursue with the complaint as she wanted the landlord to explain the learning it had taken from the complaint. In November 2024, the resident has told this Service she was still experiencing problems with rats.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

9. The resident has referred to the impact the situation has had on the health of herself and her family. Although we can consider the impact the situation has had on the resident and whether the landlord acted reasonably, we cannot determine liability for damage to health. These are legal matters better suited to an insurance claim or court. Any compensation offer will be assessed in line with our remedies guidance. Should the resident wish to pursue these matters further, she should seek legal advice.

Repair issues including the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and downstairs wet room

10. The landlord’s repair policy states it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours, routine repairs within 21 calendar days, and major or planned repairs within 63 calendar days.
11. The Ombudsman expects landlords to complete repairs within a reasonable time. What is reasonable will depend on the circumstances and the nature of the repair. Where there is a delay in completing repairs, the Ombudsman expects landlords to be proactive in:
    1. Communicating the cause of delays to residents.
    2. Explaining to residents what it intends to do about the delays.
    3. Identifying what it can do to mitigate the impact of delays on residents.
12. The resident reported a potential leak under the wet room flooring on 5 January 2023. An inspection was carried out on 27 January 2023. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
13. The landlord referred the repair to a sub-contractor as it was believed the floor was under warranty. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was reasonable. However, it later transpired that the floor was not under warranty and no repairs were completed by the sub-contractor.
14. The evidence indicates that the resident asked the landlord for an update about the repairs on several occasions between January and March 2023. In the absence of any repairs, the resident raised a complaint on 10 March 2023.
15. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said the repairs and replacement of the flooring in the wet room would be completed on 7 and 8 June 2023. While it is unclear what was wrong with the flooring in the upstairs bathroom, the landlord said it would be replaced at the same time as the wet room flooring. The landlord confirmed the resident was able to use the wet room facilities.
16. The resident escalated her complaint in May 2023. She said she had been told not to use the wet room until the work was finished, but she could not use the upstairs bathroom due to her disability. The resident wanted the landlord to pay her £5,400 compensation, which included costs for a 2-night stay in a hotel due to the lack of wet room facilities.
17. On 17 May 2023 a repair was raised for a leak in the wet room which caused water to enter the kitchen. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of what happened during this visit, if the cause of the leak was found or what repairs were completed if any at all. Therefore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord’s handling of this repair was reasonable or appropriate.
18. In its final complaint response on 3 July 2023, the landlord said:
    1. the shower in the wet room was operational.
    2. The shower had leaked into the hallway and acknowledged that it should have resolved this sooner.
    3. It would replace the flooring in the kitchen and hallway.
    4. It would complete the repairs by mid-July 2023.
19. The evidence indicates the repairs were completed on or around 26 July 2023, which was 6 months after the repairs were identified. This was not appropriate, as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy. Furthermore, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
20. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £3,900 compensation, of which it offered £2,000 for the delays in completing repairs, and £1,500 for distress, inconvenience, and lack of communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was reasonable because it was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies and significantly more than what the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to offer.
21. Furthermore, it is positive to note that the landlord also offered £300 to assist the resident with the cost of a hotel stay. There is no evidence that the landlord was obliged to offer this. This was consistent with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principles of being fair and putting things right.
22. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of the repairs.

Reports of damp and mould

23. The landlord’s repair obligations are detailed at paragraph 10 of this report.
24. The resident reported mould in the downstairs bedroom on 20 January 2023. A damp and mould inspection was carried out on 3 March 2023, which was 42 days later. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
25. The 3 March 2023 inspection identified that there was mould around the patio doors, around the door reveal in the downstairs bedroom, and around the window frames in the upstairs bedroom. The report recommended the following repairs:
    1. Renew the ventilation unit in the downstairs bathroom.
    2. renew the ventilation unit in the loft.
    3. complete a mould wash to the affected areas.
26. The contractor told the landlord that they would be unable to undertake the repairs for at least 10 weeks. Therefore, the landlord referred the repairs to another contractor to inspect and provide a quote. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was reasonable, as it demonstrated a proactive approach to resolving the repair. Furthermore, although this caused a short delay in the repairs being completed, this put the resident in a better position than she otherwise would have been.
27. The evidence indicates the repairs were completed on 18 April 2023, which was one month later. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the time taken to complete the repairs was not unreasonable given the scope of the works and the need to reassign the repairs to a new contactor.
28. In its final complaint response, the landlord offered £3,900 compensation, of which it offered £2,000 for the delays in completing repairs, and £1,500 for distress, inconvenience, and lack of communication. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s offer was reasonable because it was consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies and significantly more than what the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to offer.
29. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that the landlord has made a reasonable offer of redress which satisfactorily resolves the resident’s complaint about its handling of the reports of damp and mould.

Reports of a rat infestation.

30. The tenancy agreement states the resident is responsible for treating pest infestations, except for when the infestation is caused as a result of the landlord’s obligation to repair and maintain the structure of the property.
31. The landlord’s repair obligations are detailed at paragraph 10 of this report.
32. On 22 February 2023, the resident told the landlord rats were accessing her property via a broken drain. In response, the landlord inspected the property on 6 March 2023, which was 12 days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
33. The contractor was unable to complete any repair to the drain or manhole cover on 6 March 2023. Therefore, the landlord referred the repair to a specialist drainage contractor. A CCTV inspection of the drains was conducted on 22 March 2023, which was 16 days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
34. The contractor provided its inspection report to the landlord on 20 April 2023. In its stage 1 complaint response on 21 April 2023, the landlord confirmed that the drains had been inspected and repaired.
35. By 5 June 2023, the resident reported that the landlord’s repairs had not been effective, and that she could her rats in loft. In response, the landlord told the resident that she was responsible for treating pests in the property.
36. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s advice to the resident was not unreasonable, as she was responsible for treating pests in the property except for where the pests were as a result of a repair that was the landlord’s responsibility. However, the landlord ought to have inspected the property to satisfy itself that there were no repairs that were required to resolve the pest issue. There is no evidence that the landlord did so. This was a failure by the landlord.
37. In its final complaint response on 3 July 2023, the landlord told the resident it would carry out a further inspection of the drains and would pay her £190 for the cost of pest treatments she had previously arranged at her own expense.
38. A second CCTV inspection of the drains was carried out on 22 July 2023, which was 19 days later. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was a reasonable time as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy. The inspection report identified a broken drain. The evidence indicates that the repairs to the drain were completed on 10 August 2023, which was 19 days later. This was appropriate, as it was consistent with the landlord’s policy.
39. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was no maladministration by the landlord in its response to reports of a rat infestation. This is because the evidence indicates that the landlord took a proactive approach to investigating the reports and carrying out repairs. It is noted that the landlord did delay in inspecting the property again in June 2023. However, it is positive to note that the landlord recognised the mistake and took reasonable steps to change its approach in July 2023.

The complaint

40. The landlord operated a 2-stage complaints policy. The policy states the landlord will provide a stage 1 complaint response within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. The landlord will provide a stage 2 complaint response within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated.
41. The resident raised her complaint on 22 February 2023. The evidence indicates that the landlord did not identify the resident’s initial complaint, which was not logged until 10 March 2023. There is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that this delay was either reasonable or unavoidable. This was a failure by the landlord.
42. In the absence of a complaint response, the resident approached this Service for support. On 6 April 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide its complaint response no later than 17 April 2023. This should not have been necessary. The Ombudsman expects landlords to be able to effectively manage complaints without the involvement of this Service.
43. The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 21 April 2023, which was 41 working days after the resident raised her complaint, and 4 working days after the deadline set by this Service. This was not acceptable as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy or the Ombudsman’s expectations.
44. In its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord acknowledged the delay in providing its response and apologised for this.
45. The resident escalated her complaint on 12 May 2023. The landlord acknowledged the escalation the same day and advised it would respond by 2 June 2023. Again, in the absence of a complaint response, the resident approached this Service for support. On 26 June 2023, this Service instructed the landlord to provide its complaint response no later than 3 July 2023. Again, this should not have been necessary and was a significant failure by the landlord.
46. The landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response on 3 July 2023, which was 35 working days after the resident escalated her complaint. This was not appropriate as it was not consistent with the landlord’s policy.
47. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord did not acknowledge the delay, explain why it had delayed in providing its response, or apologise for this. This was a missed opportunity by the landlord and a missed opportunity to resolve the resident’s complaint.
48. In its stage 2 complaint response, the landlord offered £3,990 compensation, of which £1,500 was offered for distress, inconvenience, and the lack of communication from the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this could have been satisfactory to resolve the resident’s complaint. This is because the compensation offered is consistent with this Service’s guidance on remedies and significantly more than what the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to offer.
49. However, there is no evidence on which the Ombudsman could conclude that the landlord has recognised its poor complaint handling. As a result, the resident has been unreasonably delayed in seeking redress through this Service. The landlord ought to apologise to the resident for the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
50. Considering all the circumstances, it is the Ombudsman’s opinion that there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Determination

51. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of repair issues including the flooring in the upstairs bathroom and downstairs wet room.
52. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould.
53. In accordance with paragraph 53.b of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of reports of a rat infestation.
54. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders

55. Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should:
    1. Write a letter of apology to resident. This should include the learning taken from the complaint and a progress update where possible.

Recommendations

56. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord pay the resident the £3990 that was offered in the final complaint response if it has not already done so.