Hyde Housing Association Limited (202004402)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202004402

Hyde Housing Association Limited

28 February 2022

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 response to the resident’s reports about:
1. Cladding and fire safety works.
2. Damp and mould and damage to a balcony door.
3. Replacement of damaged items.
4. Pest infestation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, a housing association. The property is a two bedroom flat in a block.
Advice Note 14 (AN14) was issued by the Government in December 2018 as part of its Building Safety Programme. In summary the advice was for owners of high-rise leaseholder buildings where the external wall system of the building did not incorporate Aluminium Composite Material (ACM). The advice set out checks which owners could carry out to satisfy themselves that their building was safe. This guidance was consolidated in ‘Building Safety Advice for Building Owners’, issued in January 2020. Paragraph 1.4 of this guidance states “for the avoidance of doubt, building owners should follow the steps in this advice as soon as possible to ensure the safety of residents and not await further advice or information to act.”
The landlord’s tenancy agreement confirms its repairs obligations for the structure of the property, while the resident is responsible for internal decorations and insurance cover for fixtures, fittings and belongings.
The landlord’s website advises that residents who report a damp, mould or condensation problem should follow advice in a leaflet for four weeks, after which they should contact the landlord again if there is no improvement. It would then have a discussion to ensure steps to minimise the issues have been followed, after which it would investigate further and explain any repairs required. The website sets out steps expected to be taken, such as ventilating the property; wiping small patches of mould with anti-fungal spray to help limit any spread; wiping condensation from the windows; treating bad outbreaks; redecorating using anti-fungal paint; and heating the property adequately.
The landlord operates a two stage complaints procedure. It aims to respond at stage one within 10 working days, and at stage two within 20 working days. If longer is required it will explain this and give a date for the response. It does not generally investigate incidents that occurred more than six months before a complaint was raised.
The landlord may award compensation where it has failed to deliver service to an advertised standard; for time and trouble; for distress and inconvenience; and where loss has been suffered due to a service failure. It does not pay compensation for loss of earnings, and where there is a personal injury or legal claim, it will advise customers how to progress this.

Summary of events

Following Advice Note 14, the landlord took steps to comply with government guidance, and it commenced cladding and fire safety works in March 2019 that it estimated to be completed in October 2019. In October 2019, the landlord then wrote to residents and estimated that the works were due to be completed in April 2020.
The resident advises that she raised issues since the works commenced, such as her balcony being accessed without appointment, possessions damage, inability to open windows, lack of communication, and health and safety.
In December 2019, the resident reported damp and mould issues, which she said had resulted in damage to items such as an oak floor, furnishings, curtains and a bench. The landlord confirmed the issues would be picked up with contractors onsite, and the resident subsequently emailed staff about items that she expected to be replaced.
In January 2020, drop-in surgery minutes in relation to the cladding works note that the resident raised damp and mould she linked to the works. It was noted that she was being worked with to ‘remediate’ the issues, which were ‘significantly’ exacerbated by the amount of personal possessions stored in the flat. It was noted that it had been confirmed to her on multiple occasions that damaged areas would be rectified as soon as it was possible to do so within the programme, ‘and that in the meantime regular visits’ were being carried out to manage the mould. It was noted that another resident’s reported mould issues had been resolved by a mould wash.
In February 2020, the landlord wrote to residents to advise the works were delayed and anticipated to be completed by the end of April 2020, and some additional works due to new government guidance were anticipated to be completed in June 2020. It added that it had been told condensation and mould was being experienced and most issues were a result of the time between removal and replacement of materials. It advised that it had been working with those affected, and in most instances a mould wash remedied the problem. It asked residents to report if mould was experienced in areas next to cladding work, and it would then visit and arrange to rectify the problem.
In July 2020, the landlord wrote to residents and advised that works had been delayed by Covid-19 and snagging issues, but were anticipated to be completed by the end of August 2020. The same month, the landlord responded to a MP enquiry and advised that the resident had been informed that damp issues would be “fully remediated” on completion of the cladding works. It also advised that contractors had been asked to replace, or provide compensation for, a bench that had been damaged as a gesture of goodwill.
On 12 August and 9 September 2020, the resident contacted this Service, and complained that:
1. The works had taken a long time, been poorly managed and communicated about.
2. The works had caused considerable disruption, noise and mess and affected her mental health, including during difficult periods such as bereavement. She detailed issues including accessing of her balcony without notice and lack of privacy; constant noise disturbance such as drilling; having to regularly clean the balcony of debris; builder and fire marshal behaviour; damage to possessions; and inability to open and clean windows.
3. The works had resulted in a roof leak and damage to internal walls the previous year, as well as mould and damp. She was unhappy that she had not been given support with the mould, and that she had had to clean it herself despite being asthmatic and her baby grandchild being inside the flat. She awaited compensation for possessions damage and lacked clarity about remedial works.
4. There had been an infestation of mice and rats for which the landlord had said residents should get their own pest control.
5. She sought compensation for damage to possessions caused by the works; a date and itinerary for completion of the cladding works; and an itinerary for internal works to address damage caused by the works and flood.
The resident has emailed the landlord and this Service in the course of the complaint and restated dissatisfaction; said the landlord promised to repair and redecorate her property and address possessions claims; and said that damp and mould and rockwool insulation affected asthma and an eye condition. She has provided photos to show condensation and mould and issues with her eye.
On 14 August 2020, the landlord wrote to residents to update about the works. This said:
1. Cladding, insulation and internal fire safety work was in a final inspection and snagging stage, scaffold had begun to be removed and would progress as snagging was completed. The work was forecast to complete in October 2020. A programme for non-fire related maintenance was being produced and would be shared in a future update.
2. It was confirming the external brick walls were safe and doing remedial work where required, for which initial investigation had been done and further intrusive inspections and review of information was planned. The initial review was forecast to complete in November 2020.
3. It had installed a waking watch and provided contact details if there were any queries.
On 29 September 2020, the landlord wrote to residents again and updated that the works were due to complete in December 2020, because there was unforeseen balcony maintenance that needed to be done before external wall works could be completed.
Following this Service’s referral of the complaint on 24 September 2020, the landlord spoke to the resident on 29 September 2020 and acknowledged the complaint, which it summarised it as:
1. The cladding works had been extended a few times, and the works and noise had been difficult to live with.
2. The resident felt the communication had been poor and wanted an understanding of when the works would complete.
3. The property was now damp and damage had been caused to furniture, curtains and flooring.
4. The resident had been told the landlord would decorate once the work had been finished.
In September and October 2020, the resident contacted the landlord about a damaged balcony door, and its repairs records show that a repair was raised for “overhaul balcony door not closing.” In October 2020, the landlord advised that it was still investigating the complaint and attempted two unscheduled surveyor visits, one of which the resident refused access for as she was unwell. Some subsequent email discussions to find a mutually convenient date for a surveyor visit were unsuccessful, and the resident advised that her next availability was in January 2021. She queried the need for a surveyor visit however since staff and contractors related to the works had previously visited and taken photos.
In November 2020, the resident emailed the landlord that she was waiting for a surveyor to contact her; reported that ‘wet weather’ was entering again via her balcony window area; and raised concern this would further damage her oak floor, wood window surround, walls and furnishings. She advised she had not had issues before the works and believed the outside wall was damp from being left exposed. In an email to this Service she added that she had been told to claim on home insurance.
On 26 November 2020, the landlord issued its stage one response to the complaint after advising of delays the previous month. It enclosed copies of the 14 August and 29 September 2020 letters to residents about the works and said:
1. It apologised that the works had taken longer than anticipated, and explained they were driven by government legislation and necessary for resident safety. It detailed that scaffold was erected in 2017 for works to cavity barriers, then further government advice had led to a new scope of works, for which additional scaffolding was erected and cladding replacement works had been ongoing since March 2019. It advised cladding replacement was in a final inspection and snagging stage, and scaffold had started to be removed.
2. It acknowledged the resident’s frustration with poor communication, noise and disruption. It advised it understood the effect the works had and had started drop-in sessions from October 2019 for residents to discuss queries with the works. It acknowledged her concerns about lack of privacy in her home and apologised for this. It apologised the resident had experienced tidiness issues and confirmed this had been discussed in progress meetings.
3. It apologised that the scaffold restricted window opening and impacted ventilation. It advised that in the majority of cases, issues with damp and mould were due to temporary cold bridging, where the existing cladding had been removed and cladding replacement was awaited, and could be addressed by wiping with bleach. It advised it had checked the resident’s file and could not find evidence of damp and mould reports until the complaint. It advised that as part of the final process, it would visit all properties to assess any further remedial works, and it apologised that the resident had experienced this issue in her home.
4. It noted there had been unsuccessful visits by a surveyor, they had been unable to attend on dates and times in November 2020 specified by the resident, and that she said an inspection now had to be in January 2021. It advised it did not believe the cladding works was the sole reason for the damp and mould, but an independent surveyor would be asked to visit and if the works were found to be the sole reason, the landlord would address this.
5. It noted the resident said staff had confirmed it would replace furnishings and personal belongings, and said that the staff concerned advised they would not have said this. It explained its policy did not cover personal items and furniture, and it would always recommend speaking to home contents insurance about these. It added that compensation for disruption was not something it was considering.
6. It advised that it was aware the balcony condition was unsatisfactory and assured the resident that this would be rectified as part of the works completion.
7. It confirmed that there was an ongoing programme in place for pests, which involved cooperation from residents to keep areas clean and free from rubbish that might attract pests. It noted the resident had not complained about this previously.
On 27 November 2020, the resident responded and expressed a desire to take the complaint further.
1. The extent of the works disruption had not been acknowledged; the surveyor had not attempted to call her about visits; and residents should have been communicated with over three years, not just the last two months of the works.
2. She was unhappy no review of the damage was being organised and at being expected to wait until the end of the programme.
3. She said that a window frame needed replacement; skirting had come up; there were ceiling and wall cracks; and condensation mould in her living room had not been assessed and treated “from last year.”
4. She said that being left to wait risked more furnishings being ruined, and her home insurance did not cover damage from the building works as she did not own her home.
On 30 December 2020, the resident updated this Service that a surveyor had attended before Christmas and she was awaiting their report. On 2 February 2021, the resident advised the landlord that she awaited an update from the surveyor and an update about the balcony lock repair raised in September and October 2020. On 9 February 2021, the landlord confirmed to this Service that the complaint had been escalated within its procedure, then on 9 and 10 March 2021, the landlord spoke to the resident and emailed her to acknowledge the complaint escalation. It noted this related to issues such as a lack of a survey report and a damaged bench its contractor had agreed to replace.
In March 2021, the resident raised concern about disruption and use of chemicals in regard to some further balcony major works. The resident detailed issues with condensation, mould, the balcony door, skirting, windows and items that had been discarded or affected by damp and mould; and she requested an assessment to restore living areas. The landlord advised it was awaiting confirmation about a further inspection and advised of response delays, for which it apologised.
In April 2021, the resident emailed the landlord again about the balcony lock and raised concern about her young grandchild getting out and suffering injury. She also advised of difficulty trying to decorate due to the internal issues. The resident’s account advises the landlord carried out a further inspection on 16 April 2021, where she understood some repairs were to be carried out but not to the balcony door. The landlord’s account advises that while the handle/lock was loose, which due to circumstances required replacement of the entire door to rectify, the door closed and was functional. The landlord subsequently raised repairs to carry out works in relation to decoration and windows, which it confirmed on 4 May 2021 would be carried out on 20 and 21 May 2021.
On 5 May 2021, the landlord issued its final response to the complaint after advising of response delays the previous month:
1. It detailed the stage one findings.
2. It detailed that a surveyor and its contractor had inspected the resident’s home on 16 April 2021. It confirmed that works had been agreed to ‘overhaul’ the balcony door and repair damaged walls inside the property, which would involve “filling the crack, applying varnish and making good.” It confirmed that these had been arranged with the resident for 20 and 21 May 2021 and provided details of a point of contact for the works.
3. It explained that further balcony works were going to be done in June 2021, and a scaffold tower would be erected for which it would give two weeks’ notice. It explained that the products that would be used would not be hazardous to health, although they could result in a temporary odour, and it detailed how the resident could obtain further information for reassurance.
4. It advised that its complaints compensation policy did not cover damage to items, and provided details on how to make a claim to its insurance team.
5. The landlord acknowledged the works had been delayed and it did not communicate to provide reassurance on how they were going to be resolved. It apologised and awarded £100.
6. In a covering letter, the landlord acknowledged that the works were not done yet, and confirmed that while it had provided a complaint response, the complaint would be kept open until the follow-on repairs were completed, which would be monitored by the resident’s point of contact.
The resident responded that she still awaited the report from a previous surveyor visit. She expressed dissatisfaction that the response did not address the full extent of disruption experienced since works commenced; compensate for possessions damage including a bench; or recognise how the scheduled works came about. She requested clarification on the repairs and raised concern that the mould problem would be ongoing.
On 12 and 17 May 2021, the landlord clarified its response to the resident.
1. It explained it was unable to address each specific disruption in its responses, but it was confident that its stage one response had appropriately responded and its final response had explained what it was doing to put things right. It advised that its surveyor and contractor had provided expert advice to help it to reach its decision.
2. It explained that its compensation policy did not cover issues such as possessions damage and that these would need to be referred to its or the resident’s insurance.
3. It apologised for the stress she had experienced and any further communication issues, and confirmed it would pass this on to ensure she was kept informed.
4. It advised that the resident was entitled to employ her own private surveyor.
The resident chased the landlord about the balcony door later in May 2021 and expressed satisfaction with repairs to the living room window area, which she said was an ‘excellent’ effort to fix things. She confirmed that she would return details for compensation and thanked the landlord for its response and helping her “find full resolution to my satisfaction.” In correspondence, the landlord internally noted that all agreed works from a site meeting had been completed.
In July 2021, the resident again contacted the landlord about a promised repair to the balcony door and lock and said she would withhold rent until the repair went ahead. She also complained about not receiving two weeks’ notice for the scaffold for the further balcony works, as she had noticed this being erected.
On 6 August 2021, the landlord responded to the resident. This said:
1. An appropriate department would contact her and look into concerns about the remaining balcony works.
2. It had inspected the balcony door mechanism and found this to be fully functional, was secure and could be closed. It acknowledged that the lock was broken slightly, but explained replacement would require replacement of the whole door and frame which was not currently considered necessary. It advised this had been explained during its visit in April 2021.
3. It advised a stated intention to withhold rent payments had been communicated to relevant staff.
The resident has restated dissatisfaction to this Service in a range of correspondence and also said:
1. The further balcony works took longer than she was advised and there were issues with these.
2. Black mould was returning, as it had got into the walls and wood and she had been left to treat it.
3. The landlord should have supported her, got a decorator in earlier, treated the mould, and moved her temporarily if works were going to take so long.
4. A bench replacement she had been promised had never been received.

Assessment and findings

The Ombudsman’s internal guidance for caseworkers considering complaints about cladding sets out that, as the Government’s expectations in relation to cladding and fire safety are only detailed in guidance, there is an element of discretion for a landlord as to how and when it chooses to comply with it.
The Ombudsman’s guidance further sets out that when investigating a complaint relating to the Government’s guidance on fire safety and cladding the Ombudsman will consider the following points:
1. What are the landlord’s long-term plans for compliance with the guidance and are these fair and reasonable?
2. How has it communicated regarding the situation and was this communication appropriate?
3. How has it responded to the individual circumstances?
These points will be considered when assessing whether the landlord’s actions and response to the complaint were fair in all the circumstances.

Scope of the investigation

The Ombudsman’s remit in relation to complaints is set out by its Scheme. Paragraph 39(e) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising;” while Paragraph 39(d) of the Scheme advises that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in its opinion, “were brought to the Ombudsman’s attention normally more than 12 months after they exhausted the member’s complaints procedure.”
This means that while the resident raises historic dissatisfaction with the works, supplying historic correspondence, and complains about the landlord’s handling of ongoing issues that post-date the complaints procedure, the Ombudsman is unable to consider all the complaints the resident has about her landlord. In this case, investigation has focused on events from March 2020, six months before the resident made a formal complaint in September 2020, up until the landlord’s final responses in May 2021 and August 2021. Events that pre and post-date the complaints procedure are referenced for contextual purposes only.
Paragraph 39(i) of the Scheme also states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which in the Ombudsman’s opinion “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, a designated person, other tribunal or procedure.”
This means it is not within the Ombudsman’s authority or expertise to determine cause, liability or negligence for possessions damage, but it can assess whether the landlord has followed proper procedure, followed good practice, and behaved reasonably, taking account of all the circumstances of the case.
The resident has also suggested that as a result of her living conditions and the landlord’s inaction her health has been adversely impacted. While this may be the case, it is beyond the expertise of this Service to reasonably determine a causal link between the resident’s living conditions and the deterioration of her health. The Ombudsman has therefore made no comments in relation to this. Should the resident wish to pursue this matter, legal advice will need to be sought.

The landlord’s response about cladding and fire safety works

The Ombudsman notes the resident’s frustration regarding the length of the works and lack of clear information about completion dates, and understands the effect the works must have had on the daily use and enjoyment of her home. This investigation can see that the landlord continued to revise the completion date for the works and there were gaps in its communication about the works at times, for example it said in February 2020 that works would be completed in April and June 2020, and did not update when the works were becoming prolonged until July 2020. This Service understands this will have been frustrating for the resident and did not fully manage her expectations at times. However, the communication in the lead up to the complaint was not overly unreasonable and this investigation has not seen any evidence that the landlord unreasonably delayed in the works. The delays appear to be due to the complexity and changing scope of the works, which are in line with the landlord’s obligation to discharge statutory obligations and clearly considered necessary to ensure the long-term safety of the building’s occupants.
The landlord provided updates around the time of the complaint to all residents about progress of the works and provided updated completion timeframes, which fulfilled the resident’s request for these in her complaint; then, in its complaint responses, it acknowledged and apologised for issues the resident had experienced, and provided explanation about the works and further balcony works that were being carried out.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord overall responded reasonably in respect of the timeframe considered, as it provided appropriate explanation and information, and clearly recognised and sympathised with the impact the works had on the resident. It was reasonable not to respond to every incident detailed, and many of these appear to have occurred earlier than the timeframe the landlord normally considers when investigating a complaint. It was reasonable to advise that it was not considering compensation for disruption, as there is no specific evidence it is obligated to; nor is there any evidence that the works should have been done without the occupants in-situ and that the resident should have been moved temporarily while they took place.
This investigation does note that the landlord reportedly did not keep a commitment to provide two weeks’ notice for the erection of scaffold for further balcony works, and a recommendation is made in relation to this.

The landlord’s response about damp and mould and damage to a balcony door

In this case the Ombudsman notes that in its final response, the landlord acknowledged issues with its management of the case. The Ombudsman will not make a finding of maladministration where a landlord has offered suitable redress to resolve a complaint. This further assessment considers whether the landlord has offered reasonable redress for its acknowledged failings, in accordance with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, which are:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
In accordance with the tenancy agreement and the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairs related to the structure of the property, and its website says that after continued reports of damp and mould, it aims to discuss these with the resident and inspect the issue.
In July 2020, the landlord confirmed to the resident’s MP that it would fully remedy damp issues on completion of the cladding and fire safety works. After the resident’s complaint in September 2020, it then attempted two unscheduled surveyor visits, following which the resident advised she was unavailable until January 2021. The information provided advises that a surveyor then inspected in December 2020; the landlord further inspected in April 2021; and it carried out some works in May 2021, which the resident expressed satisfaction with.
In its responses, the landlord apologised that the issue was experienced, and set out that most damp and mould issues were due to temporary cold bridging and could be addressed by wiping with bleach; that it would carry out some decorative works; and that it would visit all properties as part of the final process to identify any further remedial works. The landlord initially advised that it would overhaul the balcony door, but then later stated a view at an April 2021 inspection that it could not repair the door but this was not considered necessary. The landlord acknowledged issues with delays and communication and awarded £100 compensation.
The evidence shows that while the landlord had stated a commitment to carry out damp works after the fire safety works; it took steps to consider and inspect the resident’s concerns about damp, mould and the balcony door; and it carried out repairs it considered necessary in May 2021 – there were some issues and delays with its handling.
The landlord could have attempted to coordinate the two unsuccessful surveyor visits in October 2020 more effectively, considering the matter was a complaint. Following this, the reported inspection around Christmas 2020 appears to have been delayed due to the resident’s availability, however the findings from the inspection do not appear to have been clearly communicated to the resident or provided to this investigation, and there were further delays before an inspection in April 2021. This four month delay, without clarification on the outcome to the December 2020 inspection, does not seem reasonable.
It took six months for the landlord to provide a final response in May 2021 after the resident emailed in November 2020, and it did not escalate the complaint until February or March 2021. This Service notes the impact of Covid-19 and resourcing issues that the landlord has experienced, however this is not reasonable.
While the landlord confirmed it would carry out repairs to the property including damaged walls, which the resident expressed satisfaction with, the response represented the final position on the complaint, so it would have been customer focused and appropriate to fully detail its findings rather than provide a limited description of what it was doing – even if detailed to the resident verbally. Further, as the complaint escalation acknowledgement noted that a reason for escalation was a lack of the independent survey report, it would have been appropriate for this to also be addressed in the final response. The lack of effective written communication about the inspection findings, including in the final response, meant the landlord missed the opportunity to clearly address the current reports of damp and mould and clearly demonstrate what its approach to these were.
The landlord’s final response that it would ‘overhaul’ the door was also retracted by the August 2021 follow up, which referred to findings from the April 2021 inspection before the final response; and it is unclear why these were not reflected in the final complaint response in May 2021. While the decision not to repair or replace the door was based on first hand inspection, and therefore made in a reasonable way (as the landlord is entitled to rely on the opinion of its staff in its decision-making), this appears to have been unnecessarily contradictory and may have led to unnecessary chasing from the resident.
It is also of concern that the landlord advised that it could not find evidence of damp and mould reports until the complaint, although this is mentioned in a July 2020 response to a MP two months prior and its internal major works records when the resident raised these previously. It should be ensured that landlords review relevant records to inform its responses, and this will have again unnecessarily frustrated the resident and led her to feel that her account was being undermined.
This investigation understands that prior to the complaint, the resident had been advised to clean mould herself, which she was unhappy with, being asthmatic and a baby being inside the flat. This is in line with advertised guidance to tenants that they should carry out cleaning, treatment and decoration in respect to mould themselves to a certain extent, and therefore generally appears reasonable. However, in communications in February 2020 about the works, the landlord appeared to acknowledge that removal of materials resulted in such issues, so it could have thought more about the circumstances and waived this advice.
Overall, while the landlord identified service failings for delays and communication, and compensated for this, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this does not go far enough to acknowledge issues identified and demonstrate that the landlord learned all lessons from the case and put things right. This Service therefore considers it appropriate to make a finding of service failure, which would have been a finding of maladministration had the landlord not acknowledged and compensated for some failings and provided appropriate and detailed responses in other areas.

The landlord’s response about replacement of damaged items

The resident’s account confirms that following her complaint in September 2020, she was informed by November 2020 that she needed to claim on home contents insurance for possessions damage. In its responses, the landlord confirmed it checked whether promises had been made to the resident about replacement of items; set out its position that it believed the works were not the sole reasons for damp and mould; restated that she needed to claim on home contents insurance; and later provided details of its insurance department.
This appears reasonable as the landlord set out that it disputed whether it was liable and provided appropriate signposting, in line with its policies, to insurance procedures under which damage could be appropriately assessed further.
However, while this investigation can see no evidence that the landlord made specific commitments to replace the majority of the resident’s damaged items, this investigation can see that it informed her MP in July 2020 that it would replace, or compensate for, a damaged bench. The resident complained that this promise was not kept, and this was acknowledged to form part of her complaint escalation, however this was not specifically addressed in the landlord’s responses. While this appears to have been a gesture of goodwill, it is not reasonable that this commitment appears to have remained unkept for a prolonged period of time without specific acknowledgement or explanation. This will have led the resident to feel that there was an unacknowledged broken promise for a prolonged period of time, which will have understandably caused some distress.
This investigation also notes that the resident supplies correspondence where she itemised items and raised a desire to make an insurance claim the previous year. It should be ensured that such concerns are signposted to procedures such as the landlord’s insurance department in a timely manner, and this investigation would have expected the landlord’s insurance department details to be provided earlier as well as in its first response. A recommendation is therefore made in relation to this.

The landlord’s response about pest infestation

There is no evidence that the resident reported pest issues in her own home and complained about the specific handling of these to the landlord. Her dissatisfaction appears to be a more general one that residents in the block, including those on other floors, were told they needed to get their own pest control in their properties.
Following the resident’s complaint, the landlord confirmed there was an ongoing programme which required resident cooperation in respect of communal areas, which based on the information available, reasonably addresses the complaint about pest infestation as brought to the landlord. Generally, an occupant is responsible for pest issues within a property and while understandably distressing, it is reasonable that such issues may require both occupants and the landlord to take actions under their separate obligations to effectively address them.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response about cladding and fire safety works.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response about damp and mould and damage to a balcony door.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response about replacement of damaged items.
In accordance with paragraph 54 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s response about pest infestation.

Reasons

The landlord provided reasonable explanation, acknowledgement and apology in respect of the impact of the ongoing cladding and fire safety works.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s responses did not go far enough to acknowledge and address issues with its handling in respect to damp and mould and damage to a door.
While the landlord reasonably considered most of the resident’s concerns about replacement of damaged items, set out its position and provided information on how to progress this via an alternative procedure; it has not addressed a commitment to replace, or compensate for, a bench, which is not reasonable.
The landlord responded reasonably to the resident’s concerns about pest infestation issues as brought to it.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its failings in respect of the repairs and its commitment to replace, or compensate for, a bench.
The landlord to review its commitment in respect of the bench and set out its current position on this to the resident. If the landlord decides not to honour its previous commitment, it should take steps to ensure the resident’s claim is assessed by its insurance department, and that she has not been disadvantaged by any delays in being informed of their details.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of the decision.

Recommendations

The landlord to take steps to ensure the resident’s additional damages claims are assessed by its insurance department, and that she has not been disadvantaged by any delays in being informed of their details.
The landlord to liaise with the resident to discuss any ongoing reports of mould and to provide appropriate signposting to repairs or complaints departments where applicable.
The landlord to review its complaint handling, to try to ensure investigations consider all relevant records, and also detail inspection findings within complaint correspondence where relevant to the complaint.
The landlord to ensure that residents who raise possessions damage to its staff and contractors are referred to appropriate channels such as its insurance procedure in a timely manner.
The landlord to ensure that residents are given sufficient notice of works that affect their property, such as erection of scaffold, where possible.