Hammersmith and Fulham Council (202106760)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202106760

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

30 March 2023

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 residents reports of the landlord’s:
1. handling of repairs to resolve a leak.
2. complaint handling.
The report also examines:
1. the landlord’s record keeping.
2. the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.

Background and summary of events

The resident has been a secure tenant of the landlord since February 2010. The property is a one bedroom flat on the top, fifth floor. The landlord is a local authority.
The resident suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression.
The landlord’s tenancy agreement explains that where the dwelling is a flat, the landlord will keep the structure and the outside of the building in repair. It states that it will carry out repairs for which it is responsible ‘within a reasonable time’.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance handbook explains that when reporting a repair, a resident can be expected to be given a job number and an appointment. The response time on repairs can vary dependent upon the priority it is given, from within two hours to up to 20 working days. Repairs are categorised as emergency, urgent or routine. Minor leaks are considered to be of urgent priority, with an estimated lead time of three days to attend.
The landlord has a two stage complaint process:
1. stage one complaints should be acknowledged within 48 hours, and responded to within 15 working days
2. stage two complaints should be responded to within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident has complained to the landlord about a leak affecting his kitchen ceiling and bathroom wall a number of times, since around 2016. The landlord’s records reference at least four historic complaints prior to the most recent complaint which prompted the resident to contact this Service in June 2021.
The earliest repair record provided by the landlord shows that on 14 July 2017 a repair was raised by the landlord as part of an open complaint, whereby it requested that someone attended to assess damage to the kitchen and bathroom ceiling following a leak from the roof.
On 20 July 2017 a repair job was raised to prepare and stain block the ceiling in the kitchen and bathroom. These works were noted as completed by the landlord on 10 October 2017.
The landlord’s records demonstrate that the resident contacted the landlord on several occasions throughout 2017 and into 2018 to report ongoing issues with the roof leaking into his bathroom and kitchen, and affecting his ceiling light.
In complaint correspondence dated 29 May 2018, the resident said that:
1. the leak had been ongoing for approximately two years
2. the leak was not constant, but seemed to occur when it rained
3. it was causing ongoing damage to his property
4. when the landlord’s contractors attended, they removed the light in his kitchen and had not replaced it.
Within its stage one complaint response at the time, on 13 September 2018, the landlord informed the resident that the reason there had been delays with the roof repair was because the works were so extensive that they required an approval process for the cost. It acknowledged that works to inspect the internal damage to the resident’s flat could not commence until it was sure that the roof leak had been rectified.
The landlord confirmed to the resident that the roof works had been completed on 17 October 2018, and an appointment was booked for 4 January 2019 to inspect the inside of his home. Repair records demonstrate that the leak continued into 2019, and a repair note provided by the landlord on 13 May 2019 stated that stated “roof leaking into flat, this is not a new issue”.
On 24 June 2019 a roofing contractor attended and advised that further repair works were required to the roof, but that approval for these works was required, so works were not completed.
On 9 July 2019 an electrician was due to attend to reconnect the light, but the appointment was missed.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 July 2019 and reported that the leak was continuing. He said that:
1. there continued to be water coming through the light socket in the kitchen
2. he was unhappy another repair appointment had been missed. This had left him waiting around all day for no one to turn up, which had inconvenienced him as he was also balancing caring responsibilities for his father
3. there were stains on his walls, his home smelt of damp and the walls were bubbling
4. he was unable to use his kitchen.
A new appointment was arranged for 16 July 2019 for the light to be refitted, however when the engineer attended, he was unable to reconnect it as the roof was still leaking.
A roofing contractor was booked to complete the works on 1 August 2019, but did not attend as they had not received the materials required from their supplier.
The landlord wrote to the resident as part of a complaint response on 14 August 2019. It said that:
1. it could confirm that the roof works were completed on the 6 August 2019
2. it acknowledged that a surveyor missed a subsequent appointment to inspect the inside of his home
3. once this visit had taken place, the surveyor was able to confirm that the kitchen and bathroom required redecorating and replanning would be considered, to provide the resident with more worktop space.
Less than a month later, on 27 August 2019, the landlord recorded that the roof was leaking again and the electrics were unsafe. It advised that a service request had been sent to the repairs team. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when the works were completed.
On 23 September 2019 and the 3 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord. He advised that in addition to nearly two years of no light in his kitchen and continued leaks, he hadn’t been able to eat a home cooked meal. He stated that he felt depressed and his anxiety was increasing.
A landlord note dated 4 October 2019 said that it had called the resident and that he had confirmed the roof was no longer leaking, but the lighting and internal damage to his home remained an issue. However on 22 October 2019, the resident contacted the landlord to inform it that the leak had started again. A repair job was raised and completed two days later.
Repair records show that from 30 October 2019 to 5 August 2020, it raised a variety of repairs jobs rectify the internal damage to the resident’s property following the leak. These included:
1. making safe the lights in the property
2. fitting a new kitchen strip light
3. plastering the kitchen and bathroom ceiling
4. fitting a new electrical humidity air vent in the bathroom
5. renewing the hard wired smoke detector in the kitchen
6. fitting a new storm guard vent grill.
7. fully redecorating the bathroom
8. supplying and fitting a new kitchen.
On 29 September 2020, the resident raised a complaint with the landlord. It is the handling of this particular complaint that prompted the resident to escalate to the Ombudsman. The resident told the landlord:
1. the problem in his home had been going on for a long time
2. recent repairs to his kitchen had taken four weeks as opposed to the five days that had been explained to him
3. during this time, he had to take time off work to allow access to contractors, and was unable to use his cooker or washing machine
4. the ceiling, flooring, kitchen units and the washing machine had been damaged by the landlords poor workmanship
5. he had been offered £200 in compensation from a historic complaint, but he felt this amount was unreasonable given the inconvenience he had experienced
6. he had tried to contacted the landlord about the issue, but had not got a response.
On 12 November 2020, the landlord responded to the resident at stage one of their process. Within its response, the landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in handling the residents complaint
2. explained that a kitchen upgrade had started on 7 September 2020, and decorations were carried out to the residents bathroom and hallway. However, the day after the works began, a roof leak had been identified and work was suspended to allow the area to dry out.
3. said that the completed works were later inspected and passed on 2 October 2020.
4. explained that the previous offer of £200 still stood as a goodwill gesture, and it apologised for the inconvenience caused.
The next day, the resident responded to the landlord. He advised that;
1. his contact on 29 September 2020 was not his first complaint about the issue, and reiterated that he had already complained about the same thing a number of times
2. he was still waiting for a stage two response from a previous complaint which had not been concluded
3. he felt that the landlord’s response had not acknowledged that the leak in his property had been going on for three years. He said the leak the landlord had identified in its response was the same leak that had been continuing into his bathroom and kitchen ceiling for a long period of time
4. he had asked for someone to contact him on a number of occasions, but ‘not one person’ had got back to him
5. he was unhappy with the way he had been treated and asked for contact to be made with him by telephone.
Records show that the resident contacted the landlord on four further occasions by email and by telephone between 25 November 2020 – 26 January 2021 to request for someone to speak to him.
On 26 January 2021, the landlord responded by email and advised that it had logged a complaint at “stage one” of its process, and informed the resident he could expect a response by 16 February 2021.
On 11 March 2021, the landlord’s records demonstrate that it had spoken with the resident. It agreed that it would review his past complaints over the last three years, and would respond to him fully by 19 March 2021.
On 20 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to advise that no contact had been made, despite what he had last been told by the landlord. He asked of the landlord “I don’t get it, am I doing something wrong? Am I being discriminated against due to my complaints? Ignored because I’m not happy?”. He asked that the landlord make contact with him.
On 22 March 2021, the landlord responded to the resident and apologised for the delay in contacting him. It reassured him that he could expect a response by close of play that day. No evidence of a response was seen.
On 28 April 2021, the landlord wrote to the resident again and advised that it had not heard back from the surveying team, and that the resident could expect contact by midday that day. No evidence of a response was seen.
On 30 April 2021 the landlord advised the resident that a surveyor could attend his property to inspect it on 7 May 2021. On 20 May 2021 a repairs job was raised to inspect the roof.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident and highlighted that it believed there to be three outstanding issues at the property:
1. replacement of the window glass
2. works to the vent plate
3. ongoing water ingress. The landlord confirmed that ‘chasers’ had been sent to the direct labour team, but it was yet to receive a response.
On 21 June 2021 the resident contacted the Ombudsman and advised that he had not yet received a response at stage two to his complaint. He said that ongoing leaks were causing damage to his bathroom and kitchen, and that he still had no light in the kitchen. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord and advised that a stage two response needed to be issued within 20 working days.
A stage two complaint response was sent by the landlord on 23 July 2021. Within its response, the landlord:
1. apologised for the delay in repairing the leak that was affecting the resident’s kitchen and bathroom
2. explained that a high voltage dry test investigation had taken place on 24 June 2021 and repairs to the roof had followed on 22 July 2021
3. said as rain was expected at the weekend, the resident would need to monitor if water ingress continued
4. said that a ‘tentative’ surveyors appointment had been scheduled for 29 July 2021, this was to inspect any internal damage caused by the leaks
5. explained that a review had been made of all of the resident’s historic complaints, and it could see that the resident first reported the leak in May 2018. It considered that the issue with the leak was concluded due to the aforementioned works that had taken place on 22 July 2021, though it accepted that it had taken three years and several appointments to get to that point
6. apologised that the resident had not received a response from a particular member of staff, who had been on long term leave
7. said it would be contacting the finance team as to the compensation it would like to offer, with the intention that it would provide a decision by 28 July 2021.
On 29 July 2021, the resident informed the landlord that the water ingress into his property was still happening. He requested a decant from the property. The request was noted by the landlord’s investigation and information officer, who emailed a manager and asked if a move could be considered for the resident because she “believed his mental health was a significant factor in this matter”. No response to this email was seen and the resident was not offered a move.
The same day, the landlord advised the resident that a surveyor appointment had been booked for 5 August 2021. No evidence of the surveyor’s report was seen.
The landlord’s legal services department received a letter of claim dated 3 September 2021, but the landlord stated it was not received until 5 October 2021. An acknowledgement was sent the following day and the landlord noted this on the system, stating that as a result, only emergency or health and safety works would be completed at the property.
On 3 November 2021, a surveyor for the resident’s solicitor attended the property. A disrepair surveyor for the landlord was in attendance to the appointment. The surveyor’s report advised it had noted the following:
1. the repairs which had carried out on the roof were ‘extremely poor’
2. the landlord had built a poor quality roof, on top of the original roof. This had been poorly detailed and had already started to ‘de-bond’
3. some of the decking used to create the ‘new roof’ had failed and sunk in areas due to repeated water ingress
4. the water ingress had caused ‘extensive damage’ to the resident’s property
5. there were damp meter readings, damaged ceiling plaster to the kitchen, bathroom and hallway cupboards
6. damaged wall plaster and decoration to the bathroom and hallway walls
7. electrics had been affected and the resident was without a light in the kitchen
8. the heating thermostat, bathroom extractor fan and door access system had been damaged as a result of the water ingress
9. there was damage to the resident’s belongings, including laminate floor coverings
10. that in the surveyors ‘firm opinion’, the repairs that had been carried out were ‘woefully inadequate’
11. that the disrepair surveyor had made comment that the landlord was aware of problems with a particular contractor, to such an extent they were no longer working together.

The surveyor’s report concluded that:
1. the repair the landlord’s contractors had done to the roof to date needed to be removed and redone by a specialist roofing contractor
2. upon completion of the roof repairs, all affected plastered finishes internally should be removed and replaced
3. upon completion of the plastering, all decorative finishes should be made good
4. the electrics should be tested and repaired as required
5. a new heating thermostat and extractor fan in the bathroom was required
6. the kitchen needed bringing up to standard, with removal and refitting of wall cupboards
7. the door access system required repair
8. the landlord should consider reimbursing the cost of damage to the resident’s belongings including the laminate floor
9. the internal damage to the resident’s property had been caused as a result of the landlord’s disrepair.

The landlord’s records show that on 16 December 2021, it was contacted by the resident’s clinical psychologist. They said:
1. the situation at home with recurring leaks and unsatisfactory repairs was having a detrimental effect on the resident’s mental health and wellbeing. His living situation represented a ‘constant source of distress’
2. the resident did not feel safe in his own home
3. he was unable to have his children visit him or make meals for himself, because he was unable to use his kitchen
4. that the landlord had only offered temporary solutions which had not fixed the problem
5. despite the resident’s commitment to engage in psychological treatment sessions, it was challenging to deliver treatment to him due to the level of distress he had been experiencing, caused by the impact of his living situation
6. they encouraged the landlord to complete the repair fully, or consider alternative accommodation for the resident as soon as possible. This would enable him to engage in his recovery process.
On 10 August 2022, the landlord agreed a Part 36 settlement with the resident. The resident accepted £5000 in compensation, and the landlord agreed to complete the works recommended in the surveyor’s report within 90 days of the agreement.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord advised the Ombudsman that the works to the resident’s property had not yet started, and that the court proceedings remained stayed.
In contacting the Ombudsman, the resident has said that;
1. he has continued to live in poor conditions over a period of around five years
2. he has been unable to use his kitchen fully. The kitchen light has still not been fixed
3. the quality of workmanship in his kitchen has been poor. The landlord has put his fridge back in the wrong place, his sink ‘sticks out’ and there are pipes in the kitchen the landlord plumbed in which are now leaking
4. the landlord has not communicated effectively with him
5. he has not felt comfortable having his children over to the property. He has concerns for their safety around the ongoing damp and mould
6. he is a full time carer for his father and managing appointments alongside allowing access to the landlord has been extremely stressful
7. he suffers from PTSD, anxiety and depression and the situation has had a significant, detrimental impact on his mental health
8. there have been times when he has considered sleeping in his car because he has felt so depressed with the situation in the property.

On 7 March 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that:
1. it had visited the resident on 31 January 2023. During this meeting, the landlord confirmed the resident continued to have “restricted use of his kitchen”
2. the resident was given a single point of contact during this meeting, and it has been in touch with the resident regularly since
3. due to the impact it has now recognised the situation has had on the resident, it recently discussed a move to another one bedroom property
4. the works to the roof would be completed by 8 March 2023
5. subsequent repairs to the inside of the resident’s home will start on 13 March 2023 for two days. After this, a surveyor will be in contact to discuss other issues the resident has raised, including the kitchen layout.

On 22 March 2023, the resident updated the Ombudsman on his current situation. He advised that:
1. the landlord has done some repairs to his property, but he was still without a light in the kitchen
2. the landlord redecorated the kitchen and bathroom “in the last couple of weeks” and its contractors were in the property for eight days. The workmanship was poor. They had painted over the light switches, and had left paint marks on the floor and on his belongings
3. a surveyor visited him on 21 March 2023 and agreed that the redecoration was of a poor standard. He advised the resident he would be raising a works order for the kitchen and bathroom to be decorated again by a different contractor. He is unhappy this will mean he will have to allow access for yet more appointments
4. the landlord confirmed to him that it is awaiting his bidding number so he can pursue a move. It has told him to expect it “in the next couple of weeks”, but no promises could be made to him about how long a move might take
5. the landlord had been calling him regularly in the last three months, such to the extent he had found it “overwhelming” at times. He said he felt this increase in contact had been as a direct result of the investigation by the Ombudsman.

Assessment and findings

Handling of repairs to resolve a leak

The landlord has failed to effectively fix a leak at the resident’s property and put right the internal damage it has been aware of as a result, for approximately five years. The consequence of the delayed response to fixing the leak and repairing the internal area of the resident’s home is inappropriate and falls significantly outside of the service that expected in accordance with its repair obligations. The associated impact on the resident has been exacerbated over an extended period of time and amounts to a severe failing by the landlord.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance policy states that ‘minor’ leaks are considered to be of urgent priority, with an estimated lead time of three days to attend. The landlord’s records do not demonstrate that they frequently attended within this timeframe, and the resident had to repeatedly inform the landlord that the leak continued to be a problem, and chase the status of the repairs. This left him feeling “ignored”, to the extent he asked the landlord on 20 March 2021 whether he was being “discriminated against” for making the associated complaint. The landlord’s lack of contact was unreasonable and caused the resident evident distress. Despite his attempts to engage with the landlord about the issue, it regularly failed to respond to him in a timely manner.
Since 2017, and as a direct result of the leak, the resident has been without sufficient lighting in his kitchen. The landlord’s records show at least 17 occasions where the absence of light in the kitchen was reported between June 2019, up until 8 December 2021. On one occasion, the landlord sent an electrician to refit the light, but he was unable to complete the job as the roof was still leaking. This demonstrates that the landlord was aware that there were recurrent issues at the property, but failed to recognise the impact and establish a suitable resolution for the resident as soon as reasonably possible.
The resident informed the landlord that the leak seemed to happen when it rained. Under the circumstances, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have been proactive in arranging post-inspection works in the days following a period of rain. However, in concluding its response to the leak as part of its stage two complaint response, the landlord put the onus back on the resident to monitor if water ingress continued.
This was an unreasonable request, given that the resident had suffered from the leak for some years and a final resolution was pertinent to resolving the issue. The landlord should have taken ownership of its own post-inspection schedule of works as part of its assurances to the resident that it had taken steps to put things right. It did not do this, and the resident had to contact the landlord six days after the stage two response, to inform it that the roof leak continued. There was a significant failure of the landlord to conclusively put things right on a number of occasions and be confident that its most recent repair had resolved the issue.
Where multiple attempts to fix the roof failed, post inspection and quality checking of the landlord’s contractors was essential. However no evidence was seen that demonstrated that the landlord was appropriately monitoring their performance. No copies of any surveyor’s assessments were seen, and the landlord informed the Ombudsman that in any event, it does not keep a record of such reports. Without them, the landlord could not reasonably demonstrate that it had effectively reviewed the situation and established the quality of the repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord failed to look at the resident’s situation holistically. It was inappropriate that the landlord made arrangements to install a new kitchen whilst the fundamental issue of the leak was unresolved. The landlord acknowledged in its stage one response that the works to his kitchen in 2021 had taken four weeks instead of the expected the five days because it had to allow for additional time for the roof to dry out. The resident reported that the workmanship was poor, and this further impacted the useability of his kitchen.
The report from the surveyor’s solicitor supported the resident’s concerns, condemning the workmanship that had been undertaken by the landlord’s contractors. It should not have taken an independent assessment of the property to have informed the landlord that its repairs had been of a significantly poor standard. It’s failure to effectively monitor the work of its contractors exacerbated the situation for the resident. He has been significantly inconvenienced by the repeated requirement to allow access to contractors. He has felt he has had to “live around them”, and it has impacted his work and his caring responsibilities.
It is not disputed by either party that the resident has had to live with significant disrepair in the property, as a result of a combination of failure to attend to the leak within a reasonable amount of time, and poor quality workmanship in the landlord’s attempts to repair. The agreement that it made with the resident as a result of his claim of disrepair on 10 August 2022 was to pay him £5000 compensation and to have completed the works highlighted in the surveyor report by 15 December 2022.
The landlord’s admission of disrepair was serious. It is of grave concern that despite acknowledging its failures and entering into a legal agreement to complete all the repairs within 90 days, the works had not started seven months later, when this investigation started. The landlord failed further in its obligations to repair the property within the timeframe it had agreed, and further failed in its commitment to the resident, exacerbating an already fraught relationship.
No schedule of works was seen as to exactly what repair works will take place and when. Furthermore the resident has reported that, until recently, he has been confused as to what, if any further works would be taking place at all. It is only since January 2023, that the landlord has been able to show that it is in regular communication with the resident and has given him a single point of contact for his concerns. The resident has said that he feels as though this new contact has only been as a result of the recent involvement of the Ombudsman.
The resident remains seriously impacted by the historic water ingress, and there is no evidence that the landlord has acted quickly, or has offered any solutions to the resident in managing the ongoing damp and mould in its property. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to either be avoided or minimised in like with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Repairs to the bathroom extractor fan and kitchen thermostat also remain outstanding and the resident reports that his home continues to smell damp. Without being able to control his heating, or extract moisture from the bathroom, the resident remains unable to effectively manage the damp in the property. He has also been financially impacted by having no control over the level of heating in his home. By failing to carry out the repairs in a timely manner, the landlord has failed in its obligations to mitigate the risk of the ongoing damp and mould, contrary to its repair and HHSRS obligations.
The landlord has confirmed that to date, the resident continues to have “restricted access” to his kitchen, as has been the case for a number of years. It is inappropriate that the landlord has accepted that the resident continues to be unable to use a vital part of his home. This has impacted the resident in a number of ways, as over a prolonged period of time he has been unable to access the kitchen after dark, cook for himself or provide meals for his children. It has also impacted him financially, as he has had to spend a significant amount of money on take aways.
In addition to the repairs that are required to put right the water damage, the property requires full redecoration, as was the recommendation in the surveyor’s report. The resident has said the impact of the poor decoration of his home has left him “embarrassed”, to the point he feels unable to invite friends round to visit him, affecting his social life and his relationships.
Photographs that the resident has sent the Ombudsman show significant water damage on the walls and ceilings. There are water marks and bubbling, peeling paintwork in the kitchen and bathroom. Areas particularly affected include where the kitchen light fitting was, around his bathroom extractor fan and around his fire alarm. The photographs show exposed wires and holes where the light should be in his kitchen, and evidence of a leak being contained by a bucket under his sink.
Overall, the landlord failed in its obligations to effectively repair the roof, put right the internal damage, support and communicate effectively with the resident over a significant period of time. This failure was formally acknowledged by the landlord at the point it agreed to a part 36 settlement and to complete the works within 90 days. However despite accepting its failures, the landlord has continued to fail its obligations to repair the property, and in doing so, also breached the agreement it had made.
Whilst the resident is also able to approach the court to notify it of the landlord’s breach of its part 36 settlement, the Ombudsman has considered that its failures in putting things right for the resident amount to severe maladministration. The landlord did not learn from outcomes at the point it acknowledged its disrepair, and has exacerbated the situation for the resident over an extended period of time, causing him significant distress and further inconvenience.
It should not have taken disrepair action for the landlord to recognise and consider a proportionate financial remedy for the resident. In the absence of a compensation policy, the landlord has been unable to demonstrate how it can effectively calculate an appropriate figure which takes into account the detriment the resident has experienced over a significant period of time. Where it has failed to learn from the outcomes of its legal settlement in August 2022, the Ombudsman has ordered further compensation which takes into account the circumstances of the case, the resident’s rental liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The resident’s current rent is £108.39 per week. The property compromises four rooms – the bedroom, bathroom, living room and kitchen. The Ombudsman has taken into consideration that the resident’s enjoyment of the kitchen and the bathroom were severely curtailed and has ordered compensation as follows:
1. the landlord should pay the resident 50% of the rental amount on 2/4 of the rent for the period the repair has remained outstanding following his formal complaint. This is because two rooms were affected.
2. the date of this report amounts to 33 weeks
3. therefore compensation for the delayed repairs to the kitchen and bathroom totals £894.30.

Complaint handling

It is noted that the resident reported a leak in his property affecting his kitchen and bathroom as far back as 2016, and formal complaints were logged by the landlord for the resident on at least five occasions since this time. Reference to these past complaints is crucial to understanding the history of this case. However this investigation is primarily focussed on the handling of the resident’s complaint from September 2020 onwards, noting that the landlord said it had considered all the historic complaints previously made in its final and most recent complaint response.

Records demonstrate that from the most recent complaint dated 29 September 2020, the resident experienced prolonged delays in obtaining a response from the landlord. The stage one letter was sent 33 working days after he complained, which is 18 working days outside of the timeframe that the resident could have expected to receive a formal response in accordance with the landlord’s complaint policy.
No evidence was seen of any communication with the resident between him raising a complaint to responding to it. This was a failure of the landlord in understanding the full breadth and depth of the complaint, so that it could have been confident that it had addressed all matters raised by the resident at stage one of its process.
It is clear from the landlord’s records, that the resident complained to the landlord on a number of occasions about the same issues since at least 2018. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (CHC) makes it clear that where the problem is a recurring, that the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if it will help resolve the issue for the resident.
The stage one response dated 20 November 2020 did not take the full history of the issue into account, exacerbated by the fact it had not sought to clarify matters with the resident. Its failed to acknowledge the causal link between the leak it was referring to in its response, and the historic complaints about the same issue. Its failure to have obtained a full understanding of the case impacted its ability to put things right for the resident and demonstrate appropriate empathy. This contributed to the resident’s dissatisfaction and caused him further distress.
The stage one response apologised for the delay in responding to the residents complaint, but it failed to appropriately acknowledge the history and impact to the resident. The repair works taking four weeks instead of the five days he had been advised had significantly impacted his ability to use his kitchen, and he had to take time off from work as a result. Therefore the historic £200 compensation the landlord offered in reference to a previous complaint, was not proportionate to its failures. It failed to take into account the full impact on the resident, it did not consider the outstanding issues fully and failed to put things right for the resident.
The landlord did not follow its complaints process when escalating the matter to stage two of its process. The resident experienced time and trouble in trying to get a further response, and this contributed to his ongoing distress. The landlord required prompting from this Service to issue a stage two response, which it did on 23 July 2021. This was 174 working days after the resident requested an escalation, which is substantially out of time, and contrary to the timeframes given its own complaints policy. This delay was unacceptable and compounds evidence that there has been a severe failure of the landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaint.
On conclusion of the stage two response, the landlord made reference to the amount of compensation it may offer the resident, and advised it would review the amount with the finance team. However, no further offer of compensation was made in relation to the complaint until its settlement in 2022, and there has been no further offer that takes into consideration that the works remain outstanding in 2023. The landlord has advised the Ombudsman that it does not have a compensation policy, therefore it has no process to refer to in order to calculate whether it is offering reasonable financial redress. This is a concern, as in the landlord’s self-assessment against the CHC, the landlord makes specific reference to having a compensation policy, as it should in line with best practise.
Overall there were severe failings in the landlords management of the resident’s complaint. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity, hindering its ability to consider the full history of the case. There were significant delays in responding to the resident which contributed to his distress over a considerable amount of time. The landlord failed to put matters right by offering firm reassurances that it had resolved the leak and failed to offer fair compensation when it had the opportunity to do so.

Record keeping

The evidence also points to failures in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, particularly where the landlord’s repair records were not kept up to date to allow for effective management of the repair. This is evidenced by internal correspondence between departments where emails were sent to chase the status of repairs at the property. For example on 23 June 2021 a member of the landlord’s staff emails another to ask “can you provide an update on this repair, or what the lead time is for arranging roofers?”. Landlord’s repair records should be up to date, and easily accessible to all staff. By failing to keep its repairs records up to date, it caused unnecessary delays and worsened the situation for the resident.
Landlords should have systems in place to maintain accurate records of repair reports, visits, inspections, and investigations. On 17 January 2023, the landlord informed the Ombudsman that it does not keep a record surveyors’ reports. This is of significant concern as without these, the landlord could not reasonably demonstrate that it had effectively reviewed the situation and established the quality of the repairs at the earliest opportunity.
The landlord failed to keep consistent, contemporaneous phone records which accurately noted details of its correspondence with the resident. Evidence demonstrated there were occasions when the landlord had communicated with the resident by telephone. However on occasion, the notes simply say that a call had taken place, and not what the detail of the call was. This impacted its ability to understand the full history of the case, respond appropriately to the resident’s complaint and reflect on what actions it had taken over time.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping. It failed to demonstrate that it had recorded its actions in dealing with the water ingress, and in doing so it hindered its ability to communicate effectively with the resident.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities

The landlord was aware that the resident had vulnerabilities, and records demonstrate that the resident informed it that delayed repairs to his property were having a negative impact on his mental health. However there was no evidence of a swift response to the resident’s repeated requests for call backs, and the landlord was not in regular contact with him about his concerns. It failed to respond to the resident in a timely manner on multiple occasions, and in doing so failed to consider the impact on the resident.
The landlord was aware the resident wanted to move but no attempts were made to discuss the matter with him, despite concerns raised by its own staff, as evidenced in the email dated 29 July 2021. The landlord failed to discuss the resident’s request, and in doing so it failed to acknowledge the impact the repairs were having on him. No other reasonable adjustments were offered to help support him whilst the landlord managed the repairs in his property.
The letter from the resident’s clinical psychologist five months later further explained the impact the delayed repairs were having on the resident and asked that the landlord prioritise either repairing the property, or moving the resident. It is of concern that no evidence was seen of any response or acknowledgement to this request, and as a result the landlord has been unable to demonstrate that it took into consideration the resident’s circumstances at an earlier opportunity.
It is not until 6 March 2023, and after this Service had intervened, that the landlord confirmed that “due to the impacts expressed by [the resident], we have discussed with him today a move to another one bed property”. Whilst the resident feels positive about the prospect of this recent offer, the time it took for the landlord to consider how it could support the resident shows a considerable lack of empathy and understanding of the impact its delays in repairing the property has had on his daily life.
Having clear and open lines of communication with the resident at an earlier opportunity would have fostered a better understanding of his condition, and could have minimised the impact on him. The prolonged delay in acknowledging what measures it could put in place or that a move could be beneficial to the resident’s wellbeing, was not appropriate and results in a finding of severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to a leak at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed in its obligations to repair the leak within the property within a reasonable timeframe and failed to effectively manage the damp and mould which occurred as a result. It has been aware that the resident has been unable to use his kitchen fully since around 2017 and yet has still not put matters right, despite entering into a legal agreement with regards to its disrepair, and despite the further amount of time that has passed. The landlord failed to communicate effectively with the resident and did not take his vulnerabilities into account, causing him significant distress over a prolonged period of time.
The landlord failed to follow its complaint policy or apply the key principles of the CHC of “Be fair, Learn from Outcomes, Put matters right”. The landlord failed to communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity within its complaint process, and in doing so it considerably underestimated the amount of time it had already taken to find a resolution for him. There were significant delays in the landlord issuing its complaint responses, such to the extent it had to be prompted by this Service to issue a stage two response. The final response failed to offer reassurance to the resident that it had resolved the leak and it failed to offer appropriate compensation that was reflective of the considerable impact the issue had on the resident.
There were failures in the landlord’s record keeping which hindered its ability to progress the repair swiftly and communicate effectively with the resident. The delays were exacerbated by internal emails chasing up the status of repairs and it is of significant concern that the landlord did not keep a record of its surveyors reports. These failures added to the resident’s distress, where he had to repeat the issues he was experiencing on a number of occasions.
The landlord was aware the resident had vulnerabilities, but offered no support and made reasonable adjustments to help support him. No evidence was seen of a response to the letter written by his clinical psychologist, which compounded the impact the delayed repairs were having on the resident. It was not until March 2023, and five years since he first reported the leak, that it discussed the impact on the resident and offered to support him to move to alternative accommodation.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord’s chief executive to apologise to the resident in person.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,394.30 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident, and not offset against any arrears. The amount is in addition to the £5,000 the landlord has already paid the resident as part of its legal settlement. The compensation compromises:
1. £894.30 for the delay in resolving the leak and repairing the associated damage to the resident’s property
2. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of the leak and associated repairs
3. £750 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the failures found in the landlord’s complaint handling
4. £1,000 for the landlord’s failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities.
The landlord to complete all the agreed works highlighted in the surveyor’s report from 3 November 2021, within four weeks.
The landlord provide an update with regards to its proposed move of the resident, within four weeks of this report.
The landlord to attend the property to inspect and identify all other repairs required in the property, including the reconfiguration of the kitchen. A plan of action to be designed and shared with the Ombudsman and the resident within six weeks of this report.
The landlord carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. The review must include:
1. an explanation of why it does not have a compensation policy, and carry out a review of its approach to compensation in line with best practice
2. a review of its procedures in relation to resident’s vulnerabilities. In doing so, demonstrate how it will actively use its vulnerability information to provide any additional support that may be required
3. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record and store surveyor and other specialist reports
4. an explanation of how the landlord will quality check the works of its contractors, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future
5. review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
The outcome of the above review to be shared with this service within six weeks of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord consider re-training its staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the CHC.
That the landlord report back on its intentions regarding the recommendation above, within four weeks of the date of this report.