Bristol City Council (202009132)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202009132

Bristol City Council

25 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.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about anti-social behaviour (ASB).
2. Handling of the replacement of a boiler.
3. Response to reports of mould and the installation of ventilation fans.
4. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.
5. Response to the resident’s concerns about adaptations.
6. Decision to take legal action about a historical issue.
7. Complaints handling.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about adaptations.
Paragraph 39(a) of the Scheme says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
There is no evidence that the resident made a complaint to the landlord specifically about its response to her request for adaptations to the property. Therefore, as this matter has not been considered by the landlord under its formal complaints procedure, it is out of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 39(d) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction: the landlord’s decision to take legal action about a historical issue.
Paragraph 39(d) says that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were brought to the attention of the Ombudsman more than 12 months after exhausting the landlord’s complaints procedure. In the papers provided to this Service there is reference to the court order being made in January 2016. In its final response of August 2020, the landlord noted that this was a historical issue that had previously been investigated and therefore it would not comment further on that aspect of the complaint. This complaint therefore falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
This report will consider the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about ASB; its handling of the replacement of a boiler; its response to reports of mould and the installation of ventilation fans; its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused and complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has a secure tenancy with the landlord, which is a local authority. She lives in a two-bedroom maisonette on the third floor of a four-storey block with her adult daughter. The landlord is aware that the resident suffers from vertigo, obsessive compulsion disorder, anxiety and stress. It is also aware that the resident fractured and dislocated her kneecap in February 2020 which continues to affect her mobility. This Service understands that the resident sustained this injury when she fell off the kitchen worktop after she had opened/closed the kitchen window.
The tenancy agreement says that tenants should not “be a nuisance and cause disturbance” or “generate excessive noise” either outside or inside the building.
The local authority’s noise nuisance procedures say that it has a statutory duty to investigate complaints about issues that could be a “statutory nuisance” (a nuisance covered by the Environmental Protection Act 1990) which includes noise. It says that its neighbourhood enforcement team is responsible for investigating complaints which might constitute a statutory nuisance. It explains that not all complaints made to the neighbourhood enforcement team would be likely to constitute a statutory nuisance and therefore those complaints may not be investigated. It notes that complaints that are unlikely to be a statutory nuisance and are unlikely to be investigated included conversations or TV at a normal level and children playing. It adds that normal living noise can be disturbing to the average person when the insulation between properties is poor and in such cases the neighbourhood enforcement team would not be able to investigate.
The home choice lettings system used by the landlord is a partnership between it and other housing associations in the area. Residents can use this service to register and apply for social housing. Its website notes that the supply of social housing in the area is limited; less than 2,000 properties become available each year and over 15,000 households are registered on the home choice system. It goes on to say that, with so many more applicants than vacancies, households assessed in lower bands were unlikely to ever get an offer of accommodation.
The landlord has a two–stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 15 days; and within 20 days at stage two. There is no reference in the procedure to responding to a complaint as a service request.

Summary of events

On 8 April 2019 the resident reported no heating or hot water. The repairs log evidences that this was resolved the same day but the resident reported the same problem the next day. A further repair was carried out that day.
On 1 October 2019 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord about various issues including the landlord taking her to court for a non-faulty front door, regular breakdowns of the boiler and mould and damp issues in the bathroom. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the same day and said it would respond by 22 October 2019.
On 2 October 2019 the landlord requested a mould inspection. The repairs log noted that this should be carried out within 21 days; it took place on 27 January 2020.
On 3 October 2019 the resident reported problems with the boiler. The repairs log notes this was resolved the same day. The resident told this Service that a surveyor attended on 18 October 2019 and proposed that a new boiler was installed.
On 18 October 2019 the landlord inspected the property and subsequently asked for a further inspection by its ventilation contractor.
On 23 October 2019 the resident chased the landlord for a response. It responded later that day saying it was treating her complaint as a service request and would respond to her in due course.
On 22 December 2019 and 27 January 2020, the resident chased the landlord for a response.
The repairs log evidences that on 21 January 2020 the landlord noted that the bathroom window fan had been installed but not connected. It noted that this work should be carried out within 21 days; it also noted that the visits to carry out this repair were cancelled.
Also in January 2020, the resident reported noise from her neighbours (the neighbours). The landlord visited them in February (no date given) and asked them to keep the noise down. It noted that the neighbour apologised and agreed to try and keep the children quiet.
At the end of January 2020, the resident refused the ventilation contractor access as she did not know who they were.
On 3 February 2020 the landlord’s gas trade manager told the resident that he believed the installation of a new boiler had been arranged. He apologised that it had not been ordered.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord issued a stage one response under its formal complaints procedure. It said that a heating surveyor would visit on 2 March 2020 to carry out a survey for the installation of a new gas boiler at the property. It apologised that this work was not carried out in October 2019 following the engineer’s visit at that time. The landlord said it was unable to identify where the breakdown in communication had occurred and apologised for any inconvenience caused. It explained how she could escalate the complaint.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint saying the stage one response was late; there was mould in the bathroom; and a fan was not fitted in the bathroom. She asked for financial compensation.
The repair log noted on 3 February 2020 that the new boiler should be installed by 3 March 2020. On 2 March a heating surveyor carried out an inspection and said that the new boiler would have to be put in a bedroom.
On 16 March 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalated complaint.
On 9 April 2020 the landlord apologised to the resident that it had not responded to her open complaint that started 1 October 2019. It said that a surveyor had carried out an inspection on 18 October 2019 and works raised relating to the bathroom and damp/mould problems in the property. It said the surveyor then raised various repairs and instructed its ventilation contractor to undertake a further survey. It said it had been unable to trace whether the ventilation contractor had undertaken the requested visit. It gave an update on the work:
1. Mould treatment to the bathroom ceiling – cancelled (due to appointment not being convenient to the resident).
2. Renew the bath and tiles around it – completed.
3. Renew the sealed bathroom light unit – completed.
4. Check built in extractor in window – completed.
5. Wire up extractor fan – cancelled (due to appointment not being convenient to the resident).
The landlord asked the resident to confirm if that was correct; if it had missed any repairs and if the ventilation contractor had carried out the inspection. The landlord explained that, at that time due to the pandemic, no internal inspections or works were being undertaken apart from emergency repairs, so unless the outstanding repairs were classified as emergencies then they would be put on hold until the restrictions were lifted.
On the same day the resident told the landlord that the inspection by the ventilation contractors had not taken place as she had not been told about it; the boiler replacement was still outstanding. She asked the landlord to escalate her complaint.
On 16 and 18 April 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a response to her escalated complaint.
On 19 April the landlord told the resident that it would inspect the bathroom and a heating engineer would also visit the property to see if a solution could be found about the repositioning of the boiler. The decision was reached that the boiler did not have to be moved into a bedroom.
Meanwhile, on 14 April 2020 the resident reported noise to the landlord. She said her neighbours allowed and encouraged their children to “scream, shout, run, stamp their feet, have tantrums”. She said this happened from about 5am to 10pm daily and the only stopped when the children were out of the property. The resident said, as a result, she and her daughter were “exhausted, tired, angry, ill, moody and upset”. She provided a noise diary that spanned from 4 January to 14 April 2020.
On the same day the landlord told the resident that, if the neighbourhood enforcement team could not deal with the noise complaint, then it would be referred to the housing officer to get involved.
On 21 April 2020 the landlord responded to an enquiry about being rehoused. It explained that all rehousing transfer applications were made through the home choice lettings scheme. It explained how she could make an application and said that, as a secure tenant, she also had the option of seeking an exchange to another council or housing association property.
On 22 April 2020 the resident sent an enquiry to the housing officer asking why she would not offer her a management transfer. She said it was aware she could not open or close the kitchen window but it had refused an adaptation due to the safety of external passers-by. The housing officer responded the same day saying it was not able to offer her a property move outside of the home choice scheme as she did not have that authority. She added that, all property moves, including transfers were done via home choice. The housing officer said its allocations policy allowed for a small number of property allocations outside of the choice-based lettings system annually, these were limited and were predominantly used for homelessness cases. She added that, given there was an acute shortage of social housing in the area, the resident might wish to also explore alternative housing options such as mutual exchanges or private rentals.
With regards to the resident’s ASB case, the housing officer said that it was still open with the neighbourhood enforcement team and they should contact her directly. She added that, if that noise was deemed by them to be a statutory nuisance, then they could take further action; however, there were some instances in which no action could be taken, such as against noise made by children playing. The housing officer offered mediation; the resident turned this down saying she would prefer a move as the neighbours had not changed their behaviour.
On 23 April 2020 the resident made a formal complaint to the landlord. The complaint was about the landlord’s:
1. The landlord’s handling of ASB reports; she disputed that the noise was “just children playing”.
2. The landlord’s response to her concerns that the property was unsuitable;
3. The landlord’s handling of her request for a move; she said her current housing officer had withheld information from her.
4. Actions of her previous housing officer which she said were “unprofessional”.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint the following day and said it would respond by 15 May 2020.
On 27 April 2020 the resident completed a home choice lettings application form.
On 18 May 2020 the landlord contacted the resident asking for an update about the boiler. She responded saying the engineer had told her the boiler would be relocated on 2 March 2020.
On the same day the resident contacted the landlord as she had not received a complaint response. Among other things, she said the housing officer had done the utmost to “hide” the option of a management transfer from her.
On 22 May 2020 the landlord asked the resident for what works were outstanding at the property. She responded the same day saying the bathroom tiles and ceiling were covered in mould and that there were missing tiles in the bathroom since January 2020.
On 26 May 2020 the landlord wrote to the resident saying that, following the gas engineer’s visit, a solution had been reached with her about the positioning of the boiler. It said the mould in the bathroom would be investigated. It explained how she could escalate the complaint.
On 28 May 2020 the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. She made the following points:
1. She and her daughter had lived with a faulty boiler throughout winter and her daughter was vulnerable.
2. There had been delay in arranging the boiler replacement.
3. She had been living with mould and asbestos since they moved into the property.
4. The complaint handling had been poor.
5. She asked for compensation of £2,800.
On 8 and 22 June and 6 July 2020 the resident chased the landlord again for a complaint response.
The landlord’s contractor replaced the boiler on 8 June 2020.
The ASB case log noted on 25 June 2020 that noise from children was not a statutory nuisance and this would not be investigated.
The repairs log evidences that on 6 July 2020 the landlord noted that some tiles in the bathroom should be replaced. The time given was 21 days; it notes this should have been completed by 4 August 2020 but this work was cancelled.
On 9 July 2020 the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure. It said that the gas central heating had been replaced in the property; and that it had raised additional works following a recent surveyor’s inspection to replace several bathroom tiles as well as the sealed bathroom light fitting. It added that, following the inspection, it has been concluded there were no more outstanding repairs and the property was of a good standard with no issues relating to health and safety from a repairs perspective. It explained how the resident could escalate her complaint.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord to escalate the complaint. She said she had not received any information about a transfer to a new property.
On 2 July 2020 the resident complained that contractors had missed an appointment that day.
On the same day the resident asked the landlord about a property she had become aware of that was empty and asked if she could move in. The landlord responded on the same day saying that all properties were allocated via home choice and she could bid for the property. It added that it was unable to directly offer her that property.
On 23 July 2020 the resident chased the landlord for a final complaint response. On the following day the landlord acknowledged the escalation request and said it would respond to her by 6 August 2020.
On 25 July 2020 the landlord noted that the ASB being reported by the resident was not a statutory nuisance and therefore would not be investigated.
On 31 July 2020 the ventilation contractor carried out a survey at the property. They noted that there were mould and condensation problems in the bathroom and condensation problems in the kitchen as a result of there being no fans in either area, so moisture was being allowed to migrate to cold spots where it was condensing and causing black spot mould growth in the bathroom. They recommended that new fans should be installed in the bathroom and kitchen and that the mould should be treated in the bathroom.
On 6 August 2020 the landlord issued its final response to the resident under its formal complaint procedure. The main points were:
1. The neighbourhood enforcement team had investigated the resident’s concerns about the neighbour but had concluded that the noises could not constitute a statutory nuisance and they were therefore unable to take any action.
2. The landlord appreciated this would have been disappointing for the resident but its staff had followed the correct processes in dealing with this and it had not identified any failing.
3. Whilst the landlord said it understood the resident wanted the housing officer to deal with the issue of noise, she had acted correctly in referring the resident to the relevant team to deal with the issue. It noted that the housing officer was responsive to the resident’s communication and provided her with all the necessary information in answer to her queries.
4. The landlord understood that the resident was unhappy in the property and wished to be rehoused. It said the majority of properties were allocated through the home choice scheme and it understand that the housing officer had advised the resident it was only in rare circumstances where someone would be rehoused outside of that scheme. It said the housing officer had given correct information. It added that the Rehousing Policy Team were reviewing whether the resident’s rehousing banding would be increased from the current band 4 and would let her know.
5. Complaints about the resident’s previous housing officer (who instigated the court order in January 2016) related to historical issues that had previously been investigated and therefore it would not comment further on that aspect of the complaint.
6. Various works have been undertaken: the gas central heating had been replaced with a new gas boiler and associated pipework in the property. There had been additional works raised following a recent surveyor’s inspection – the replacement of several bathroom tiles and a sealed bathroom light fitting.
7. Following the inspection, no further repairs had been identified and the property was of a good standard, with no issues relating to health and safety from a repairs perspective. All outstanding repairs had been resolved.
8. Damp contractors had been appointed in January 2020 and had written to the resident to let her know and gave an appointment to inspect the property. The resident was not in at the time of that appointment and a further appointment was made in February 2020 and a letter sent to the resident. At that appointment the resident would not allow the contractors into the property as she said she did not know who the contractors were. Following that, pandemic restrictions were in place, causing a delay to any repair work. The landlord acknowledged that better communication between its staff would have ensured that this matter was dealt with more efficiently and that the resident would have been kept informed. It apologised for that failing which had caused frustration to her and said it had provided feedback to the relevant team.
9. The landlord understood the contractors had completed a survey on the mould in the bathroom and it would contact her about next steps.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman in error.
On 12 August 2020 the landlord told the resident that her banding for rehousing had been changed from band four to band three (a higher priority) to reflect that her mental wellbeing was being affected by her current accommodation. It added that the environmental health team had concluded that the noise from her neighbour’s property was from the children playing and, as this was not a statutory nuisance, they could not take action. However, the landlord recognised that it had impacted on her mental wellbeing and consequently it had reassessed her application into band three.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s knee injury which meant she had some difficulties mobilising within the property. It said, however, that as the injury was temporary, it had not awarded any additional priority for that. The landlord also said that it could see from the resident’s bidding history that she had mainly been bidding on houses. It added that, whilst it understood that this was her preferred property type, by restricting her search to only houses or bungalows, she was severely restricting her chances of being rehoused.
The repair log evidences that on 7 September 2020 the landlord noted that the work to be carried out by the ventilation contractor (the installation of fans in the bathroom and kitchen) should be completed by 6 October 2020. It notes this work was completed on 17 February 2021.
When the resident approached the Housing Ombudsman, she said that the ASB was “tortuous” and so loud that it disrupted her life and caused her to feel unwell. She said that, because the landlord was doing nothing to transfer her out of the property, her health was deteriorating. She said that because of her physical disability she found it difficult to use the communal areas and lifts and had to rely on her daughter and others to support her.
In relation to repairs, the resident said that, due to the faulty boiler, she did not get consistent hot water so she and her daughter had to go to her parents to bathe; that is how they had lived for quite some time as they were stuck with a boiler that only gave cold water. The resident also said that the fan that had been fitted in the bathroom made the room cold and, as a result, her heating costs had increased and the mould on the bathroom ceiling had returned. The resident also said that the landlord had not told her she could complain to the Housing Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Response to the resident’s concerns about ASB

74. It is the Ombudsman’s role to assess the appropriateness and adequacy of the landlord’s actions in responding to reports of anti-social behaviour and the fairness and reasonableness of its response to the formal complaint. This does not include establishing whether a party is responsible for anti-social behaviour; our investigation is limited to the consideration of the actions of the landlord in the context of its relevant policies/procedures as well as what was fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Ombudsman cannot tell the landlord to take action against neighbours.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s reports of ASB was reasonable by visiting the neighbour to discuss these reports; at this stage the neighbour agreed to try to reduce the noise that came from their household.
The evidence suggests that the resident kept a noise diary that she shared with the local authority’s neighbourhood enforcement team and they concluded that the noise was not a statutory nuisance. It was therefore appropriate that the landlord did not take enforcement action against the neighbour.
The landlord has a responsibility to ensure that residents live peacefully in their home without disturbance from neighbours. The landlord gave the resident an assurance that, if the neighbourhood enforcement team could not deal with the noise complaint, then the case would be referred to the housing officer to get involved; at that stage, mediation was offered.
The Ombudsman has not identified any service failure by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ASB because its actions were appropriate and it followed its procedures. However, the landlord could have been more resolution-focused in dealing with this matter and this Service has made a recommendation for the landlord to take action to look into what action it can reasonably take to try to resolve this matter.

Handling of the replacement of a boiler

The evidence shows that the landlord decided that the boiler should be replaced in October 2019. In the first stage one complaint response, the landlord acknowledged that there had been a breakdown in communication that had delayed the installation of the boiler; it apologised for any inconvenience caused.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complainant’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
Had the landlord taken action promptly, it is likely that the boiler would have been fitted sometime in the winter of 2019-2020. The landlord’s initial delay meant that action in 2020 was limited due to the lockdown caused by the pandemic; this meant the new boiler was not installed until June 2020. Accordingly, the landlord’s handling of the boiler replacement was a service failure.
This acknowledged delay by the landlord caused inconvenience and distress to the resident and her family (paragraph 57). The impact on the resident and her daughter meant that an apology alone was not a proportionate way to put the failure right. This Service has made an order for financial compensation of to reflect the approximate seven-month delay in installing the new boiler of £210. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been poor communication and delays in carrying out repairs.

Response to reports of mould and the installation of ventilation fans

The resident reported mould in the formal complaint of October 2019. The landlord responded appropriately by having a mould inspection. This should have been carried out within 21 days; the repairs log says that it took place in late January 2020. The repair log notes at this stage that the fan in the bathroom had been connected but not wired in and that this work should be completed within 21 days. In the stage one response of April 2020 the landlord said that the appointment to carry out this work had been cancelled as it was not convenient to the resident.
In the stage one response of 9 July 2020 the landlord noted that there were no outstanding repairs at the property. However, it stated it had been unable to trace whether or not the ventilation inspection had taken place (which had been prompted by the general property inspection of 18 October 2019 and was separate to the mould inspection). The resident confirmed, it had not and an inspection was arranged for the end of that month. In the final response of August 2020, the landlord acknowledged failures in communication that led to the ventilation inspection not taking place and that better communication between its staff would have ensured that this matter was dealt with more efficiently. It apologised for that failing which it acknowledged had caused frustration to the resident.
Following a survey at the end of July 2020, the work proposed by the ventilation contractor was completed in February 2021.
The landlord’s handling of the replacement of the ventilation fan was not appropriate because there was delay in carrying out the mould inspection at the end of 2019, there were failures in communication with the resident and it did not monitor whether or not the ventilation inspection had taken place. This evidently caused inconvenience to the resident. While the landlord has apologised for its communication failures, this Service considers that an apology and financial compensation is appropriate for the additional failures identified in this report which amount to a service failure.
This Service considers that the sum of £100 would be appropriate redress for inconvenience and frustration caused by the delays and failure to manage the mould inspections appropriately. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there has been delays in carrying out repairs.
The landlord has not had an opportunity to consider if financial redress is appropriate for the delay in installing the fans after the contractors proposals in July 2020 and I have made a recommendation, below, for it to do so.
When the resident contacted this Service, she said the mould had returned to the bathroom. I have made a further recommendation, below, for the landlord to investigate this further.

Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused

The landlord has taken reasonable action to inform the resident about her options for rehousing in response to her enquiries in April 2020. The landlord made it clear that management transfers were made on an exceptional basis; there is no evidence that the housing officer misled the resident or withheld information from her.
The landlord’s decision to reconsider the resident’s banding in light of her medical needs was reasonable in light of her mobility problem that started in February 2020. This was completed in August 2020. This Service has found no maladministration by the landlord in its response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Complaints handling

This report has dealt with two separate formal complaints from October 2019 and April 2020. The landlord’s complaint handling of both of those complaints was not appropriate.
The landlord acknowledged the first complaint and said it would respond by 22 October 2019. When the resident chased for a response, the landlord said it had treated this as a service request; however, there is no reference to service requests in the complaints procedure.
While the landlord did take action to try to resolve matters, it did not issue a complaint response until February 2020. This response focussed on the boiler and did not deal with other issues that the resident had raised such as its responses to the mould and damp reports. This response took almost four months rather than the 15 days set out in the formal complaints procedure. Despite the resident asking for the complaint to be escalated and again chased the landlord for a response, the landlord did not issue a stage two response. This was not appropriate.
The resident raised a second formal complaint in April 2020. The landlord acknowledged the complaint the next day and said it would respond by 15 May 2020. However, despite the resident regularly chasing the landlord in May, June and July 2020, a stage one response was not issued until 9 July 2020 – almost two months later than the timescales in its complaints procedure. The final response of 6 August 2020 was issued on time and responded to issues previously not dealt with in the first formal complaint. However, this response signposted the resident to the LGSCO, rather than the Housing Ombudsman in error.
Again, the resident’s full complaint was not addressed as the landlord did not include her concerns about its poor complaint handling. This Service has made a recommendation, below, for staff training with regards to complaint handling to ensure that all the issues in the complaint are identified and responded to as this may reduce number of complaints being escalated to stage two. This training should also include which complaints should be signposted to the LGSCO and which to the Housing Ombudsman.
The delays and omissions in the landlord’s complaint handling amount to maladministration. This evidently caused the resident a great deal of inconvenience and frustration as well as her time and trouble in dealing with the complaint. It also meant that complaints raised in October 2019 were not responded to until August 2020.
This Service considers that £150 would be appropriate redress to reflect the inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by the complaint handling failures identified in this report. This amount is also within the range of amounts that the Ombudsman can order when he has found evidence of considerable service failure or maladministration. This includes cases where there have been complaint handling failures.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the replacement of a boiler.
2. Response to reports of mould and the installation of ventilation fans.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Response to the resident’s concerns about ASB.
2. Response to the resident’s request to be rehoused.

Reasons

The landlord’s actions were appropriate. It could not take enforcement action against the neighbour as the neighbourhood enforcement team had decided there was no statutory nuisance.
There was delay by the landlord in installing a new boiler. While it offered an apology, financial compensation was appropriate for the impact this had n the resident and her daughter.
There was poor communication by the landlord as well as delays in investigating the mould issue and installing new fans.
The landlord acted appropriately in dealing with the resident’s requests for information about rehousing.
There were long delays by the landlord in dealing with the two complaints from the resident. It also failed to deal with all the complaint issues raised.

Orders

The landlord shall take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for the inconvenience caused by not monitoring whether or not the ventilation inspection had taken place in early 2020.
2. Pay the resident the sum of £460 made up of:
  1. £210 in respect of the inconvenience and distress caused by the delay in installing a new boiler.
  2. £150 in respect of the inconvenience and frustration caused by the complaint handling failures identified in this report.
  3. £100 for the inconvenience and frustration caused by the delay in resolving the mould/ventilation issues.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord take the following action:
1. Consider the resident’s recent reports of ASB and consider what action it can take to try to reduce the disturbance caused to her.
2. Consider if financial redress is appropriate for the resident for the six-month delay in installing the fans after the contractors proposals of July 2020.
3. Investigate the resident’s reports of new mould growth in the bathroom.
4. Staff training for complaint handling in respect of identifying and responding to all issues and distinguishing between complaints for the Housing Ombudsman and the LGSCO.