The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Slough Borough Council (201817026)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201817026

Slough Borough Council

22 June 2021


Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about damp occurring in the bedrooms at her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident has been a leaseholder of the property of the landlord since 17 October 2000. The landlord is a local authority.
  2. The landlord uses a repairs contractor to carry out repairs and maintenance at its property. Given that the repairs contractor is acting as an agent of the landlord, this report will refer to both as the ‘landlord’, unless otherwise expressly noted.
  3. At the time of the complaint, the landlord operated a three stage complaints policy. The policy notes the landlord will provide its formal responses within 10 days of the complaint/escalation.
  4. The landlord operates a compensation policy. It notes that it will consider financial compensation where there was an unacceptable delay in it taking appropriate action, where there is no practical action that would provide a full and appropriate remedy, and where the resident suffered financial loss, stress, and anxiety as a result of the service failure. The policy notes it may offer up to £40 per week (£2,000 per year) for distress, up to £10 per week for the resident’s time and trouble, and up to £50 for failing to respond.
  5. The landlord operates a repairs policy. The policy notes that ‘routine’ repairs will be completed within 20 business days. The policy also notes that “minor roof leaks” are considered routine repairs.
  6. It is not disputed that the resident is responsible for repairs relating to internal damage caused by condensation, but that the landlord is responsible for repairs relating to damage caused by external wall/roof leaks.

Summary of events

  1. It is not disputed that the resident has reported issues relating to damp and mould at her property on a number of occasions prior to the incident subject to her complaint, which the resident attributed to water ingress into her property from an external leak. It is evident that following such reports, the landlord has previously carried out remedial works, including replacing the flashing on the bedroom roof in May 2017.
  2. The landlord has provided this service with its internal communications throughout the period of the complaint. On 19 February 2018, the landlord noted that the resident had reported that the issue had reoccurred following the most recent remedial works. On 3 May 2018 it sought to arrange for a structural surveyor to assess the property. It is evident that a structural surveyor attended the property on 9 November 2018. It is not evident why there was a delay to the structural surveyor attending.
  3. Following the structural surveyor’s attendance, the resident made multiple requests for updates as to the next steps, and on 18 November 2018, provided photographic evidence of water appearing in her property. On the same date, she made a formal complaint regarding the damp in the front two bedrooms at her property, and requested the landlord advise her of its position on compensation, and also whether they intended to relocate her to alternative accommodation. The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 19 November 2018 and advised it would respond within 10 working days.
  4. The landlord contacted the resident on 5 December 2018 and apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident and thanked her for her patience. It advised that it would attend the same day to further investigate the issue and determine what action was required. It noted it would initially attend to the “main issue” before then attending to the “issue inside the house.” It further advised it would use the lessons learned from this case to improve its service in the future. The communication did not note whether it was intended to be a stage one response under the landlord’s internal complaints policy, nor did it advise how the resident could escalate her complaint.
  5. On the same date, the resident queried what stage of the landlord’s internal complaints process her complaint was at. She also requested the timeline for the works to be completed. The landlord replied on the same date and advised it would update her in due course. It is not evident that it subsequently advised an update and on 10 December 2018, the resident again requested a timeline for the works and reminded the landlord that any external works should be completed prior to internal works. The landlord replied on 13 December 2018 that it was unable to book the external works due to “staff redundancies,” but that it had arranged for the internal works to be completed on 19 December 2018. On the same date, the resident advised that the internal works should not be done prior to the external works, and she reiterated this again on 18 December 2018. On the same date the landlord advised the internal works had been cancelled and that the external works would be booked in the new year.
  6. On 27 December 2018, the resident provided further photographic evidence of water in her property and requested that the landlord rectify the issue urgently or relocate her to alternative accommodation. On 28 December 2018, the landlord confirmed it would be carrying out works to “make good the concrete plinth that runs across the property,” and also remove the internal wall plaster and treat the brickwork, and subsequently “set the walls.” It advised the works would take approximately two and half days to complete and that it would advise dates after 2 January 2019. It is not evident that it provided any dates following this date and on 15 January 2019 and 7 February 2019, the resident sought an update and advised she was also pursuing legal action. It is also evident that on 31 January 2019, the resident reported that the third bedroom at the rear of her property was also being affected by damp and mould. It is not evident that the landlord responded to this report.
  7. On the 18 March 2019, the landlord apologised for the “time taken to get this resolved.” It advised it had booked the works in for 15-18 April 2019. It advised it would inspect the loft for a leak, treat the walls in the front two bedrooms, and replaster. It also advised it would not be able to carry out works to the back of the property until the loft had been inspected. Following this it would determine what works were required for the back of the property. It also noted its complaints team would update the resident as to what stage her complaint was at. On the 20 March 2019, the landlord advised the resident had the option to escalate the complaint to stage two if she remained dissatisfied with its response.
  8. Around this time, the resident reported the issues she was experiencing to this service, and on 2 April 2019, the landlord acknowledged this service had suggested issuing a stage two response. On 8 April 2019, the resident advised she wished the issue affecting the third bedroom to also be considered as a formal complaint. On the same date, the landlord advised it had “included all your concerns in one” and that it would book in any works necessary for the third bedroom once it had completed the current works.
  9. On 10 April 2019, the resident expressed concern that she had not received a formal response about her complaint regarding her third bedroom. On the same date, the landlord advised her initial complaint had now been escalated to stage two and that it would respond within 10 working days. It also advised that the complaint regarding the third bedroom would be dealt with as a stage one complaint.
  10. On 15 April 2019, the resident advised that the walls were still damp following the most recent external works, and so the landlord’s operatives who attended agreed there was no point in starting the internal works until they had dried. The resident advised she considered this meant that the external works had not rectified the issue. She also noted she was yet to receive a stage one response regarding the third bedroom.
  11. On 25 April 2019, the resident again noted she was yet to receive any further formal responses. On 1 May 2019, the landlord apologised for the delay to the stage two response and noted it needed to further investigate the events up to that point in order to respond fully. It also advised it wished to attend the property and discuss the resident’s preferred outcomes. It also apologised for the “poor service you have received” to date. The resident has advised this service she subsequently called the landlord to arrange a visit but was unsuccessful.
  12. On 10 May 2019, the resident began a formal claim using the ‘Housing Disrepair Protocol’ relating to “water ingress” to the three bedrooms, and the subsequent mould in each. On the same date, the resident’s legal representative also instructed a joint expert surveyor to provide a report.
  13. On 15 May 2019, the resident informed the landlord that a workman had arrived at her property unannounced and drilled a hole in her wall. She queried what was the purpose of this, and that if this was for a damp reading, why was it only carried out on a single wall? The landlord advised on the same date that it would provide an update shortly. The resident subsequently made further requests for an update on 20 and 21 May 2019. On 23 May 2019, the landlord apologised for the delay to its reply, noting a staff member had to take unexpected leave. It offered to fill the hole to the resident’s wall and advised it would be in touch in due course regarding the next steps. On 29 and 30 May 2019 the resident made further requests for formal responses to her complaints.
  14. The independent surveyor provided its report in relation to the disrepair claim on 16 July 2019. The report concluded that “the nature and presentation of the mould to be consistent with the effects of condensation and not arising as a result of structural penetrating dampness.” The report also recommended the installation of a ventilation system to assist with the issue. In a communication to this service on 3 October 2019, the resident noted that while the independent investigation had determined the issue related to condensation, there had been a significant delay in the landlord investigating the issue, and that she wanted the landlord’s complaints handling to be investigated.
  15. It is evident that on or around 30 October 2019, the resident reported further issues with damp following heavy rain at the property. On 1 November 2019, the landlord also acknowledged that this service had requested a further update be provided to the resident. On 26 November 2019, the resident requested an update. The landlord advised on the same date it would provide an update in due course. On 30 November 2019, the resident again requested an update and reported that the plaster in the bedrooms was “bubbling up, soaking to the touch and peeling off.” 
  16. On 2 December 2019, the landlord advised that, given the resident’s concerns that the earlier reports which indicated the damp was caused by condensation may have been inaccurate as they had been carried out during the summer, as a “gesture of goodwill” it would consent to contributing 50% of the costs for a new report to be carried out. It would then be able to propose a resolution based on the new report.
  17. It is evident that the parties subsequently discussed the costs surrounding a further report. On 5 December 2019, the resident noted that she considered her complaint about the damp and her complaint about the landlord’s complaints handling to be separate. On 24 December 2019, the landlord requested that the resident advise her position regarding a further survey by 17 January 2020. On 21 January 2020, the landlord noted that no further action was being taken regarding the disrepair claim, and as such it would “revert back to your … complaint that was put on hold whilst we dealt with the disrepair.” On the same date, the resident advised that she was unhappy that the landlord had proposed the same independent surveyor for the new report, and that she considered both complaints to remain open. On 22 January 2020, the landlord advised that as the resident had not previously responded regarding the further independent survey, it would no longer consider this option. It advised that should the resident wish to obtain her own further report, it would consider the results. Regarding the other complaint, it advised it would respond shortly.
  18. On 29 January 2020, the landlord advised it would respond to both the resident’s complaints “within the next week.” It is not evident that it did so and on 11 February 2020, the resident requested it provide her with a timeline for its response. On 13 February 2020, the landlord advised that it was “not clear what your complaint is” and asked for clarification. On the same date, the resident advised that her initial complaint had been made in November 2018 about damp and mould in her front two bedrooms. She had then made a second complaint in January 2019 regarding damp and mould in her third bedroom, which she had attributed to a roof leak at the rear of the house. On 20 February 2020, the landlord advised it would provide a single stage two response covering all the issues.
  19. The landlord provided its stage two response on 25 February 2020. It noted that following the resident’s initial reports in “December 2018” and “January 2019,” its records indicated that the external works discussed at that time had been undertaken on 14 February 2019, but that “the internal works were never done.” It also noted that a follow up roof inspection had been discussed for 22 February 2019, but this did not appear to have been done. It noted that subsequently that “further communication difficulties arose as a result in changing responsibilities within [the landlord]” and that the staff member in charge of the further investigation at the property had left “before he was able to evaluate the work.” It further noted it had delayed by “some months” in repairing the hole made as part of a cavity wall inspection, for which it apologised. It also noted that the resident was frustrated that her complaint was not being escalated to stage two. It referred to its emails dated May 2019 “which resulted in your Stage 2 complaint being held until such time as the disrepair claim had run its course. At the conclusion of the disrepair claim, and subsequent communication, Stage 2 was reinvigorated resulting in this letter.”
  20. The landlord noted that the report made as part of the disrepair claim concluded that “liability is not [the landlord’s],” however, it subsequently proposed that it would nevertheless carry out improvements and repairs to the property, including installation of a ventilation system, removal of the plaster and treatment to the brickwork in the bedrooms and subsequently that it would redecorate. It reiterated its apology for the delays the resident had experienced and noted that “having discussed the complaint with you and the above actions, you said that you felt that the above was a reasonable outcome.”
  21. On 26 February 2020, the resident queried what the timeframe for the works would be. She made further requests for an update on 3 and 5 March 2020, at which point the landlord advised her to arrange the repairs directly with its repairs team. On 10 March 2020, the resident advised that she had been unable to get through to the repairs team and requested that they call her. She made a further request for an update on 13 March 2020. On 25 March 2020, the landlord confirmed its surveyor would be attending that day. On the same date, the resident reported that the surveyor had attended, but was unaware of the background of the issues. On 26 March 2020, the landlord apologised that the surveyor had not been correctly briefed.
  22. On 7 July 2020, the landlord advised that the roof would be inspected on 9 July 2020, and that the plaster removal and subsequent redecoration would occur on 14 July 2020. On 9 July 2020, the resident reported that no one had attended to inspect the roof. She made a further request for an update regarding the roof inspection on 13 July 2020. On 14 July 2020, she advised that the replastering had been done, but it was not possible to redecorate as the plaster had not dried, and so requested that the landlord advise when this would be booked for. On 17 July 2020, she again requested an update on the roof inspection. She made further requests for updates on 20 July 2020, 24 July 2020, and 3 August 2020. On 5 August 2020, the landlord confirmed redecorating would take place between 17-19 August 2020.
  23. On the same date, the landlord advised it had ordered a ventilation system and would keep her updated about installation. On 6 August 2020, the resident requested the landlord advise which system had been ordered. She made a further request on 11 and 13 August 2020. It is not evident that the landlord replied. On 9 September 2020, the resident noted the roof inspection had still not occurred and requested that her complaint be raised to level three. The landlord replied on the same date and advised that the roof inspection would occur on 11 September 2020. On 11 September 2020, the resident reported that the roofers had not attended, and that following an inspection of the redecoration works on 26 August 2020, it was determined that they needed to be redone.
  24. It is evident that as part of the stage three complaint investigation, a ‘Resident Complaints Panel’ meeting took place on 13 October 2020. The panel made recommendations that the landlord: “draft a comprehensive plan of action and timetable to resolve all the outstanding issues”; “considers the request by [the resident] for the lease extension at no cost in recognition of the distress, time and financial costs they have incurred”; “consider financial compensation [to the resident] for their organisation’s failures in this case.” It is not evident that these recommendations are binding on the landlord.
  25. The landlord provided its stage three response on 26 October 2020. It apologised for the “unnecessary and lengthy delays” the resident had experienced. It noted that the extractor fan had now been installed, and that the replastering of the walls had been completed. Regarding redecoration and any necessary roof repairs, it advised its repairs team were arranging these and would provide a date in due course. It also advised it would review the failings with its complaints handling in order to improve its service. It noted the resident’s position that she wanted a lease extension as compensation but advised “the cost of this would be prohibitive and would not resolve the problems you have been experiencing.” Instead, it offered the resident a new central heating system “as means of compensation and hopefully long-term resolution to the damp and condensation issues.”
  26. The resident replied to the landlord’s stage three response on 3 November 2020. She queried what costs the landlord would incur in granting a lease extension, and also advised that she did not consider the landlord’s offer of a heating system to compensate her for the stress and anxiety she had experienced, or the costs she had incurred in chasing her complaint, which she calculated to be “somewhere between £4500 – £5000.” The landlord replied on 17 November 2020 and advised that it would be unable to consider a lease extension as it was “responsible for integrity of public funds,” and waiving that cost would “involve the waiver of a significant amount of public monies.” It also noted that the approximate costs of the installation of the heating system it was offering as compensation “would be between £4,500 – £5,500.” On 15 December 2020, the resident requested a breakdown of how the landlord reached this figure, however, the landlord subsequently advised it was unable to provide a breakdown due to “commercial sensitivity” between it and its suppliers.
  27. It is evident that the landlord subsequently made an offer of £5,371.63 in lieu of the heating system. On 25 February 2021, the resident advised the landlord that she would accept its offer of compensation, but that her acceptance did not indicate that the complaint was resolved and that she still wished for this service to determine her complaint. The landlord subsequently confirmed its agreement and the resident confirmed receipt of the compensation funds on 4 March 2021.
  28. It is evident from the communications between the parties that the landlord carried out the roof works and some decoration work to the property between November 2020 and January 2021. On 18 January 2021, the resident reported that the decoration works were not satisfactory and on 19 January 2021, the landlord advised it would reattend to rectify the defects. The landlord initially advised it would attend on 10 March 2021, however, it subsequently cancelled this appointment. It is not evident why the appointment was cancelled.
  29. The resident has advised this service that following the repair works to the roof, she no longer experienced issues with damp at her property. She has also advised that the landlord’s roof repair contractors informed her that the leaks to the roof were likely the cause of the damp, and not condensation. The roof repair contractor also advised they had noted this in a report to the landlord, however, on 12 February 2021 the landlord advised that it did not have a copy of the report and would be unable to obtain one as it no longer used the roof repair contractor. The resident has also advised this service that the decoration rectification works remain outstanding and are currently booked in for the end of June 2021.

Assessment and findings

Damp

  1. It is not disputed that the landlord is responsible for arranging repair works relating to roof leaks. The landlord’s repairs policy notes that it considers minor roof leaks to be ‘routine’ repairs and that it will attend to such repairs within 20 business days. The Ombudsman understands that in practice, given the complexity of some roof repairs, the amount of time it takes to arrange for an initial inspection, scaffolding, and subsequent repairs can exceed 20 working days, however, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep the resident informed at each stage of any works and provide the expected timeframes for completion of the works in such instances.
  2. It is evident that the resident has made reports of similar issues prior to her most recent complaint, and that the landlord has previously carried out remedial works. It is also evident that following her report in February 2018, there were communications between the parties which have not been provided to this service. While it was appropriate that the landlord arranged for its structural surveyor to assess the resident’s reports of damp and mould in November 2018, it is not evident that it subsequently advised the resident of the outcome of its assessment, or its position on any required further works, resulting in the resident’s time and effort in having to chase up a response.
  3. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 18 November 2018, the landlord appropriately informed the resident within the timeframes of its repairs policy that it would arrange a further investigation of what works were required. It would have been helpful to the resident had it set out its proposed timeframe to carry out the further assessment, which it did not do in this instance, resulting in the resident having to chase this up multiple times. The landlord subsequently explained that it had been unable to book the works due to “staff redundancies,” however, in such instances the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to keep the resident informed that there would be delays to the works, which it did not do.
  4. It is evident that the landlord’s response on 5 December 2018 noted that the external works should be completed prior to the internal works, which the resident reminded the landlord of in her communication on 10 December 2018. While it was appropriate that the landlord set out a timeline for the internal works in its communication on 13 December 2018, given that it had informed the resident it was unable to complete the external works within that timeframe, this would have caused confusion for the resident that the internal works were still going ahead, resulting in her having to chase up an explanation from the landlord on 13 and 18 December 2018, prior to it then cancelling the internal works.
  5. Following the resident’s further communication on 27 December 2018, the landlord appropriately set out the works it would complete and that it would shortly provide dates for when the works would be carried out, however, it is not evident that it provided any dates, resulting in additional time and trouble for the resident in having to chase updates on two further occasions. While it appropriately provided an update on 18 March 2019 and provided a specific date for the works to commence, it is not evident why there was such a delay, nor why it did not provide the resident with updates prior to arranging the date.
  6. Following the resident’s reports of issues in her third bedroom, given that the landlord was already carrying out external works to the property, it was reasonable that it advised it should complete these prior to carrying out any internal works to the third bedroom. The resident has also expressed her dissatisfaction that the landlord booked in the replastering works and redecoration works to occur in the same period, whereas she considers the landlord should have been aware the plaster would need to dry first. While this turned out to be the case, given that the landlord did not know the extent of the plastering works or redecoration required until after work had begun, it was reasonable for it to have initially only booked a single period of works in April 2019.
  7. Having advised the landlord that a further appointment was required for the redecoration works, it is not evident that the landlord subsequently arranged these or provided any update regarding works to the third bedroom. It is also evident that the resident attempted to call the landlord in May 2019, at the landlord’s request, but was unable to arrange a meeting to discuss the issues further. Given the significant delay between initially reporting the issues, and the multiple delays to her request for updates, it was therefore understandable that she commenced a disrepair claim.
  8. It is not disputed that on 15 May 2019, the landlord’s repair team made an unannounced visit, which left a hole in the resident’s wall. It is not evident that the landlord explained the purpose of the visit at the time. The resident subsequently made three requests for updates before again being advised by the landlord that it had staff shortages causing delays to its service. While staff shortages may have meant it was unable to reattend and fix the hole, as requested by the resident, the Ombudsman would still expect a landlord to provide a written update or give an expected timeline.
  9. Following the conclusions of the joint independent surveyor that the damp was caused by condensation and following the resident’s further reports of damp issues in November 2019, along with her concerns that the initial report may have been inaccurate, it was reasonable that the landlord offered to contribute 50% to a further independent report carried out in the winter. Given that the surveyor was independent, it was reasonable that the landlord suggested them for the proposed new report, and while the resident expressed concern at this choice, it is not evident she proposed any alternative surveyors for the landlord to consider.
  10. Given that the joint surveyor concluded the issue was caused by condensation, and that he had made recommendations for the alleviation of the issue which had not yet been implemented, it was reasonable that the landlord did not carry out any further investigations itself following the resident’s further reports in November 2019, and it was reasonable that it gave a deadline for acceptance of its offer to contribute to a further report. Following the expiry of that deadline, it was also appropriate that the landlord advised it would consider the results of any further report the resident wished to arrange.
  11. Following its commitment to carry out the proposed remedial works recommended by the independent surveyor by way of compensation in its stage two response, it is not evident that the landlord set out a timeframe for completion of the works, which caused the resident additional time and trouble in chasing up the issue, which she did on 26 February 2020, 3 March 2020, and 5 March 2020. Following the landlord’s request that the resident contact its repairs team directly, it is evident the resident was unable to do so, and the landlord did not respond to her for two weeks following her request that it arrange for the repair team to call her, causing her further distress and uncertainty about the resolution of her complaint. It is also evident that the landlord did not correctly brief its surveyor, for which it appropriately apologised.
  12. Following its stage two response, the landlord appropriately gave timeframes for its roof inspection and replastering/redecoration on 7 July 2020, however, it is not evident why there was such a significant delay to the works or to its communication. Following the resident’s reports that the roof inspection did not go ahead, and that the plaster needed to dry prior to the redecoration works, the resident made seven requests for an update between 9 July 2020 and 3 August 2020 prior to the landlord responding. This delay in responding caused significant time and trouble for the resident in having to repeatedly chase up the issue. While the landlord appropriately provided an update regarding the redecoration, and also the ventilation system, it did not respond to her request for an update regarding the roof, leading to her having to make three further requests for an update, and ultimately for her to raise her complaint to level three.
  13. The landlord appropriately confirmed in its stage three response the work it had carried out and also outlined the works yet to be completed, however, it once again did not set out a timeframe for the remaining works to be completed. While the landlord appropriately responded immediately to the resident’s reports that its subsequent redecoration works were unsatisfactory, and it appropriately advised the date on which they had been rebooked for, it is not evident why it subsequently cancelled that appointment. It has, however, appropriately advised the resident the timeframe for the works to now be completed, although it is not evident that the landlord has explained to the resident why there was such a significant delay between the cancelled booking in March 2021 and the new booking in June 2021.
  14. While the resident has expressed her concerns that the causes to the damp experienced in her bedroom was the ingress of water from the roof, and that the roofing contractor had confirmed the same, it is not evident that the roofing contractor was instructed to make such a report by the landlord, nor is it evident that the roofing contractor was qualified to make such an assessment. Given that the landlord confirmed it did not hold such a report, it was reasonable that it did not reconsider the cause of the damp. Additionally, the resident has expressed her concerns that she has incurred costs in having to replace items of furniture in the property, however, while the resident may dispute the accuracy of the independent surveyor’s report, given that it found that the damp was caused by condensation, it is not evident that the landlord is responsible for the replacement of these items, and so it was reasonable it did not address this in its formal responses. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident reported to the landlord that she considered that the damp had made one of the bedrooms unusable. While it is not evident this was the case, it is not evident that the landlord responded to this report, or that it subsequently investigated it, which would have caused additional distress to the resident.
  15. It is evident that throughout the period of the complaint, there were significant delays to the works carried out by the landlord, as well as significant delays to its communication, causing an extended period of distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as causing her a great deal of time and trouble in having to chase up responses from the landlord. It is appropriate therefore that the landlord has apologised for these delays and that it offered an amount of compensation to remedy its maladministration. While the landlord’s formal responses and other communications do not provide a breakdown of how its offer of compensation was calculated, or how it is split across the complaints for the works and for its complaints handling, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the works offered in its stage two response, as well as the financial amount offered in February 2021, amount to reasonable redress for both complaints. The Ombudsman further notes that had the landlord not offered this compensation, a finding of maladministration would have been made in relation to this part of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy notes that it will respond to complaints within 10 days. Following the resident’s formal complaint on 18 November 2018, the landlord appropriately acknowledged the complaint on 19 November 2018. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it is reasonable for a landlord to request to investigate a complaint further prior to providing a formal response. It was therefore reasonable that the landlord arranged for a further inspection on 5 December 2018. It was also appropriate that it acknowledged there had been delays following the resident’s initial reports and that it advised her that it would use this case to improve its service in the future. The landlord did not, however, provide an update to when it expected to provide its formal response, or if the response on 5 December 2018 was to be considered a formal response. This would have left the resident confused about what stage her complaint was at, leading to subsequently her requesting this information. While the parties continued to correspond about the works, it is not evident that the landlord advised at any point when she would receive a stage one response.
  2. On 18 March 2019, the landlord appropriately apologised for its delays. Given that the resident had enquired at what stage her complaint was at, it was appropriate that the landlord advised its complaints team would provide an update, and on 20 March 2020, the landlord also appropriately advised the resident she could request an escalation to stage two should she be dissatisfied with its response. The Ombudsman considers it best practice for formal responses under a landlord’s internal complaints process to be identified as such and include information on how to escalate the complaint. It is not evident whether any of the landlord’s communications were intended to be a formal response, which caused confusion for the resident about how her complaint was being handled, as well as time and trouble in having to chase it up.
  3. It is evident that the landlord was aware that the resident wished for her complaint to be escalated following correspondence from this service on 2 April 2019, however, it is not evident it provided an acknowledgement to the resident at this time. The resident additionally advised that she wished for the issues in her third bedroom to be considered a separate formal complaint, however, given that the landlord had previously advised it would inspect these issues as part of the works it had proposed, it was reasonable for it to advise on 8 April 2019 that it would consider all “all your concerns in one.” It did not, however, provide any timeframe for it to issue its response, which again would have caused confusion for the resident about how her complaint was being dealt with, leading to her chasing it up on 10 April 2019. At this point, the landlord appropriately confirmed it had escalated the complaint, and that it would respond within 10 days. Contrary to its previous position, it also advised the resident it would treat the complaint about the third bedroom as a separate stage one complaint, however, it did not provide a timeframe for this response, which again would have caused confusion for the resident about how this complaint was being handled.
  4. The resident chased up formal responses for both complaints on 15 and 25 April 2019. The landlord appropriately apologised for the delay to its formal responses on 1 May 2019 and, while this update was unreasonably delayed, its subsequent advice that it needed to further investigate the issues prior to responding was reasonable. While it was reasonable for the landlord to also request a face-to-face discussion, given the continued delays to both responses, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have ensured such a meeting was arranged, however, it is not evident that it sought to contact the resident to arrange this, and it is evident the resident was unable to contact the landlord to do so. This would have caused further distress to the resident and additional time and trouble in attempting to arrange the meeting.
  5. While it is evident that the resident wished for this service to investigate the landlord’s complaints handling, it is not evident that the resident made a formal complaint directly to the landlord regarding its complaints handling. There is subsequently some confusion between the parties as to what complaints remained open, with the resident referring to two complaints and noting she considered her complaint about the works and the landlord’s complaints handling to be separate. The landlord subsequently noted on 21 January 2020 that following the conclusion of her disrepair claim it would “revert back to your … complaint that was put on hold whilst we dealt with the disrepair.” It is evident that the outcome of the disrepair claim was connected to the resident’s initial complaint, and it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have postponed a formal response, however, it is not evident that it informed the resident that it would be postponing the complaint response for this period. Additionally, having agreed to return to the resident’s formal complaint, the landlord did not give a timeframe in which it would provide a response, which would have caused her distress and confusion as to how her complaint was being handled. While it was appropriate that the landlord advised on 29 January 2020 that it would provide responses within a week, it is not evident it did so, causing the resident further time and trouble in chasing it up again on 11 February 2020.
  6. The Ombudsman considers effective record keeping is an essential part of a landlord’s service delivery, especially in the context of complaints handling, and so the landlord’s response that it did not have accurate records of the resident’s open complaints demonstrates a failure in its record keeping. The Ombudsman notes, however, that the resident subsequently advised that she considered her two open complaints to relate to her two front bedrooms, and her third bedroom, and not to the landlord’s complaints handling. Given that it had previously investigated both these issues, it was reasonable for it to advise it would respond to both complaints in the same stage two response.
  7. The landlord appropriately apologised to the resident for delays to its works in its stage two response. It also appropriately highlighted the reason for some of the delays, being that it had a shortage of staff. Given that it had accepted it had failed to carry out the decoration works following the works done after the resident’s initial reports, and that it accepted there had been other delays, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have given its position on any compensation. While it is evident that it agreed to carry out the works recommended by the independent surveyor as a form of compensation, it would have been helpful to the resident if it had specifically outlined this position, which it did not do.
  8. Following the resident’s request for an escalation to stage three, it is evident that a resident’s panel was arranged, which subsequently made a number of recommendations. In its stage three response, the landlord appropriately acknowledged that the resident’s request that it grant a lease extension at no cost to the resident, as recommended by the resident’s panel. It is not evident that the recommendations of the resident’s panel are binding on the landlord and its subsequent position that it was unable to do so given it was responsible for public funds and that the granting of the lease extension would waive income for the public, was reasonable.
  9. The resident’s panel also recommended that the landlord provide “financial” compensation. It is evident that the landlord’s offer of gifting a heating system was intended to constitute further compensation for its service failure, however, while not binding on the landlord, it would have been helpful for the resident if it had given its position on why it was choosing to do so over offering financial compensation, as recommended by the resident’s panel, which it did not do. Following the resident’s rejection of the offer of the heating system, the landlord appropriately made a financial offer of compensation in its communication in February 2021.
  10. The Ombudsman notes the resident’s position that she considers the delay in the landlord’s investigation of the issue following her initial reports and complaint has caused her loss in that she was not in a position to assess whether to extend her lease at that time due to the uncertainty of the cause of the damp. Subsequently, the cost to extend her lease has now increased. It is not certain, however, that the resident would have extended her lease had the landlord identified the cause of the damp earlier. The landlord’s decision not to consider this in its formal response in relation to any compensation was therefore reasonable.
  11. It is evident that throughout the period of the complaint, there were significant delays to the landlord’s formal responses, confusion about which complaints the landlord was investigating, as well as significant delays to its communication, causing an extended period of distress and inconvenience to the resident as well as causing her time and trouble in having to chase up responses from the landlord. It is appropriate therefore that the landlord has apologised for these delays and that it reassured her that it was reassessing its internal complaints handling procedure based on the guidelines published by this service. It was also appropriate that it offered an amount of compensation to remedy its maladministration. As with above, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the works offered in its stage two response, as well as the financial amount offered in February 2021, amount to reasonable redress for both complaints. Additionally, as with above, the Ombudsman further notes that had the landlord not offered this compensation, a finding of maladministration would have been made in relation to this part of the complaint.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 55(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord for its maladministration in respect of the complaints regarding its:
    1. response to the resident’s reports about damp occurring in the bedrooms at her property;
    2. complaints handling.

Reasons

Damp

  1. While it was appropriate that at varies points during the complaint the landlord sought to investigate the issues and subsequently arrange necessary works, it is evident that its communication was often significantly delayed, and that it often failed to set out timelines for completion of works. Additionally, having identified works, such as the redecoration works following works to the plaster, it is evident that the landlord did not return to complete these works or respond to the resident’s requests for updates.
  2. Additionally, while it was appropriate that the landlord offered to complete the works recommended by the independent surveyor following the disrepair claim as part of the compensation offered in its stage two response, it subsequently also failed to provide timelines for completion of the work or respond to the resident’s requests for updates within reasonable timeframes.
  3. Given its significant delays, the landlord appropriately offered its apologies and while it is unclear why it did not make an offer of financial compensation in its stage three response following the resident panel’s recommendations, it was appropriate that it subsequently made a financial offer, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress of the complaint.

Complaints handling

  1. Similarly, the landlord’s formal complaint’s responses were significantly delayed, as were its communications with the resident throughout the complaint. It is evident that it did not correctly record the resident’s second complaint regarding the third bedroom leading to confusion and further delay to its stage two response. As with above, it was appropriate that it apologised for its maladministration, and that it ultimately made an offer of compensation, which in the Ombudsman’s opinion, amounted to reasonable redress of the complaint.

 

Recommendations

  1. The landlord to ensure the remedial decoration works are completed by the end of June 2021 and that the resident is informed of any changes to this timescale.
  2. The landlord to share this determination report with any relevant staff involved in its complaints handling, paying particular attention to the Ombudsman’s comments in paragraph 62, and ensure that all future complaints are handled in line with the Complaint Handling Code.