Clarion Housing Association Limited (202107796)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107796

Clarion Housing Association Limited

10 February 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 landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
2. The resident’s report of water and a sewage flood from the property above.
3. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
The complaint is also about the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupies a two-bedroom ground floor flat in a converted property under an assured tenancy which began on 3 April 2000. The landlord owns the lease while the local authority in which the property is situated owns the building and is the freeholder. The resident is disabled and vulnerable. She was 79 years of age, and suffered with significant health issues including cancer, bone disease, and scoliosis of the spine. She had previously suffered a stroke, which she reported had impacted her memory.
The property upstairs was on the first floor of the building and was owned by another leaseholder of the local authority.

Legal and policy framework

Under the assured tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the installations, common parts, structure, and exterior in good repair. This did not include responsibility for decoration.
Under Section 1 of the Antisocial Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014, the court may grant an injunction to a social housing provider where such an application “concerns anti-social behaviour that directly or indirectly relates to or affects its (the landlord’s) housing management functions”.
The landlord’s ASB policy stated as follows:
1. It would adopt a supportive approach when dealing with victims and would be flexible in its approach and would work in partnership with both internal and external partners to tackle it.
2. It committed to taking effective action and using the powers available to it, where it considered they could provide an effective remedy.
3. It recognised the detrimental effect that ASB can have on the lives of its residents.
4. It set out its criteria for opening an ASB case based on frequency of reports.
5. Once it was clear that the problem was persistent and the thresholds were met, it would carry out its investigation within 5 working days.
The landlord’s vulnerable resident’s policy set out as follows:
1. It was committed to assisting its vulnerable residents to ensure they received the assistance they need to sustain their tenancy.
2. It provided “a significant amount of additional support” and “responded flexibly” to residents who were facing exceptional circumstances that could make them more vulnerable.
3. It would take account of known vulnerability factors in the provision of services and in decisions around tenancy management and enforcement.
4. It defined ‘vulnerable’ in relation to the provision of its services as residents who had a particular characteristic. Vulnerability included age, disability, and chronic, debilitating health conditions.
5. It would investigate ASB reports for residents who were over 75 years old.
Under the repairs policy, any emergency repair should be attended within 24 hours and works to make safe or temporarily repair should be completed at this visit. The landlord offered appointments for non-emergency repairs within 28 calendar days of the repair being reported. In extraordinary/exceptional circumstances, it could sometimes agree to carry out works that were not its responsibility. These did not form part of its repair policy and process and would be addressed under a mutually–agreed process with the resident.
The complaints procedure was a two-stage process.
Under its compensation policy, the landlord would pay between £50 and £250 in relation to any service failure resulting in some impact on the complainant. An example was where there had been repeated failures to reply to letters or return phone calls. It would offer £250-£700 for cases of considerable failure but where there was no permanent impact on the complainant. Examples included a complainant repeatedly having to chase responses and seek correction of mistakes, necessitating unreasonable level of involvement by that complainant and to address repairs; to respond to antisocial behaviour; to make adequate adjustments. It would offer £700 and above when there has been a significant and serious long-term effect on the complainant. It would also pay £15 for a missed appointment.

Chronology

On 8 February 2021, the resident reported that a major flood had occurred the night before from the property above, which was empty at the time. As a result, the fire brigade attended. The resident had no electrics in the whole property. The landlord made arrangements to attend on the same day.
The resident wrote to the local authority. The local authority declined to enter the then empty property. It later transpired that there had been a radiator leak in the empty flat, and the leaseholder’s builder, instead of turning off the water, had covered the leaking pipes with large black rubbish bags. The stopcock was not turned off till later in the afternoon. The resident reported later that was thanks to her intervention through third parties.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 22 February 2021. She had previously informed it of the identity of the leaseholder of the property above. She had previously requested the landlord to raise with the local authority that the property had wooden/laminated flooring, which she understood was not permitted by the local authority. There was no sound insulation in the building due to its construction. As a consequence, she was unable to use part of her flat because of the noise nuisance. She slept on a sofa in a small living room at the rear of the property. She had notified it of her disabilities, including scoliosis of the spine. The landlord had failed to address the extremely severe ASB, intimidation, harassment, trespass, and racial abuse perpetrated by the occupants who were the leaseholder’s daughter and partner. The police had advised residents of the building not to approach or answer the door to the occupants. In a subsequent email a few days later, the resident notified the local authority that the occupants had returned to the property.
The local authority wrote, copying in the landlord, on 2 March 2021, that the local authority had the right in an emergency to enter a property if a problem was not being rectified. The resident could make a claim for any damage under the local authority’s public liability insurance. On the same day, the landlord forwarded this email and an insurance claim form to the resident.
On 28 April 2021, the resident made a complaint to the landlord that she had reported ASB perpetrated by the occupants above some years previously and a leak had occurred at the upstairs property but the landlord had failed to raise the issues with the local authority.
The resident made a further report on 12 May 2021 that her electric power went off in the early hours of 24/25 April, so that her home was in complete darkness. The cause was a flow of sewage waste from the upstairs property. The landlord sent an emergency electrician to attend. The fire brigade also attended.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint on 13 May 2021 and said that the complaints team would contact her.
The resident wrote again on following day that there had been another incident as a result of which the Police had attended. The builders at the property above were trespassing and carrying out noisy building works, after 6 p.m..
The resident chased the landlord on 20 May 2021, stating that her previous attempts to have her reports dealt with had been ignored. This was particularly distressing given her disabilities.
The landlord noted on 20 May 2021 that it would assess the water damage. The landlord would contact the local authority regarding the ongoing issues with the leaseholder and the ASB.
The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property in relation to the water damage on 27 May 2021. The surveyor’s report exhibited photographs and descriptions of water damage and two complaint closure letters dated 5 and 14 August 2020, each stating that the landlord was taking no further action and would be closing the case.
According to the surveyor’s internal email of 27 May 2021, the resident reported no repair issues other than the “constant” leaks caused by the leaseholder in the above flat. But “regardless”, the surveyor noted staining from the leaks throughout the property, which was reflected in its report of the same date. It recommended stain blocking and redecorating, given the resident was elderly and had no one to assist her.
The surveyor’s email also reported the resident’s distress regarding the ASB and that the two complaint closure letters from the landlord contained no explanation as to why it closed the complaints. The email also noted that the resident had reported racial abuse, being sworn at, several leaks, and people running across her extension roof.
Further internal emails showed that the landlord arranged the remedial works to be carried out on 29 July 2021 and for an urgent investigation of the ongoing ASB.
The landlord noted in its internal records of 1 June 2021 that there had been approximately four ASB incidents reported the previous year. It also noted on 8 June 2021 that it was first reported in March 2020 that she has being affected by noise and the smell of cannabis. The case had not initially met its “threshold” and it had invited further reports. An action plan was agreed. As requested by the resident, the landlord had written to the local authority noise team. It did not receive a response. The resident further reported the occupants jumping onto her roof. She reported further noise, including shouting and banging and verbal abuse. The landlord closed the case as it again considered that the reports did not meet its “threshold”. It raised concerns regarding the resident’s “mental health”. The landlord had advised her that, due to this being a private residence, she would need to report this to the local authority as it could not take tenancy enforcement action or conduct home inspections. It would chase the matter with the local authority.
The landlord wrote with its first stage response on 18 June 2021 as follows:
1. It set out the background and some of the events including a history of ongoing ASB and leaks from the upstairs flat.
2. While the resident appreciated the difficulties as the occupants were not the landlord’s tenants or leaseholders, her complaint was that she had not been properly supported by the landlord.
3. The landlord had raised a job to carry out stain blocking and painting, as the resident had no means of doing the work herself.
4. It had arranged to contact the local authority and for that communication to be kept open and report back to her.
5. It offered compensation of £50 per issue consisting of delay in dealing with complaint, her inconvenience, and necessitating repeated contact, totalling £150.
According to its internal notes, the landlord had emailed the local authority’s Environmental Health Team (EHO) on 27 April 2021 but did not receive a response and was to pursue the matter with the local authority. The landlord was to write to the resident what and when it had communicated to the local authority and manage her expectations.
The resident asked to escalate the complaint on 6 July 2021.
On 3 August 2021, the landlord summarised the resident’s reasons for escalating the complaint as follows:
1. The landlord to complete the agreed repairs to remedy the leak damage and paint affected areas.
2. The landlord to agree a point of contact and an action plan with regular contact dates to help support her during her ASB issues.
3. It would reply or update her no later than 2 September 2021.
On 6 August 2021, the resident clarified that her complaint was about the landlord’s failure to deal with ASB, lack of communication, and health and safety issues, not the repairs.
According to an internal email of 17 August 2021, the repairs had been postponed and were due to take place on 16 September 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021 with an ASB action plan. The resident was to report any further incidents to the Police, the local authority, and the landlord. The landlord was to discuss with the local authority what action the local authority was taking against their leaseholder and report to the resident. It would offer her an incident diary.
The landlord wrote with its second stage response on 27 August 2021 as follows:
1. The landlord did not agree that there had been delays to the repairs, but there were two missed appointments.
2. On 7 July 2020, the resident had reported “years” of issues with the residents in the flat above including drug use, verbal abuse, shouting, and banging. The Police had arrested one of the residents on several occasions. It had sent out diary sheets but had not heard further and sent a closure letter on 5 August 2020.
3. On 12 August 2021, the resident had reported further similar issues from the occupants upstairs, including leaks, arguments, domestic abuse, the malicious activation of the fire alarm in the communal hallway, and inappropriate sexual behaviour.
4. The landlord had contacted the local authority on 25 June 2021 and 1 July 2021 to consider what possible actions it could take in relation to the lease. The landlord would continue to liaise with the local authority. It had also approached its independent ASB advisors for guidance. It added that it “may need to take legal advice to confirm (its) best course of action”.
5. Given it did not own the property upstairs, it would progress the case as far as it was able and escalate within the local authority, if appropriate.
6. It had not been as responsive as it could have been and, as a result, the resident had had to contact it on several occasions. The confusion about the tenure of the building had also not helped matters. It offered of compensation of £230 consisting as follows:
  1. Delay responding to peer review complaint: £50.
  2. Discretionary payment for inconvenience: £100.
  3. Two missed appointment: £30.
  4. Incorrect information in stage one response: £50.
According to the landlord’s records of 10 September 2021, the landlord had contacted the local authority. The local authority was considering forfeiture of the lease, however there were obstacles. The landlord has shared what the nature of those obstacles were with the Ombudsman but the Ombudsman is unable to disclose these to the resident or in this report, due to confidentiality. A few days later, the landlord was informed that the local authority would not be taking action against the leaseholder.
There followed incomplete evidence of emails but which indicated that the landlord chased the local authority for information on 8 October 2021 and that the landlord attended the property to consider its layout on 18 August 2021 or 28 October 2021.
The resident chased the landlord on several occasions in October 2021 into January 2022 for an update and reported further information to assist her case.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 4 February 2022 regarding her complaint as follows:
1. She set out the delays to the repairs to her flat. The landlord had offered her temporary accommodation. She had, as an alternative, employed a private contractor to gain access to the flat above. There were leaking pipes under the floorboards in two rooms and to address sewage ingress. She was without sanitation facilities for over four days. At the inspection on 27 May 2021, she had pointed out the damp and mould in the bedrooms and hallway cupboards to the surveyor, as well as the water damage.
2. The landlord had not contacted her within 28 days of the second stage response of 27 August 2021, as promised. It did not provide diary sheets or responded to her emails. The landlord had not provided a point of contact or an action plan with regular contact dates to give support.
A new housing officer assigned to the resident’s case contacted the resident on 7 February 2022 to arrange a telephone conversation during which the resident informed the landlord the ASB had stopped, but the repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord wrote on 9 and 10 February 2022 stating that it had raised a new complaint regarding the ASB and asked its repairs team to look into the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It had noted that she remained dissatisfied with the overall response, and the remedial repairs needed to be completed. She could escalate her existing complaint to a “third” stage if she remained dissatisfied.
There followed some correspondence about whether the landlord had ended the initial telephone conversation prematurely and without warning. The landlord explained it had had a schedule call to make which it had alerted the resident to. The correspondence also dealt with an ASB case closure letter the landlord explained it had sent it after the resident had reported there were no current ASB issues but before she informed the landlord the perpetrator had moved back into the property upstairs, when it reopened the case. The resident’s correspondence also reminded the landlord of her concerns about the repairs and laminate floor upstairs.
On 16 February 2022, the landlord emailed the resident that it would update her in relation to that correspondence by 2 March 2022.
The landlord explained on 23 February 2022 that it had made enquiries with the local authority in relation to any enforcement action and the flooring. It would revert to the resident in five days. According to its internal records, the landlord raised a job to stain block any water damage ready for the tenant to decorate “in their chosen way”. The job had been missed.
On 2 March 2022, the landlord wrote to say it would update the resident on 8 March 2022.
The resident reported to this service on 5 March 2022 that the landlord had attended to carry out the works which would take longer than anticipated so it would rebook them. The damp and mould would be investigated by a surveyor. She later reported an appointment for the remedial works on 15 March 2022.
On 15 March 2022, the landlord wrote to say it would update the resident on 25 March 2022. In its internal review of the complaint, the landlord’s records referred to the resident’s vulnerability.
On 24 March 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident asking if there has been any fresh incidents of ASB. It had spoken to the local authority and said it would expect the local authority to take appropriate action including consideration of lease forfeiture. According to a previous note, the local authority agreed to investigate whether there was a lease condition to place carpets on flooring to reduce noise nuisance. It provided the resident with diary sheets and offered to post them to the resident. It would contact her in one week’s time for any update. It invited her to report any further incidents.
On 25 March 2022, the landlord wrote with a “Peer Review Addendum” to its response of 27 August 2021 as follows:
1. The report of 27 May 2021 had not identified any damp and mould in the property. The stain blocking was carried out in September 2021. In relation to a promised call, this was in relation to the compensation payment.
2. The landlord was to manage the ongoing matter in relation to the property upstairs and set out the actions it had taken to date. There had been no recent further reports of ASB. While it was not the freeholder of the building, it accepted that it had been too reliant on the local authority to take action. It could have taken action in the form of an injunction. It promised to manage the case sensitively in the future and to be in contact on a more regular basis, to capture any poor behaviour sooner and so that it could collate any relevant evidence, should it take legal action on the matter.
3. The landlord contacted the resident following the peer review in August 2021 but apologised this fell short in the months of December 2021 and January 2022 and that no diary sheets were sent as promised.
4. It offered further compensation of £50 per issue in relation to lack of communication for 2 months, not sending out diary sheets as promised and the delay to sending out the Peer Review Addendum, totalling £150.
The resident thanked the landlord for the “welcome email” on 28 March 2022. Things were quiet but she asked the landlord to raise the issue of the flooring with the local authority. The repairs were postponed due to the resident’s attending hospital.
On 31 March 2022, the landlord noted that the stain blocking had not gone ahead as planned in September 2021 due to the pandemic and then due to roofing repairs being carried out to remedy the leaks.
The resident chased on 28 April 2022 regarding the flooring and again on 11 May 2022. The landlord had not contacted her as promised. The leaseholder’s daughter had returned to the property in the meantime.
The landlord wrote to the local authority on 11 May 2022 asking it if it had checked the lease regarding the requirement to have floor coverings. It relayed fresh reports of noise nuisance and that the daughter of the leaseholder had been on the flat roof next to her flat.
The landlord updated the resident on 11 May 2022 and apologised for the previous lack of an update.
The landlord chased the local authority again on 27 May 2022 and updated the resident on the lack of response. On 13 June 2022, it created a diary note to contact the resident.

Assessment and findings

The resident’s reports of noise and antisocial behaviour (ASB).

It was not disputed that the resident had suffered from anti-social behaviour from the occupants of the flat above. It was inappropriate of the landlord to have closed its ASB cases in 2020 on the basis they did not meet its thresholds for an ASB case. This was inappropriate, given that its own policy provided that a vulnerable resident would be exempt from “thresholds”. The resident could be defined as vulnerable by the landlord’s own definition: she was elderly, over 75 years old, she was disabled, and she had several ill-health conditions. She was also likely deemed to be disabled under the Equality Act 2010, as, potentially, a person suffering from a long-term condition which affected her day-to-day activities, and as a person diagnosed with cancer. While, in mitigation, it was noted that the resident had reported no more than four incidents in 2020 and the cases were closed due to a lack of reports, the incidents she reported were serious, the police were involved and had caused her distress.
In addition, the landlord sent the resident closing letters without explanation or meaningful content as a result of which the resident felt unsupported and frustrated. The landlord should have reopened the ASB case having received reports only one week after the first case was closed rather than set up a fresh “threshold”. However, it was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider disregarding the “threshold”. As well as failing to consider the options open to it and noting – but apparently not taking into account – the resident’s distress and vulnerability, it failed to consider its own policy and failed to engage with the resident. The impact of this failure was exacerbated by the resident’s age and vulnerability.
There was no evidence, until the landlord reviewed its second stage response, that the landlord considered the resident’s vulnerability, despite her clear account of her health conditions and her occasional reminders and explanation of her age, and how her condition and the occupants of the flat upstairs was affecting her.
There was no dispute that the landlord did not own the flat above, and that it had no landlord and tenant relationship with the owner and this limited its options. However, this did not eradicate its options for addressing the issues. The evidence showed that the landlord initially took the view it could do very little to intervene in the situation. Even if that had been the case, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have liaised proactively with the local authority.
The resident asked that, as a minimum, the landlord should approach the local authority to investigate whether it could take action in relation to the flooring, separate from the ASB issue. While it is recognised that the landlord could not have intervened directly, the landlord is referred to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on noise complaints. Spotlight on: Noise Complaints -October 2022 (housing-ombudsman.org.uk). While the local authority’s own powers would rely on provisions of the leaseholder’s lease, the evidence indicated that, aside from a reference to a solitary email in April 2021, the landlord only started to take meaningful steps, in the autumn of 2021. This was despite that the resident had been making this particular plea for months, if not years, previously. It was appropriate that the landlord finally took this up on the resident’s behalf, asking such pertinent questions as to the terms of the upstairs lease. The landlord, however, continued to rely on leaving telephone messages with an individual at the local authority and failed to escalate the communication by writing to the local authority formally, and/or addressing this on a management level.
The resident also asked that the landlord intervene with the local authority as to what action it could take in relation to the ASB by the occupiers. While the landlord expressed an intention to approach the local authority in this regard, there was only evidence that it did so in the autumn of 2021. The evidence, which the Ombudsman is unable to share in this report, showed that there were real difficulties for the local authority.
While the landlord appropriately acknowledged this eventually, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have considered making an application for an injunction sooner, as part of its housing management functions. The Ombudsman is unable to speculate what would have happened had the landlord considered this option sooner or contacted the local authority sooner and will consider the impact on the resident accordingly.
At the stage of the complaint review of August 2021, it was reasonable and appropriate of the landlord to propose steps such as an action plan and liaising with the local authority, if delayed, given they were requests the resident had been making. There was some attempt to abide with this plan but the contact with the resident ended shortly after in October/November 2021, which was partially explained, although not justified, by a change of staff. There was no evidence that the landlord sought legal advice, given it did not consider injunction proceedings until its addendum review. As it later acknowledged, it did not provide incident diaries.
Matters improved after a new housing officer was appointed. While there was an initial dispute between the parties over communication, for which the resident’s frustration was understandable, the landlord’s explanation was reasonable in relation to both the call that was ended and the case closure letter. The landlord went a long way to rectify matters by being becoming more proactive and carrying out its peer review addendum. The evidence showed an improvement in the landlord’s responses, culminating in a transparent self-appraisal and an improved action plan, including offering better communication. While the landlord sought to put things right, there was a lengthy period where a highly vulnerable resident felt – and was – unsupported.
While the events post-dated the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint procedure, it is noted that the resident was still chasing the landlord in April and May 2022, however it updated her. It is noted that, while the landlord reasonably diarised contact with the resident, it had not set out how often it would contact the resident or provide a timescale for responding to her in order to better manage expectations. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
While the resident stated that compensation was not, for her, the central issue, the Ombudsman has considered whether the landlord’s offer of compensation was sufficient. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not consider injunction proceedings until its addendum review, however, it was reasonable that the landlord recognised that it had not been as responsive as it could have been, and was transparent in expressing this. The landlord offered £100 at stage one and £100 at Stage two in relation to her inconvenience and necessitating repeated contact. It then offered £50 for the lack of communication and £50 for not sending out diary sheets, so that the total offered for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of noise and ASB amounted to £300. While the landlord considerably rectified its approach, the Ombudsman considers that given the resident’s vulnerability, the impact on the resident, and the length of time the service failures endured, the compensation was insufficient.

The resident’s report of water and a sewage flood from the property above.

According to the resident’s reports she was content with the speed of the landlord’s response to her reports in terms of attending the property and the repairs, until she raised her concerns again in February 2022. While the responsibility for the sewage leaks and pipes lay with the leaseholder upstairs, the landlord acted reasonably and appropriately in line with its repair policy and vulnerable person’s policy in effecting the repairs and undertaking the redecoration. It is noted that the decision to redecorate, recorded in its letter of 18 June 2021, appears to have been lost sight of and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard. The landlord acknowledged that the remedial works had not been completed as of March 2022. Having promised to undertake the repairs, it was unreasonable of the landlord not to have kept track of the repairs, and, as a result, to have stated they had been carried out in September 2021 and not followed them up.
Part of the resident’s complaint was that the landlord could have prevented the leaks and sewage by being more proactive with the local authority, in particular as the resident attributed the leaks in part to the ASB. In addition to the Ombudsman’s expectation, the landlord should have intervened on the resident’s behalf, the leaks were damaging its own property, even setting aside the effect on the resident. In the circumstances, the landlord would have been entitled to approach the leaseholder and the local authority in its own right, given it owned the lease and was the leaseholder of the local authority. There was no evidence that the landlord consulted its own lease with the local authority which may have been relevant as a) the leaks appeared to be due to disrepair in the roof and b) there may have been mutually–enforceable covenants in the lease. In summary, it was also important for the landlord to have considered its own legal position in this context, as this could have assisted the resident. The landlord would have greater standing vis-a-vis the local authority than the resident in this matter.
However, the Ombudsman can only speculate whether, or to what extent, such intervention would have been practical and/or effective. There would have been a number of factors at play, being largely the contractual relationship between the landlord and local authority and the leaseholder and freeholder local authority.
Another aspect of the resident’s complaint is that the landlord could have intervened when the local authority declined to take action on 8 February 2021. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider intervening, in particular in the resident’s circumstances, and in light of the fact it would be protecting its own assets. Again, the local authority’s rights would have depended on the exact terms of the leaseholder’s lease. Most leases contain a right of access in case of emergencies (not only if the leaseholder did not take action). Again, the impact of not having done so is a matter of speculation, since there is no evidence of what the local authority could have or would have done in those circumstances.
The incidents were serious and extremely distressing to the resident. Taking into account her personal circumstances and level of vulnerability, the delay in redecoration works, combined with the landlord failing to take a more proactive approach in regard to its liaison with the local authority, constituted service failure by the landlord in its overall response to the resident’s reports of water and sewage from above. While, as set out above, the Ombudsman cannot conclusively say what the outcome would have been if the landlord had been more proactive, it failed to do enough to actively resolve the situation for the resident by considering all its options.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

It was disputed whether the resident asked the surveyor to inspect her cupboards on 27 May 2021. According to the evidence, the emphasis at the time was on the water damage from the leaks. According to the surveyor, the resident stated there were no issues of disrepair, he only identified the water damage, although equally there was no evidence either way whether the surveyor inspected the cupboards. Where there is a dispute in such circumstances, the Ombudsman is unable to make a finding either way. There was no evidence that the landlord sent its report to the resident, which if it did not do so, was not satisfactory. Equally, there was no evidence that the resident did not raise again the damp and mould following the inspection until February 2022, in response to which the landlord raised an inspection. In all of the circumstances, the Ombudsman does not find service failure but will make recommendations which the Ombudsman would expect the landlord, in the circumstances, to accept.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

The landlord failed to recognise that the resident’s email of 22 February 2022 should have been treated as a complaint, given it was an expression of the resident’s dissatisfaction and was specifically about a service failure by the landlord. There were unexplained delays in the landlord’s responses from the 28 April 2021 to the 18 June 2021 and from 6 July 2021 to 25 August 2021. Furthermore, the landlord did not ensure that the promises made in its complaint response were adhered to.
The landlord kept the resident updated in relation to the delay to the addendum review. While the landlord’s complaint policy did not set out a timescale, these were unreasonable delays. The landlord acknowledged its delays in its complaint handling and offered £50 compensation for each delay and incorrect information, totalling £200. While the impact was cumulative, the Ombudsman considers that the compensation, given there was no lasting impact, was in line with the landlord’s own policy and the Ombudsman’s own guidance on compensation.
While it was inappropriate to suggest there was a third stage to the complaints procedure, and at the same time refer to a new complaint, the landlord exercised its reasonable discretion and inventiveness by instigating a “peer review addendum” which was a proportionate, constructive, and beneficial approach in the circumstances. If it had not demonstrated transparency, put things right by reviewing its approach and making improvements in the addendum review, the Ombudsman would have found service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water and a sewage flood from the property above.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord did not demonstrate proper regard for the resident’s vulnerability or that it was proactive and consider the tools available to it to deal with the ASB. It did eventually reconsider the matter and sought to put matters right by a review which demonstrated self-reflection and transparency.
While there were a number of legal complexities in relation to the action it could have potentially taken, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord took a narrow view of the actions it could take.
The landlord did not identify damp and mould in his inspection of 27 May 2021 which may have been due to a failure of communication. However, at a later date, the landlord planned to re-inspect the cupboards.
The landlord failed to treat the resident’s complaint as a complaint and there were unexplained delays in its responses. However, it demonstrated putting things right by means of an effective “addendum peer review”.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £400, in addition to the compensation the landlord has offered, within 4 weeks as follows:
1. An additional amount of £200 in addition to the £300 offered to the resident in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour.
2. The sum of £200 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of water and a sewage flood from the property above.
The landlord should, in agreement with the resident, record with all its services that the resident is vulnerable and the nature of her vulnerability, in order to inform the appropriate standard of response from the landlord.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks of this report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should, if it has not done so already, pay the resident the compensation it had offered during the course of its internal complaints process.
2. The landlord should ensure that it redecorates the areas that suffered water damage, if it has not done so already.
3. The landlord should consider making a further compensation payment to the resident in relation to the contractor’s invoices referred to in the resident’s email of 4 February 2022.
4. The landlord should, if it had not already done so, inspect the resident’s property for damp and mould paying particular attention to the cupboards and carry out any repairs or works it deems appropriate, in particular given the resident’s vulnerability. The landlord should bear in mind the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
5. The landlord should, if it had not already done so, send the resident its reports of 27 May 2021 and of any fresh inspections.
6. The landlord should agree with the resident its frequency of contact in order to better manage the resident’s expectations.
7. The landlord should consider having regular case reviews of ASB cases to ensure consistency and an effective standard of service.
8. The landlord should, unless there is good reason otherwise, send its residents its inspection reports.
9. The landlord should ensure that it has a system to monitor repairs to ensure they are not lost sight of.
10. The landlord should ensure arrangements are made so there is continuity of service as far as possible during staff absences or staff leaving their employment.
11. The landlord should ensure it follows up its calls and communications with third parties as appropriate and consider how to escalate if there is no response within a reasonable period.
The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.