Camden Council (202005428)
REPORT
COMPLAINT 202005428
Camden Council
11 August 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.
a. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to the resident’s boiler and radiator pipe.
b. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to a water leak in the resident’s kitchen, mould and bad odours in the resident’s property.
d. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to void works in the resident’s property.
e. The landlord’s complaint handling.
Background and summary of events
2. The resident occupied his property under a secure tenancy with the landlord. It is a converted one-bedroom flat on the first floor of a building, with a flat below. The tenancy began on 11 November 2019. The resident had a number of vulnerabilities, including physical and mental health issues.
The legal and policy framework
3. The resident’s tenancy agreement provided that the landlord should keep in repair and proper working order the services supplying water,# gas, electricity, sanitation, and space and water heating; and appliances for delivering these services which it had installed. These obligations broadly reflect the landlord’s obligations under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
4. If the landlord required access very urgently, and either the tenant did not agree, or it could not contact the tenant, the landlord had the right to force entry without a court order. Examples included when there was a serious leak of water from the tenant’s home, or it urgently needed to repair something that posed a health and safety risk to the tenant or their neighbours.
5. Section 9a of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 implies into the tenancy agreement the obligation on the landlord that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to repair, and freedom from damp.
6. According to the landlord, the repairs policy was in the form of a service booklet which contained links to the landlord’s website, and references to other documents.
a. It stated that it was not responsible for fixtures and fittings including furniture, carpets, clothing and recommended that the resident should take out insurance. It offered a low-cost, “pay–as–you–go” home contents insurance policy that residents could apply for.
b. It considered that decorations were the responsibility of the resident, for example where there was a leak from a property above.
c. Timescales in relation to responsive repairs were as follows:-
- One hour or the same day for emergencies where there was immediate or ‘real’ danger to people or possessions.
- Three working days for urgent repairs under the statutory “Right to Repair” scheme, otherwise as per that scheme. This would include total or partial loss of space or water heating between 1 November and 1 April.
- Five working days for “urgent” issues, i.e. that would cause significant nuisance.
- 20 working days for “routine” repairs (not an emergency or urgent) or repairs.
- The timescale for programmed or complex works would be by agreement. This included renewals of items in the home, such as kitchen units.
d. To new tenants, the landlord promised that it ensured that all its homes were in good condition, secure, safe and complied with legal requirements before the tenant moved in. It set out that it would check the electrical supply and gas. It would test the plumbing and water system for leaks. The property would be cleaned.
7. The complaints policy stated that the response time for a stage one response was 10 working days and the response time at stage two was 25 working days.
Chronology
8. On 12 and 14 June 2019, the landlord carried out void works and checks as follows:-
a. Gas check and Gas Safety Certificate.(GSC)
b. Energy Performance Certificate.
c. Electrical checks.
d. Installations check report (including confirmation of the installation of various safety alarms).
9. In relation to those checks, according to the landlord’s internal emails of 5 May 2020, its standard procedure was that when the property was vacated (or “void”), a gas engineer would visit to test the system and cap off the gas. When a tenant moved in, an engineer would return to recommission the boiler. The GSC showed that the boiler was fully functional, and no issues were highlighted at the time of decommissioning.
10. The resident moved in on 11 November 2019. On 29 November 2019, the resident reported that his boiler was defective and that he had no heating or hot water. The contractor attended a number of times but was not given access until 4 December 2019. It identified that the boiler was defective, vermin waste was detected, and that a survey was required. The boiler was left in working order but it was agreed that a new boiler would be installed. A survey was carried out on 6 December 2019 and a new boiler was fitted on 10 December 2019. On 25 December 2019, the contractor re-attended and re-pressurised the system. It carried out works to the radiator, which according to the landlord’s records, was left in working order. The following day (Boxing Day), the contractor attended again and identified that a new pump was required and that there was a leak in a heating pipe in the bathroom. The contractor drained the system on 30 December 2019, and carried out other repairs. The contractor also drained and repaired leaking pipework in the toilet, which, according to the landlord’s records, it left in working order. The resident arranged for an independent engineer to carry out a joint visit with the contractor on 3 January 2020, at which engineer approved the works.
11. On 27 February 2020, the resident made a complaint to the landlord as follows:
a. He wanted to know the reason why the boiler was faulty and there was a leaking radiator pipe in the bathroom that had not been dealt with under the void works.
b. It took approximately six weeks to 26 December 2019 to undertake the repairs.
12. On 18 March 2020, the landlord sent its first stage response to the resident’s complaint as follows:
a. It set out a detailed chronology of events. The first report was on 29 November 2019, and the final works were carried out on 30 December 2019, and included remedying the leak in a radiator. It was checked by an independent engineer arranged by the local authority on 3 January 2020.
b. It upheld the complaint on the basis that services were interrupted intermittently during the period, but that there were not any delays from the contractor.
c. It awarded £25 compensation and advised the resident to apply for a heating rebate via his local authority online account.
13. On 23 March 2020, according to the landlord’s records, the resident requested to escalate the complaint. He did not receive a reply and wrote again on 7 April 2020 stating that :
a. He was unhappy with the level of compensation on the basis he was owed more than for a 6-week period without heating and hot water.
b. He had been unable to apply for a heating rebate through the local authority as it was not his supplier.
c. The complaint response had not addressed why the voids team had approved a boiler that was not fit for use, nor had it remedied the bathroom pipe.
d. The number of appointments to resolve this matter was excessive and the repairs should have been resolved sooner.
14. On 12 May 2020, the resident reported that the empty flat below was leaking green water and had been for weeks. He also reported that all the pipes under the kitchen sink in his property were in poor condition.
15. On 14 May 2020, the landlord provided its further complaint response as follows:
a. It noted that the resident had been unable to apply for a heating rebate through the Council as he had a different supplier to the landlord.
b. It provided the GSC and gas flue analyser photo dated 12th June 2019. Whilst the property was void, a gas engineer visited to test the system and cap off the gas. The engineer returned to recommission, the boiler was fully functional, and no issues were highlighted at the time of decommission in June 2019. However, it appeared that the boiler had stopped working by the time the resident had moved into the property and started using it.
c. The central heating pipe in the bathroom was not leaking when the void property was handed back by the previous tenant to the landlord. The leak occurred at a later stage. It was an existing installation, and the pipes were all painted. It stated that copper pipes do burst or leak either through corrosion due to the age, welded joints, movement or a combination of those. It was a slow leak, which can be difficult to detect at the early stages.
d. It empathised with the resident and apologised for the inconvenience and distress this situation had caused. While, once a change of boiler was deemed necessary, it was dealt with promptly, it accepted the length of time this process had taken. It also accepted the contractor had initially advised only two or three visits would be needed to resolve the boiler issue but there were many more visits, and the operatives did not always keep him updated or informed. It accepted that the contractor could have communicated more effectively at this time. It partially upheld the complaint.
e. It accepted it was important to ensure void properties were brought up to a lettable standard and had a quick turnaround time
f. It would take steps to ensure it would improve communication, meet tenants’ expectations, and improve resident satisfaction.
g. It apologised for the inconvenience and distress caused.
h. It awarded a total of £200 (in addition to the £25 awarded) under its compensation policy:
- £50, calculated at a rate of £1.20 per day, for loss of heating and hot water.
- £100 for the resident’s distress.
- £50 for the resident’s time and trouble.
16. According to the resident’s emails, an on-site meeting took place on 20 May 2020 with the housing officer, void and repairs officers. Also, according to the resident’s emails, works were agreed to be carried out in relation to the radiators and bathroom sink. The landlord has not provided this service with its notes of that meeting.
17. On 5 June 2020, the resident made a fresh complaint to the landlord regarding there being outstanding repairs eight months into his tenancy as follows:
a. Radiators were to be measured and fitted.
b. The front room radiator was turned off due to it leaking and swelling up floor tiles.
c. The bathroom sink still needed to be replaced.
18. On 24 July 2020, the resident submitted a further complaint as follows:
a. He suffered a major water leak in the kitchen with water pouring out of walls. This caused damaged into the property below as a result of which the property below was “emanating an unhealthy stench” into his kitchen which was impacting on his health. He had concerns about food safety.
19. On 29 July 2020, the landlord wrote to state that the repairs team would be dealing with the repair issues that had been reported as a priority.
20. On 9 August 2020, the landlord wrote to the resident in response to his complaint that the heating issues had been responded to already, and it was looking into the other issues. It explained that the reason for the delay was it needed to speak to the correct team. It expected to respond on 25 August 2020.
21. The resident wrote several emails in August outlining his concerns about the health hazards of the property below, the malodours in his flat and its effect on his health, and chasing repairs.
22. The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 September 2020 to say it was investigating the flat below, together with investigating works to clean/sort out any issues in the property. It would investigate what works were carried out under the void works, and would compare these to the more recent works, and consider whether it would offer compensation or an equivalent.
23. On 2 September 2020, the resident replied noting that the landlord had been gathering information since 24 July 2020. In terms of outstanding repairs, he was awaiting, as promised in May 2020:-
a. A replacement of the bathroom sink, as agreed in May 2020.
b. All radiators to be replaced.
24. He also reported on his health issues. In a further email of the same day, he stated that his rent should be stopped, and compensation paid in addition in relation to his stress.
25. On 7 September 2020, the landlord wrote stating that it would ensure he received confirmation as to who within the repairs team was investigating matters.
26. On 11 September 2020, the resident chased the complaint response and noted it was already eight weeks late.
27. On 13 September 2020, the resident informed the landlord that he had been taken to hospital the week before by an ambulance due to suffering chest pains and breathing difficulties that he blamed on the “toxic fumes”.
28. The resident chased the repairs again on 14 September 2020.
29. On the same day, the landlord wrote to the resident stating it was carrying out the necessary investigation to have the property downstairs cleaned and would update him. It also stated that it had the details of the works carried out by the void contractors. The next steps were to establish whether those works should have been picked up when the property was vacant. It was considering a possible rent rebate for this period. The replacement wash hand basin had been booked for that week. It extended the response dates for the complaints to 28 September 2020.
30. On 25 September 2020, the landlord responded to the complaint regarding the damp and issues with repairs to his neighbouring property, as follows:
a. It was limited as to what information it could share, but it had obtained possession of the property below, and was currently carrying out clearance works on 24 and 25 September 2020.
b. It apologised for the delays in sorting out the condition of the flat below.
c. It partially upheld the complaint.
d. The delay to carrying out the repairs to the flat downstairs was due to circumstances beyond its control.
31. On the same day, it also wrote with its response to the complaint relating to the works carried out prior to and since the resident moved into the property.
a. It had carried out void works to this property between May and July 2019. The property was post–inspected and the works were passed. It had attended and resolved these repairs within its agreed timescales. When it inspected a void property, it carried out general visual checks to the fixtures and fittings. It had carried out electrical & gas checks. It had taken “all reasonable steps” to identify any repairs or maintenance issues. Some minor repairs might only be identified when a property is occupied and through daily use by the tenants. It addressed the lack of heating. It partially upheld the resident’s complaint. It apologised that there were some “minor” repairs since he had moved. It apologised for the issues with the heating, the neighbouring property and these repairs had caused the resident time and trouble. It had resolved all the repairs that had been reported.
32. On 1 October 2020, the resident replied that he was dissatisfied with its overall response to the property conditions.
a. The property below was left to cause serious black mould which he had been told by a surveyor was dangerous to health.
b. He had been in hospital on two separate occasions due to the fumes.
c. The fumes or toxicity had penetrated his property and contents.
33. On a date in October 2020, there is no evidence of the exact date, the resident moves out of the property to temporary accommodation provided by the homelessness team of the local authority until 28 December 2020
34. On 3 November 2020, the landlord sent its “Stage Two” complaint response. It summarised the complaints as follows:
a. Continuous problems with repairs since the resident moved in.
b. The damp and mould from the downstairs flat had caused health problems, due to mould spores entering his home. There had been a strong smell affecting most of the flat. He no longer felt able to live at the property.
c. The property was not suitably ready to move into.
d. It noted that to date:
- It had awarded compensation of £225 in relation to the heating at the property.
- Repairs had been carried out.
- The cause of damp at the property downstairs had been resolved.
e. Its response was as follows:
- It upheld the complaint and apologised.
- It also awarded £450 in compensation to reflect the condition of the flat below and the time taken to address the causes of dampness and the effect on his own living conditions as follows:-
(1) £300 for failing to address the effects of the damp in the flat.
(2) £150 for the distress caused.
f. It would seek confirmation that a chemical wash of the wall in the flat below had taken place to remove any mould spores.
g. It advised him to contact its housing needs service in relation to a move to another property.
35. The landlord wrote again on 5 November 2020 to deal with further issues as follows:
a. Any claim for damage to the resident’s carpet, or other household items, would need to be considered via an insurance claim. It offered its public liability claim form as an alternative. Liability would be considered by an insurance professional and not via the complaints process.
b. It could not assess the resident’s report that the conditions at his home had affected his health. It invited the resident to provide evidence and to seek advice.
c. Finally, if his home were unfit or unsafe for habitation, it would have be considered by its housing services to be given assurance that the property was safe, or he should be rehoused as appropriate.
36. The landlord’s evidence showed that all the works to the flat below had been carried out and checked by 9 November 2020.
37. The report of 4 December 2020 stated that:
a. The test results showed unexceptional levels of air content (such as gases).
b. The property was not significantly influenced by any fungal environment in the below property.
c. The indoor air quality was slightly poor, due to lack of ventilation. It recommended that an openable window and vent be opened to allow passive airflow. Any carbon dioxide build up in the property could affect the resident adversely.
d. It also recommended as follows:
- Installing a ventilation system.
- Keeping the property warm and over winter.
- As these recommendations could be contradictory, it recommended a specific system on the market.
38. On 4 December 2020, the landlord summarised the findings of the inspection by an air-quality expert and added:
a. It recommended that the resident should ventilate his flat by opening the windows.
b. The flat below had been fully professionally cleaned and decorated.
c. His case had been recently reviewed at the local authority’s vulnerability panel who considered the medical information provided by the resident’s GP, and the repairs history. The panel was satisfied with the actions taken by the landlord. In the circumstances, a management transfer was not an option because the property was considered to be habitable and safe. The resident also had the option of applying through the housing register.
39. On 15 December 2020, a damp survey was carried out. It showed:
a. There was no evidence of surface mould,
b. Moisture was within acceptable parameters,
c. It made specific recommendation regarding a ventilation system and advice to the resident including:-.
- Balanced use of existing heating and ventilation, in particular during and after use of the bath or shower, cooking etc.
- If possible, clothes should be dried in a vented drier and not on radiators or airers.
- Windows should be opened where possible to assist in general air movement around the property.
- Windows should be opened on a regular basis and extractor fans operated continuously.
40. The resident has informed this service that there was no visual mould in the property.
41. The resident’s housing needs were assessed by the housing department and concluded as a result of the above that it did not owe a duty on the basis the property was unreasonable to occupy. His temporary accommodation would end 28 December 2020.
Assessment and findings
42. The Ombudsman notes that there have been delays and gaps in the provision of records by the landlord. The Ombudsman can only base its decisions on the documentary evidence provided to it by the parties and there is an expectation that the landlord, as the professional organisation with resources available to it, should be in a position to provide adequate evidence of its actions. Good record keeping is vital in order to maintain a record of its actions. It is also important in instilling confidence in the landlord and in its managements systems and information. The landlord should therefore take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate, including retaining and having access to previous and existing policies, and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
43. If the repairs booklet constitutes the landlord’s repairs policy, it is not comprehensive. Its statement that it bore no responsibility for damage to the resident’s possessions was not in the Ombudsman’s opinion, appropriate a) because there are occasions when the landlord is at fault the landlord would be liable for compensation. While it is reasonable for the landlord to advise residents to obtain insurance (and it is commendable the landlord has set up an affordable ‘pay as you go ‘scheme), to refer the resident to their own or its policy, there are circumstances when it is ultimately the landlord’s responsibility. To deny all liability in all circumstances is misleading. Secondly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the wording is confusing. It states that it is not responsible for the resident’s ‘fixtures and fittings’ but cites the very items that are not fixtures and fittings namely furniture, carpet and clothing.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to the resident’s boiler and radiator pipe.
44. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out a property and boiler check in June 2020 at the time the previous tenant vacated the property. It is reasonable to conclude that the boiler was working when the landlord recommissioned it, just prior to the resident moving in.
45. The landlord accepted that there was a service failure in relation to repairs to the resident’s boiler. There was some dispute as whether the lack of heating and hot water was for six weeks or longer, however the evidence shows that it was resolved by 30 December 2020. The evidence shows that a new boiler was installed within two weeks of the resident’s report, but there were some teething issues. While, as the landlord accepted, the resident’s expectations could have been managed better, the evidence indicates that numerous attendances in order to effect repairs were inevitable. Not having hot water and heating is more serious during the winter months than during the summer, a factor the landlord’s policy recognises.
46. Having broadly accepted the resident’s complaint, the landlord awarded compensation in relation to the disrepair to the boiler in the amount of £225, to address the loss of heating and hot water, together with an additional amount for the resident’s distress, time and trouble. In the circumstances, and as the landlord has acknowledged and accepted that there were service failures in this case it rests with the Housing Ombudsman to assess whether the compensation of £225 was fair and constituted reasonable redress.
47. While the Ombudsman does not award compensation as a court would, it is noted that a court would base compensation on the amount of rent the resident pays. The overall compensation offered equated to £37.50 a week which would be a reasonable proportion of a social rent. Under the Ombudsman’s own guidance on remedies, it would consider the length of time for which the resident was affected, the responsiveness of the landlord, as well as take into account the vulnerability of the resident. Given the landlord responded to the repair promptly, it attended on every call out, it replaced the boiler and apologised for the failure of the contractor to properly manage the resident’s expectations, it is the view of the Ombudsman that, while the original offer of £25 was inadequate, the final offer of compensation of £225 was reasonable in all of the above circumstances.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports in relation to a water leak in the resident’s kitchen, mould and bad odours in the resident’s property.
48. Paragraph 44 of the Scheme sets out that the Ombudsman ‘will decide how to consider and investigate complaints subject to the Scheme taking account of the evidence of service failure presented’. It is therefore for the Ombudsman to decide what issues the investigation will address. We do this with reference to the complaint brought to us by the complainant and the landlord’s complaint responses. This is done to ensure that our investigation is impartial.
49. The Ombudsman has therefore combined the two above issues into one complaint. That is because they were interlinked given that the resident’s view was that the water leak in the resident’s kitchen leaking into the property downstairs caused mould and bad odours in his own property.
50. The length of time the landlord took and the lack of substantive responses by the landlord to the resident’s reports of the leak from his flat to the flat downstairs were not reasonable or appropriate. The resident reported the leak downstairs and to the kitchen pipes on 12 May 2020. He stated that was not the first complaint. There is no evidence to the contrary. The resident reported that noxious smells, which the resident attributed to the leak, began in July/August 2020.
51. Five days following the resident’s report of 24 July 2020, the landlord promised the leak would be dealt with as a priority. The works to the downstairs flat were not carried out until the period between 25 September 2020 to 3 November 2020. The landlord’s explanation that it could not access the property below was not altogether reasonable. The tenancy conditions, which the tenant downstairs would have been subject to, provided the landlord with rights of access in an emergency. The landlord could have considered whether to gain access without the downstairs’ tenant’s agreement, given that there was a leak into the property, and the condition of the property potentially effected the health and safety of the resident. The resident was clear about the effects he felt and his concern for his safety. Furthermore, the resident had to make multiple reports to obtain a response from the landlord. It failed to communicate properly with the resident, which would have increased the frustration and distress of the resident.
53. The landlord accepted it was at fault and offered the resident £450 in compensation. Again, it falls to the Ombudsman to assess the compensation offered.
54. Part of the resident complaint was that the leaks should have been detected when the property was empty and prior to the resident moving in, given the leaks were not reported until 12 May 2020. Therefore, whilst the Ombudsman cannot conclusively say either way, it is unlikely that the leak had occurred prior to the resident moving in.
55. The Ombudsman cannot assess the extent to which a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a complainant’s physical and /or mental health. It cannot assess medical evidence and does not make findings on matters such as negligence. This would be a matter for a court to assess and consider. It can however award compensation for distress and inconvenience.
56. The Ombudsman bears in mind that the landlord paid for accommodation for the resident for a period up to 28 December 2020. Once it had provided a response to the resident on 25 September 2020, it kept the resident updated. The evidence shows that it carried out a professional clean and redecoration of the property downstairs and reinstated it to a tenantable condition.
57. It is noted that, shortly after the conclusion of the landlord’s complaints procedure, the landlord took the precaution of seeking an air quality report and a damp report in the resident’s property. The resident has reported there was no visual mould in his property. The evidence also shows that there was no mould or noxious substances in the resident’s property, but that there was insufficient ventilation. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to implement the recommendations made in that report, or provide a reasonable explanation, if, for good reason, it did not do so. The Ombudsman would also expect the landlord to share fully with the resident the expert advice provided to the resident in the report, and ensure the resident would be able to implement that advice.
58. In considering the amount of compensation offered, the Ombudsman also bears in mind the vulnerability of the resident and his distress, and the landlord’s delays from a date prior to 12 May 2020 to 4 December 2020, when poor ventilation was identified. With that in mind, when taking into consideration the steps the landlord took, the compensation of £450 was fair and reasonable in the opinion of the Ombudsman.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays in carrying out outstanding works to the bathroom sink and radiators.
59. There is no evidence from the landlord as to when the need to repairs to the bathroom sink and radiator arose. Equally, there is no evidence that any disrepair to the sink and radiators arose prior to the resident moving in.
60. There was no evidence as to when or why the landlord promised replacement radiators. The landlord has not provided any information in relation to when these works were carried out, except to say there were no outstanding repairs as at 25 September 2020. It is not disputed, however, that the works were delayed. It is reasonable to accept the resident’s account that the works were promised on 20 May 2020, if not sooner. There is no evidence to the contrary.
61. In terms of the landlord’s own repairs policy, it is reasonable to conclude that the repair to the bathroom sink would be urgent or routine (within five or twenty working days), and the replacement to the radiators would be routine or programmed (within 20 working days, or as agreed). A delay of at least four months with no explanation or management of the resident’s expectations, is not reasonable or appropriate.
62. The landlord did not specifically address the issues of the bathroom sink and radiators in its complaint response. While it is noted that the resident was not living in the flat for much of the period, which would effect the impact on the resident of these delays, he had the inconvenience of chasing the landlord in addition to the other issues he had suffered. The landlord accepted there was a service failure but did not address compensation in relation to those works. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that some compensation is payable in that regard.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s report of void works in the resident’s property
63. The resident’s complaint was that the boiler, the kitchen leak, and other issues should have been identified prior to his moving in. Other issues referred to a delay to a repair to a leaking radiator, fitting a new bathroom sink, and installing radiators.
64. The landlord accepted that the condition of the property when let was below standard, though it did not specify to what extent or what it referred to. This report has addressed the evidence of the void condition. The landlord’s explanation that issues emerge on use was reasonable.
65. It may have been helpful if the landlord had carried out some minimal fresh checks, while having regard for its resources, given that the property was empty some six months, from June 2020 to November 2020. The landlord could only vouch for the condition of the property at the time it was handed back to the landlord in June 2020. While there is no evidence whether any of the issues would have been discoverable, such a check may have been good practice, and in line with the standards set out in its repair booklet in relation to new tenants, which cited that it would ensure all of its homes were in good condition on moving in.
66. However, the landlord addressed compensation in relation to the boiler and delayed works therefore in the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation proposed covered the resident’s discomfort from the date he moved in.
The landlord’s complaint handling.
67. The landlord stated on a number of occasions throughout the complaint processes that it “partially upheld the complaint”, without always explaining its reasons. It would be reasonable for the landlord to specify in its response which parts of a complaint it upheld and which it did not.
68. While the resident’s first complaint of 27 February 2020 in relation to the boiler was dealt with at the second stage thoroughly, and within policy timescales, there was an unreasonable delay, without good explanation, to the responses to the resident’s complaint of 5 June 2020, and that of 24 July 2020. Neither of the complaints were responded to until 25 September 2020. While it responded to the resident chasing, the landlord’s sole explanation for its delays was that it needed to speak to the correct team. As the resident pointed out, that did not explain the delay.
69. While it would have been frustrating, in particular in the context of the resident’s dissatisfaction overall, this would have some but not significant impact on the resident, particularly in comparison to the service failure itself.
70. In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, there was:
a. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays in carrying out outstanding works to the bathroom sink and radiators.
b. Service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
71. In accordance with paragraph 55 of the Housing Ombudsman’s scheme, the Ombudsman determined that there was:
a. Reasonable redress in relation to landlord’s response to the resident’s boiler and radiator pipe.
b. Reasonable redress in relation to landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a water leak in the resident’s kitchen, mould and bad odours in the resident’s property.
c. Reasonable redress in relation to landlord’s response to the resident’s report of void works in the resident’s property.
Reasons
72. The works to the radiators and bathroom sink were promised on 20 May 2020, if not sooner, but there is no evidence they were carried out before 25 September 2020. A delay of at least four months, and without explanation, was a significant delay within the terms of the landlord’s own policy, and in any event.
73. The delays in the landlord’s responses to the resident’s complaints of the 5 June 2020 and of the 24 July 2020 to 25 September 2020 were inappropriate, and significantly longer than its promised timescales.
74. The landlord accepted there was a service failure in relation to the boiler and heating pipe and offered reasonable compensation.
75. While there was a significant delay in addressing the issues of the water leak into the flat below, and the issues clearly caused the resident significant distress, the landlord carried out a thorough clean to the flat below. It also paid for the resident’s accommodation for a period, it sought a damp and air quality inspection and established that the resident’s flat was safe for habitation. It also offered reasonable compensation.
76. While the landlord could have done more to assess the property was in a lettable condition, and it accepted some of the failures in relation to the void works, the was no further compensation due in addition to that offered or awarded in relation to the remedial works and boiler. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman found that the redress (compensation) offered by the landlord was reasonable.
Orders and recommendations
77. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total amount of £325 within 28 days, in addition to the amounts already offered, as follows:-
a. £250 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of delays to works to the property.
b. £75 in recognition of the delays in the landlord’s complaint handling.
78. The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident any balance due of the compensation already offered to the resident, which compensation was a total amount of £675, comprising of £225 in relation to the boiler, and £450 in relation to the water leak to the property below.
79. This brings the total amount of compensation payable to the resident by the landlord in relation to this case to a total of £1,000.
Recommendations
80. The landlord should take steps to ensure that its record keeping practices are adequate and that care is taken to provide all necessary documentation requested by the Ombudsman for its investigations.
81. The landlord should consider whether the repairs booklet is adequate as a policy. It should also consider retaining a record of its previous policies.
82. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord implement the recommendations made in the Air Quality report 4 December 2020 and subsequent damp report 15 December 2020. If it does not do so, it should provide a reasonable explanation to the resident why not.
83. The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord share fully with the resident the expert ventilation advice provided to the resident in the reports and ensure the resident has understood and is able to implement that advice.
84. The landlord should consider assisting the resident with any further insurance claim in relation to the resident’s possessions.