Lambeth Council (202118403)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118403

Lambeth Council

14 September 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.

Complaint

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

1. The resident’s reports of a leak and the development of damp and mould.
2. The associated complaint.

2. The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Scope of Investigation

3. The resident has made reference to her child’s health condition as part of her complaint, and has said that this worsened because of the way in which the landlord responded to reported repairs. In this case, the Ombudsman has considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s health and how this related to the repairs which she reported. The Ombudsman has not determined whether the landlord is responsible for any deterioration in health or exacerbation of a health condition. Such a decision requires an assessment of liability and would best be decided by a court or insurer.

Background

4. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The resident’s child has a damp and mould allergy.
5. The landlord’s Repair Manual as was in place at the time states that ‘routine repairs’ would be carried out within either 7 days, or 28 working days, depending on the type of repair (giving examples as ‘repairing a leaking bath’ for 7 days and ‘repairing ceiling’ for 28 working days).
6. The landlord’s Homeowners Handbook (for leaseholders) states, ‘Leaks from your home into a tenanted property: You should arrange for a plumber to fix the leak and contact [the insurer] within the 90-day notice period. [The landlord] will arrange any repairs to the tenanted property.’
7. The landlord’s complaint policy sets out a three stage process. The first is ‘Early Resolution’, where to try and resolve complaints straight away, they are passed to a staff member that could do so, who would make contact with the resident and agree actions and timescales to resolve the issue. The resident would not receive a written response. Unless the landlord heard otherwise, the complaint would be recorded as closed.
8. If a complainant remained dissatisfied they could ask for their complaint to be formalised to ‘Local Resolution’. The request should explain in what way the landlord’s response was unsatisfactory and what action the complainant would like it to take to resolve the complaint. A more senior member of staff would then take a fresh look at the problem and a response would normally be provided within 20 working days.
9. If the complainant remained dissatisfied they could appeal, setting out in what way the Local Resolution was inadequate and what action the complainant sought to resolve the complaint. If the complaint was upheld, the primary aim would be to apologise, put right the problem, and to apply any lessons learnt to improve services such as revising policies, procedures or providing staff training to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem. In exceptional circumstances, compensation may be payable.

Summary of events

10. In April 2021 the resident reported a leak into her bathroom (she has explained that this was not a dripping leak, but was apparent due to damage it was causing to the bathroom), which affected the walls and ceiling and was causing damp and mould. A lack of repair records means it is difficult for the Ombudsman to determine the exact course of events following this initial report, but the resident has provided details of numerous contacts she made with the landlord to try and resolve the leak. At some point it was established that the leak emanated from the property above, which was occupied by a leaseholder. The leak was stopped in late 2021, some plastering and decorating works were carried to the resident’s bathroom soon after, but the resident reports that some works remain outstanding to date.
11. On 15 June 2021 the resident made a complaint via telephone about the landlord’s handling of the matter, which the landlord treated as an Early Resolution. Both the resident’s and the landlord’s account of contact made by the resident from late June 2021 into late July 2021 show the resident continuing to chase up the issue, reporting that it had not been resolved. The landlord closed the Early Resolution complaint on 21 July 2021.
12. On 20 August 2021 the resident emailed the complaint team, explaining that she had reported that her bathroom ceiling was leaking on 7 April 2021, and black mould was forming. She said that a surveyor attended on 6 May 2021 and noted that the ceiling was saturated with water likely coming from the property above, and that this would be referred to contractors to address.
13. The resident said that as she heard nothing further she contacted both the contractor and the landlord on a number of occasions to chase. Eventually a tracer attended on 14 May 2021 but was unable to find the source of the leak. The resident said that following this she heard nothing further, so telephoned the landlord on 7 June 2021 and was told that this would be passed to the ‘back office’. As there was no further contact the resident said she chased again on 15 June 2021 and was again told that an email had been sent to the back office and there was nothing else that could be done. The resident noted that she also submitted a complaint on this date.
14. The resident said that she continued to regularly call the landlord over the following month, but no one was able to provide her with an update on the repair. She noted that she informed the landlord many times about her child’s allergy to mould and the lack of windows in the bathroom to help deal with the damp and mould caused by the leak. The resident said that after a number of telephone calls a contractor attended on 15 July 2021, but was unable to access the property above, and on 21 July 2021 the landlord informed the resident that they had been unable to contact the leaseholder, who was obliged to address the leak.
15. The resident noted that she chased again in August 2021, at which point was told that the landlord had spoken to the leaseholder on 21 July 2021 who had said that the leak had been repaired, and the complaint had been closed this same day. The resident raised concerns about being told the opposite on 21 July 2021, that her complaint had been closed with no contact at all, and also that her bathroom ceiling was getting worse, including small bits falling down. The resident complained that the landlord had failed to attend to the repair, and failed to deal with her 15 June 2021 complaint in line with its complaint policy. She said, ‘I feel that it is also very necessary to point out the seriousness of my child’s allergies. She has an allergy to mould and has to use that bathroom everyday, she cannot avoid the mould as it is directly above our heads.’ The resident asked the landlord a series of numbered questions about how the matter had been dealt with.
16. The landlord acknowledged a formal complaint and said a response was due by 20 September 2021.
17. On 22 August 2021 the resident complained to her local Councillor, explaining that she had been reporting the leak since April 2021 but despite various operatives attending, this remained unresolved. She said that the last operative that attended said that the ceiling was dry, ‘…so I would assume an asbestos survey due to age of properties, a replaster and paint, but again it should not be me as a tenant explaining what further works need to be raised as I am not in a position to assess what’s needed nor do I have access to surveyor reports like Lambeth do. Lambeth has been relying on me to raise all jobs and update on jobs, [the landlord] has now raised a job for plastering for the 17th September, which I am unhappy with…because [the landlord’s staff member], is a repair advisor who was relying on me to explain what needed to be done not actually assessing the issue as [the landlord] should have done using all facts…’ She asked for the work to be fast tracked.
18. The Councillor forwarded this on to the landlord, and in reply to the Councillor on 9 September 2021 the landlord stated that the job ‘Plaster and redecorate bathroom’ had been raised and issued to contractors as a priority. On 14 September 2021 the resident noted in an email to her Councillor that despite the landlord’s assurances that the repair was a priority, no one had been in touch with her about this.
19. Internal landlord emails from that same date show that the landlord made enquiries regarding the lack of follow up by the contractor, whether information regarding damp and mould at the property was passed on from the complaints team, and noted that it would arrange an inspection in relation to the damp and mould affecting the resident’s health. It was later noted that the contractor had arranged an appointment for 17 September 2021 to carry out plastering works to the resident’s bathroom.
20. On 16 September 2021 the resident reported that she received a call from the contractor to say that the all day job to plaster had been changed to a one hour slot for an inspection only.
21. On 23 September 2021 the resident contacted the landlord saying that she had not received the Local Resolution response which was now overdue, and asked to escalate the complaint.
22. The landlord provided the Local Resolution complaint response on 24 September 2021. It said that the works to resolve the leak/ceiling repair were originally issued to a contractor whose contract with the landlord ended prior to completion of repairs. New orders were subsequently issued to a new contractor, who confirmed it accessed the leasehold property above, and found that cracked bathroom tiles (thought to be the cause of the leak) had been repaired by the leaseholder, and that the area was drying out. Repairs raised to the resident’s property were ‘Make good defective plaster and decorate’. The contractor confirmed an appointment was scheduled for the 17 September 2021 to complete these works.
23. The landlord further said that the June 2021 complaint was logged as an Early Resolution, ‘…which reflects the efforts of officers to make contact with surveyors and contractors. A formal response is not always issued at this stage, as outlined in Housing Management Complaint information linked below, however we would like to extend our apologies if this was not made clear at that time.’
24. The complaint was partly upheld in acknowledgement of delays and that communication could have been improved, with an offer of a £50 goodwill gesture.
25. On 27 September 2021 the resident emailed the landlord declining the goodwill gesture and asking that her complaint be escalated. The resident explained that she was unhappy with the response as it had not answered the concerns that she had raised, and did not explain why the works had still not been completed, despite making the landlord aware of the impact on her child’s health, and being told that the job was being treated as a priority.
26. The resident set out the impact the matter was having, explaining that her child, ‘..spends nights itching her skin due to her allergic reactions and eczema flare up until her skin cracks and bleeds, she cannot breathe properly at all so she finds herself up most nights because she is blocked up. She has had time off school due to reactions and therefore I have had to take time off of work.’ The resident said that she felt stressed knowing that she was unable to provide a safe home for her child, and felt anxious knowing she had to call the landlord every day to try and resolve the matter, as well as spending hours sending emails, which were ignored. The resident set out a number of questions about the handling of the matter, and asked that these be addressed.
27. On 7 October 2021 the resident sent photographs of her child’s skin reactions and asked the landlord to consider that it had been aware of the allergies when responding to the complaint. She also asked the landlord to listen to the telephone calls she had made to it.
28. The repair records provided by the landlord begin on 20 October 2021. On this date a repair was raised for a leak into the resident’s property from the property above, with an inspection booked for 21 October 2021. Details of the outcome of this are not included.
29. The landlord provided a review stage response dated 29 October 2021, which in the main recounted the detail from telephone calls that the resident had made from late June – September 2021, that had been listened to as part of the review. It also provided answers to the questions that the resident had raised in their review stage complaint, including:

1. Why the repairs had not been carried out in a reasonable timeframe despite knowing that there was a vulnerable child in the property: The landlord provided an extract of a work order for the ceiling repairs, showing its contractor apologising for a missed appointment on 30 September 2021.
2. Why the appointment slot for 17 September 2021 had been changed from an all-day slot to an hour: The landlord said this was possibly a scheduling error, and apologised.
3. Why the June 2021 complaint was closed without contacting the resident: The landlord said that it would discuss the process with the manager ‘to see what options or actions can be put in place to ensure that residents who submit these submissions via the early resolution route are kept informed of how their submissions are being dealt with.’
4. That the landlord had failed to take into account or acknowledge the resident’s child’s medical condition: The landlord acknowledged that the Local Resolution response did not refer to the child’s allergies, and apologised for this. It said that the repairs service would not have any knowledge of the child’s allergies ‘…as Housing Management Repairs do not undertake medical assessments and would not have information about what is held on your tenancy agreement.’ However the landlord did accept that the leak was not dealt with effectively and there had been unacceptable delays, with the resident having to instigate contact with housing management and chase up the repair numerous times.
5. The resident had submitted complaints to a number of staff members, as the landlord’s website stated could be done, but had received no acknowledgement until she made a complaint to the corporate complaint team: The landlord said that as a result of the resident’s telephone call on 24 August 2021 her complaint was formally logged as a Local Resolution complaint. The landlord said, ‘The Repairs team have stated that they are unable to comment on how correspondence sent to individual staff members has been processed and have extended their apologies for any delays or lack of response to earlier communications.’
6. The resident had asked how the repair could be carried out ASAP and marked as priority: The landlord said that the work order had been highlighted as a priority to its contractor who was asked to arrange an appointment with the resident to make good defective plaster and decorate. An appointment was arranged for the 15 October 2021.

30. The landlord concluded by acknowledging that the resident had not received the level of customer care it aimed to provide, and that this would have caused annoyance and frustration in having to make continual contact to get the matter resolved. It offered apologies for the delays experienced and upheld the complaint, as there had been a lack of clarity and action in resolving the leak into the property. The landlord signposted the resident to this Service.
31. The resident has explained that the leak continued and was finally stopped in late October 2021. The resident says that following this contractors attended to remove the damaged wall in her bathroom and replaster. They returned to paint, but the resident reports that the ceiling has still not been finished to date, despite her making regular contact with the landlord since January 2022 to chase this up.
32. The repair records show a job raised on 18 November 2021, ‘Following resolved leak from…above renew plasterboard patch to wall & decorate bathroom thereafter’ with a target date of 30 December 2021. Another job was raised on 15 December 2021 for remedial works in the resident’s bathroom following on from the leak, with a target date of 27 April 2022.

Assessment and findings

33. In her complaint to the Ombudsman, the resident has explained that she is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response for the following reasons:

1. It had not acknowledged the 20 hours plus she had spent on the telephone chasing the repair.

2. It chose which parts of her complaint to respond to, missing out other parts.
3. Her child’s allergies were not taken seriously, and the landlord failed to investigate what risk there was to her child given that she made them aware of the allergies during each telephone call. 
4. She does not feel that the landlord’s comment that the repairs service would not have knowledge of the allergies is reasonable, especially as the automated line states that residents should make the repair team aware of any vulnerable people living in the property.
5. Her June 2021 complaint was closed without acknowledgement.
6. She rang the complaints line and was advised she could only make a complaint about housing management through housing management. The complaint was only logged due to her wanting to make a complaint about the complaint process itself.
7. The formal complaint was assigned to a member of staff who was the subject of the complaint she was making, which the resident feels was inappropriate. 
8. The stage two complaint response offered no resolution.

34. To resolve the complaint, the resident has explained that she is not seeking compensation but would like the landlord to admit there were serious faults in dealing with the matter, and provide explanations around its handling of the repairs and the formal complaint.
35. When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are only three principles driving effective dispute resolution: 

1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes; 

2. put things right, and; 
3. learn from outcomes. 

36. The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the leaseholder. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’.
37. Where a leak emanates from a leasehold property, it is the leaseholder’s responsibility to repair (as reflected in the landlord’s Homeowner’s Handbook). For occupants in tenanted properties who are affected by a leak, it is advisable to make the leaseholder aware of the issue so that it can be addressed, and also alert the landlord. Where a leaseholder cannot be contacted or does not carry out the repair, the landlord can reasonably be expected to take action to address this, and will often have the power under the terms of a lease to seek access to a property to determine the source of a problem and to require the leaseholder to fix it.
38. In this case, it is difficult to determine the exact course of events due to lack of contemporaneous evidence. As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked for its records relating to the leak, such as a copy of the resident’s reports of this, repair logs, copies of any survey or inspection reports, feedback from employees or contractors, an explanation of any work carried out, confirmation that the issue has now been resolved and completion dates for any repairs. Very little of this has been provided. For example, the repair log the landlord supplied begins in October 2021, some six months after the resident states that the matter was first reported.
39. The Ombudsman also asked the landlord to provide evidence of its contact with the leaseholder in relation to the repair, such as notices advising them of the leak. No evidence of contact with the leaseholder has been supplied other than details of a telephone call to them on 30 June 2021 referred to in the landlord’s review response.
40. It is a concern that the landlord does not hold these records. Record keeping is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to all its residents.
41. In light of any information or evidence to the contrary, and as the landlord did not dispute the sequence of events that the resident set out in her complaint, this assessment is mainly based on the resident’s account. This shows that it took one month for the landlord to attend the property following the resident’s report of a leak on 7 April 2021. Due to the lack of records it is not known what priority the landlord gave this repair, but given the examples set out in the repairs manual, it could reasonably have been expected to attend within 7 days. The landlord’s initial attendance therefore appears not to have taken place within a reasonable time, causing unnecessary delay.
42. The resident states that at this first visit in May 2021 the landlord noted that the leak was likely coming from the property above, and that the landlord would address this. It was at this point that the resident became aware that the leak was emanating from the upstairs property, and given that the landlord had said that it would address this via its contractor, it is understandable that the resident did not then make contact with the leaseholder themselves. At this point it would have been reasonable for the landlord to contact the leaseholder immediately, inform them of the leak, and ask them to carry out any necessary repairs or allow the landlord to inspect.
43. The resident has detailed an attendance by a ‘tracer’ sent by the contractor on 14 May 2021 after she had chased the matter with the contractor directly (as she had heard nothing further from the landlord). The resident recalls that the tracer told her that they had attended the leasehold property that day and could not find a leak. However, there is no record of this attendance, or of contact with the leaseholder. It would have been reasonable at this point for the landlord to further investigate the cause of the leak into the resident’s property, and address the reported damp this was causing.
44. As it was, there is no indication that the landlord took any action at this time, and again the resident had to chase the landlord to progress the matter. For example, the resident has said that on 7 June 2021 during a call with the landlord she was told that the job was marked as complete, and informed the landlord it was not and the leak was still occurring, and during a subsequent call on 15 June 2021 was told there was no update available.
45. The 30 June 2021 telephone call is the first record of the landlord making contact with leaseholder. It is not known whether the landlord reminded the leaseholder of their repair obligations, but as an outcome of this an appointment was arranged for the following day for contractors to attend the leaseholder’s property and investigate the source of the leak. However, due to a lack of records, it is not confirmed that this went ahead or what the outcome was.
46. The resident has described how she continued to call the landlord to try and progress the matter. The landlord itself notes a call between it and the resident on 15 July 2021. Its reference to this call in its review stage response shows that it was noted that ‘…needs tracer to check the mains water – not just for your property but for building to see if leak coming not just from [the leaseholder property]but above that – and specifically not to attend [the leaseholder property] as leaseholder did not want any further inspections as had 2 tracers inspect their property.’ There is no evidence to show that the landlord took any action to check the mains water.
47. This record suggests that by this date the landlord had attended the leasehold property twice – initially in May, with the second appointment potentially following the 30 June call – but had not found the cause of the leak. While there are no records of these attendances to show the outcome, it was reasonable that they took place. However, the landlord should have proactively taken steps to identify where the leak was coming from if it considered that it was not from the leasehold property. While during the call of 15 July, the landlord intended to take such action, there is no evidence that it did. As it was, the conclusions of these inspections were wrong given it was later found that the leak was in fact coming from that property.
48. The resident reports that another tracer was sent out on 15 July 2021, who attended her property and concluded that the leak was coming from the leasehold property, and attempted to make contact with the leaseholder at that time but was unable to do so. Again, there is no record of this visit by the contractor, and no record of the landlord contacting the leaseholder at this time, despite presumably again being informed that this was where the leak was emanating from.
49. The resident reports that she then spoke with the landlord on 21 July 2021 and it stated that it had been unable to contact the leaseholder, and therefore would speak to the tenancy team to send out a letter, as the leaseholder had a legal obligation to carry out works needed. There is no evidence to show that it took such action.
50. However, the resident recalls that when she next made contact to chase the issue with the landlord on 9 August 2021 she was informed that the landlord had in fact made contact with the leaseholder on 21 July 2021, who said that they had fixed the leak. There is no evidence of this contact with the leaseholder or any other record that shows how the landlord satisfied itself that the leak had been repaired at this time.
51. If the landlord was satisfied that the leak was fixed in July 2021, it would have been appropriate for it to have carried out the necessary remedial works in the resident’s property, and this was especially important given the information the resident had given on a number of occasions about the impact that the damp and mould caused by the leak was having on her child’s health. There is no evidence that the landlord took any steps to schedule in these works. Again, the resident had to contact the landlord herself on a number of occasions, including via a further complaint and her local Councillor, before the job was raised to plaster and paint.
52. The appointment for these works was described as a ‘priority’ in the landlord’s contact with the Councillor, yet was not scheduled until two months after the landlord was of the view that the leak had been fixed. This appointment then did not go ahead as it was ‘downgraded’ from an all-day appointment to a one-hour appointment, with the resident reporting that she was told by the contractor that this was because the landlord had only booked a one hour job and this would not be enough time to complete the work. The landlord has made reference to a ‘scheduling error’ in its review stage response.
53. A new appointment was not available until 15 October 2021, but again, due to a lack of any records, it is not clear whether this appointment went ahead. There is no evidence to confirm that it did.
54. The resident has said that she had to ‘take the landlord’s word for it’ that the leak had been repaired in July 2021. However, she explains that she then received an email on 8 November 2021 from a surveyor stating that the leak was only rectified on the 25 of October 2021 due to a works order that had been raised. This is supported by the repair records that the landlord has supplied, which begin on the 20 October 2021 and show that a job was raised on this date, ‘Property affected by a leak [from leasehold property]  inspection booked for the 21/10/21 between 9.30am 1pm’. This is the first record of the issue that appears in the repair records.
55. The resident had told this Service that the plastering work to her bathroom was carried out just before Christmas 2021, with the wall so damaged that large parts had to be removed. This timeframe broadly accords with the repair records that are available, which show a job raised for the remedial works on 18 November 2021 ‘Following resolved leak’ with a 28 working day target time. The landlord’s records do not explain why a further job was raised on 15 December 2021 also for remedial works, or why the target date for this was four and a half months later. As noted above, the resident reports that some remedial works remain outstanding to date.
56. Overall, there is insufficient evidence to show that the landlord dealt with the reported problem fairly or reasonably, which led to what appears to be an ongoing leak for a period of six months, and associated damp and mould for the entirety of this period. The landlord does not appear to have a procedure to follow in cases such as this where a leak emanates from a leaseholder’s property and is not remedied in good time.
57. It is not disputed that fixing the leak was the leaseholder’s responsibility in the first instance, but it would be appropriate for the landlord to have a process in place to manage such situations, including to gain access to leasehold properties suspected of causing leaks, ensuring that all staff involved know their role, and what to do to ensure repairs are completed quickly and to a reasonable standard, along with any remedial works to tenanted properties.
58. Both the resident’s and the landlord’s accounts of the telephone calls that were made by the resident suggest that the landlord was unable to provide meaningful updates or otherwise track the course of the matter, which further indicates poor record keeping practices, as well as a lack of oversight or management of repairs. It is also apparent that progress in the repair was in response to the resident’s chasing of the matter, and the landlord was not proactive in managing the repair. Even with the resident’s input, progress was slow and there is very little indication of appropriate oversight or management of the works.
59. Of particular concern is the lack of consideration given to the resident’s reports of her child’s condition and the impact that the leak and associated damp and mould was having on this. When a landlord is made aware of household vulnerabilities, it would be appropriate to take these into account and prioritise a repair if necessary. There is no indication of the landlord making any efforts to consider the household vulnerabilities in this case. In addition, in recent communication with this Service, the landlord stated that it has no recorded vulnerabilities in the property. It is clear from the evidence available that the resident has on many occasions informed the landlord that her child has an allergy to damp and mould, and so it is of further concern that the landlord does not hold this information in its records.
60. Overall, there is evidence of the landlord repeatedly failing to address the mould and damp in the property, and that the landlord repeatedly failed in its management and oversight of the investigation and repair of the leak. This was in spite of the resident consistently raising concerns over a prolonged period about the serious adverse effect the outstanding repair was having on her child’s health. The landlord’s cumulative failings are serious, having caused significant distress, inconvenience, time and trouble to the resident, and constitute severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

61. There is no indication that the landlord explained to the resident that it was dealing with her June 2021 complaint as an Early Resolution, or that actions and timescales were agreed to resolve the issue, and the complaint was closed despite the resident expressing her dissatisfaction and reporting that the matter had not been remedied. This was unreasonable given the issues which the resident had raised, and the landlord did not follow its complaint policy here.
62. Further, the resident has stated that the complaint process was complicated and confusing. She explains that despite the landlord’s website saying that residents are able to log a complaint with any staff member, she was told that she could only make a complaint about housing management through housing management. The resident says that the complaint was eventually logged only because she wanted to make a complaint about the complaint process itself.
63. The subsequent Local Resolution response failed to fully address the issues and questions that the resident had asked in her 20 August 2021 complaint. It stated that works had been issued to a contractor whose contract with the landlord ended prior to completion of repairs and that new orders were subsequently issued to a new contractor who confirmed that cracked bathroom tiles had been repaired by the leaseholder. There is no evidence to support this explanation.
64. The response, dated 24 September 2021, further noted that works had been scheduled for 17 September 2021, but made no further comment on these or the fact that they did not go ahead. As the complaint response was sent after this appointment should have taken place, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to satisfy itself as part of its investigation into the complaint that the work had gone ahead, and that all repairs had been completed. Overall, this was not a satisfactory response to the concerns raised, and indicates that either incomplete records did not enable an appropriate complaint investigation and response, or that the landlord’s complaint investigation was limited.
65. The review stage response did attempt to answer the resident’s questions set out in her 27 September 2021 escalation request, but the explanations provided again didn’t fully address or resolve the complaints made. In response to the resident’s question about why the repairs had not been carried out in a reasonable timeframe despite knowing that there was a vulnerable child in the property, the landlord simply provided an extract of a work order for the ceiling repairs, showing its contractor apologising for a missed appointment on 30 September 2021. This failure to address the resident’s complaint compounded the landlord’s failure to consider vulnerabilities in the household.
66. In response to the resident’s question about getting the repair urgently completed, the landlord replied that the job to make good defective plaster and redecorate had been raised ‘as a priority’ to the contractor who had arranged an appointment for the 15 October 2021. As with the Local Resolution response, the ‘review’ response was sent after this appointment should have taken place, and it would have been appropriate for the landlord to satisfy itself as part of its investigation that repairs had been completed.
67. As it was, there is no indication that this work did go ahead, and a new order was raised on 20 October 2021, prior to the review response being sent, which indicated that a leak was ongoing. This was not recognised in the review response, which was therefore inaccurate and did not give the impression that the landlord had fully investigated the serious issues which had been raised. The landlord’s failure to reflect the accurate circumstances in its complaint response again indicates that either incomplete records, or poor oversight of the works, prevented an appropriate complaint investigation and response, or that the landlord’s complaint investigation was limited.
68. Further, in response to the resident’s concerns about her child’s medical condition not being taken into account, the review response stated that the repairs service would not have any knowledge of the child’s allergies. This was an unsatisfactory response. The resident had raised concerns about her child’s health many times, and it was unreasonable that this information was not shared with relevant parts of the landlord’s service. It is reasonable to expect household vulnerabilities to be flagged with the repairs service so that it can tailor its handling of repairs appropriately. The landlord missed an opportunity from handling this complaint to identify that this did not happen in this case, and consider how it would address this in the future.
69. The landlord concluded by acknowledging that the resident had not received the level of customer care it aimed to provide, and that this caused annoyance and frustration in having to make continual contact to get the matter resolved. It acknowledged the delays experienced, the lack of clarity and action in resolving the leak, and upheld the complaint. This was appropriate and shows that the landlord did take some steps to acknowledge what had gone wrong.
70. However, despite recognising some of the failings in its handling of the matter, the landlord failed to recognise the extent of what had gone wrong. While the landlord’s complaint policy requires it to put right the problem, and apply any lessons learnt to improve services such as revising policies and procedures to try to avoid a reoccurrence of the problem, it did not do this and consequently compounded previous failings. Neither did the landlord offer compensation, despite being aware that its failings had caused considerable adverse effect to the household. This was inappropriate, and combined with its failure to address the full complaints and reflect the accurate progress of the works, gave the impression that the complaint was not taken seriously.
71. Overall, there were many failings in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint which meant that the complaints procedure was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute, but compounded the failings in the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues. The landlord’s failings in its complaint handling constitute severe maladministration.
72. This Service has recently investigated other complaints about the landlord which identified similar failings with its repairs service, communication, complaint handling, and record keeping. A number of orders were made in these cases to address this and the landlord has complied with these orders, demonstrating learning from the outcomes. Therefore no further orders are made here in terms of addressing the wider issues, as the actions that the landlord has now taken should mitigate the risk of these failings recurring.
73. However, this does not address the significant adverse affect that the resident experienced in this particular case, nor provide the outcomes that she is seeking to resolve her complaint. As such, appropriate orders are made below.

Record keeping

74. There were serious failings in the landlord’s record keeping. Not only are records missing for the period April to late October 2021, during which time there was a reported ongoing leak, damp and mould, attendances at the property, and a reported vulnerable household member, but records which have been provided for the subsequent period (October 2021 onwards) do not provide sufficient detail of the repairs situation.
75. The landlord has not been able to provide appropriate records of efforts to engage the leaseholder in repair of the leak and has not kept centralised or accessible records of vulnerabilities in the household, which indicates that internal record keeping and not just that associated with contractors was an issue in this case. The landlord’s failings have been multiple and serious, and appear to have impacted both its ability to resolve the substantive issue as well as the complaint. Therefore, a determination of severe maladministration has been made.

Determination

76. In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak and the development of damp and mould.
77. In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
78. In accordance with section 54 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

79. The landlord failed to attend to the initial report of the leak in good time, and there was a sustained failure following its initial visit to manage and follow up the repair, despite being aware of the impact it was having on the resident’s child.  This resulted in a great deal of time, trouble and stress for the resident in pursuing the matter, distress over the impact the matter was having on her child’s health, and a prolonged period of a leak into the bathroom with resultant damp and mould.
80. The complaint policy was not followed, and the complaint responses did not fully address the resident’s concerns. While recognising failings on its part, the landlord took no action to ‘put things right’ for the resident, the least of which should have been to satisfy itself as part of its complaint investigation that the leak had been resolved, and that repairs to the resident’s home had been completed. Neither is there any evidence that it took steps to ‘learn from outcomes’.

Orders

81. Within one month of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. Pay the resident a total of £1,350 (comprised of £850 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in the handling of the repair, £300 for adverse affect caused by the failings in complaint handling, and £200 for the adverse affect caused by the failings in record keeping). The Ombudsman notes that the resident has not requested compensation, but finds that an amount is appropriate as redress. The resident can decline this should she wish.
2. Arrange for its Chief Executive to apologise to the resident on behalf of the landlord for the impact of the failings identified in this report.

3. Attend the property and inspect the bathroom in relation to the resident’s reports of outstanding works needed as a result of the leak, with a record made of the findings and shared with the resident and the Ombudsman. Any works identified should then be completed within three weeks of the inspection. 

82. Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must:

1. Considering the failings set out in this report which relate to the handling of the complaint, review whether improved processes or training of staff are required in relation to:

i.        Addressing complaints at the appropriate stage of the landlord’s complaint procedure.

ii.      Fully investigating and responding to all complaint points raised.

iii.    Ensuring that accurate and up to date information on repairs is reflected in a complaint response.

iv.    Addressing complaints concerning vulnerable household members.

v.      The outcome of the landlord’s review must be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks. 

2. Considering the failings set out in this report which relate to the oversight and management of repairs and record keeping, review what improved processes and/or training of staff will be implemented in relation to:

i.        Keeping records of household vulnerabilities, and how this may be used to inform repair handling and priority.

ii.      Ensuring that the landlord’s responsibilities are made clear in cases where leaks emanate from a leasehold into a tenanted property, as well as the steps it may take to resolve the issue.

iii.    The outcome of the landlord’s review must be shared with the Ombudsman, also within six weeks.