Stonewater Limited (202118293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202118293

Stonewater Limited

28 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 resident complained about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs to the property reported in August 2021.
2. Their request for a management transfer.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident was a tenant of the landlord and lived in a two bedroom flat. The resident held an assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which started on 25 November 2020. In June 2022, the resident ended the tenancy.
In the first six weeks of the tenancy start date, the resident reported repairs for:
1. Uneven flooring to the kitchen and lounge, due to a hole in floor.
2. The storage heater in the bathroom, which was not working at all. The storage heater in the bedroom that was only working when the boost function was used.
3. There was condensation on all of the windows.
During an inspection carried out by the landlord’s contractor, it found leaks from the water cylinder and copper pipes. It also found rotten flooring and reported that the kitchen units and bathroom were in a poor condition. The resident was decanted around 12 March 2021, so works could be completed in the property. Among other repairs, the landlord renewed the sub floor to the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord also instructed its contractor to apply mould treatments to areas within the kitchen and bathroom that had been affected by water damage. The works were completed on 22 April 2021 and the resident moved back in the following day.
The resident raised a complaint to the landlord in March 2021, about its response to mould they said they had reported in the property. The landlord investigated this complaint and responded on 8 April 2021. The works it completed to the property whilst the resident was decanted, formed part of the resolution to the complaint. The landlord initially offered the resident £100 compensation. The resident notified the landlord they were not happy with its offer and the landlord did not review the complaint at stage two but made a revised offer of £200 in decoration vouchers for the kitchen and bathroom, which the resident accepted as a resolution in July 2021. The complaint was not progressed any further.
On 6 May 2021, the resident raised a second complaint to the landlord. This complaint was investigated as a new complaint because it was about repair issues that had arisen following the works the landlord had completed in April 2021. In response to this complaint, the landlord agreed to complete several repairs, which it did between May and July 2021. The resident did not progress the complaint further in the complaints procedure.

Summary of events

On 12 March 2021, the resident called the landlord and informed that their GP recommended they move to another property, as the storage heaters in the property were not considered suitable for their new born baby, who was suffering with eczema, asthma and breathing difficulties. During the call, the landlord informed the resident that they did not qualify for a management move.
The resident notified the landlord that they had already approached the local authority but could not register with it as they did not hold an assured tenancy with the landlord. The resident asked the landlord to assist them with an application to the local authority.
The landlord contacted the local authority on 19 March 2021 for information about the resident’s request to the local authority for rehousing. It received confirmation from the local authority that the resident had contacted it to ask how they could apply and understood that the resident was not happy with the property due to disrepair. The local authority confirmed that it informed the resident that they could not join its register because they had not held their tenancy with the landlord for at least year. The local authority said that it advised the resident to resolve the repair issues with the landlord.
The resident contacted the landlord on 22 March 2021 and asked what assistance it could give them regarding a transfer to another property. The resident explained that their need for a move had been identified before the repair issues in the property and was due to the storage heaters not being considered suitable, as they were believed to be the cause of the baby’s eczema and breathing difficulties.
On 24 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to inform that the local authority would not assist them due to it understanding that the landlord was undertaking repairs to the property. The resident explained that while in the decant property, the baby’s breathing and skin had improved.
The landlord wrote to the local authority the following day and confirmed that based on the evidence it had received, the resident did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. The landlord did not provide details of what evidence it received, if any, and why this did not meet its criteria. It confirmed that it could not therefore facilitate an internal transfer and said that it advised the resident to approach the local authority.
Between the 26 and 29 March 2021, the resident contacted the landlord on at least two occasions regarding their request for a permanent move from the property. They advised that they had provided a note from their GP but had been informed that this was not sufficient enough to warrant a transfer. They said they would also forward an email from their health visitor. The resident advised that they were not willing to return to the property from the decant unless the heating system was changed or, they were assisted with a move.
On 29 March 2021, the resident forwarded to the landlord, an email their health visitor had sent to the local authority on the same day. The health visitor said that although there was no evidence to suggest that the heaters could cause breathing difficulties in infants, it was apparent that the heaters could exacerbate asthma and eczema symptoms. In addition to this, the health visitor stated that when they visit the resident at the property, heaters were found to be extremely hot and the temperature could not be adjusted when they were on. The health visitor questioned whether the heating could be replaced with new heaters that could be regulated or, gas central heating, which was considered better suited for those who suffer from asthma.
On 7 April 2021, the landlord called the resident about their request for assistance with a permanent move. The landlord reiterated that the resident did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. It advised the resident to send the healthcare professionals’ letters to the local authority so that the local authority could consider the resident’s application.
On 4 May 2021, the local authority informed the landlord and the resident, that it had an independent GP review the evidence the resident provided in support of their application with the local authority. The independent GP advised that for the review of the resident’s application with the local authority, it was necessary that that a buildings report regarding the heating system was carried out, to determine whether the system was fit for purpose.
The resident wrote to the landlord on the same day and advised that they had previously informed it that the heaters were not controllable. They advised that a contractor had previously attended but found no fault with the heaters dispute the heaters being extremely hot, even on the lowest setting.
The resident submitted a formal complaint to the landlord on 6 May 2021.Within the complaint, they stated that the landlord would not provide a report for the heaters that was recommended by the independent GP, to assist their application with the local authority.
The landlord’s contractor completed an assessment of the heaters 19 May 2021. The contractor reported that the system was in working order. It confirmed that whilst onsite, the resident was shown how the heaters work. The landlord forwarded this feedback to the resident on the same day.
On 25 May 2021, the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint submitted on 6 May 2021.Within this, it advised that if the resident’s application with the local authority did not progress, it would consider renewing the heaters in the property with either new storage heaters or panel heaters.
On 16 June 2021, the resident confirmed to the landlord that the local authority had refused their appeal on their housing application on the basis that the resident did not hold an assured tenancy. The resident asked if the landlord could assign them an assured tenancy to assist with their application.
The landlord called the resident on 21 June 2021, and confirmed that it could not grant them an assured tenancy, as they held their existing tenancy for less than 12 months. It offered to provide conformation of this to the local authority. During the call the resident said that they had received new information from their child’s healthcare professionals that they believed would satisfy the landlord’s criteria for a management move. The landlord agreed to review the information.
The resident sent the landlord copies of correspondence from three health care professionals dated between 9 March and 26 April 2021. In addition, the resident included images of their baby which showed the baby’s skin condition. The supporting information was as follows:
1. A letter from the resident’s GP, dated 9 March 2021, stating concern that the storage heaters were adversely affecting the baby’s breathing. In this letter, the GP requested that the resident be assisted with a move to a property heated by alternative method.
2. A letter from the department of paediatrics, dated 19 April 2021. This explained that the baby had severe eczema and intermittent congestion of the nose. It was advised that the congestion may be due to a cow’s milk protein allergy. The paediatric mentioned that the resident spoke of issues they had with controlling the temperature of the heaters in the property. They advised the resident to speak to the housing provider regarding this.
3. A letter from a social worker, dated 26 April 2021, supporting the resident’s request for a transfer. The letter explained that the storage heaters irritate the baby’s skin, causing flare ups of eczema.
On 28 July 2021, the landlord called the resident and said that it investigated their request for a transfer however, the resident did not evidence the management transfer threshold of significant harm.
As a result of the resident’s housing application to the local authority being refused, the landlord agreed to renew the storage heaters in the property.
On 12 August 2021, the resident reported that they found mould behind the radiator in the bedroom when this was removed by the contractor, for the replacement. The resident said that when they asked about this, they were informed it was dirt but they disputed this and believed that it was mould. The landlord instructed its contractor to apply a mould treatment to the area which it did on 14 August 2021.
The resident also asked that the landlord sent them a medical transfer form, when they contacted the landlord on 12 August 2021.
On 17 August 2021, the resident emailed the landlord and reported that they found mould in the bedroom. They said that they had reported this previously and was told to wipe it clean. The resident said that they believed that the affected wall was weak and caving and they noted that there was a drainpipe external to the wall that could have caused the issue. They asked the landlord to look into the concern.
As well as the repair, the resident also said that they appealed their transfer application to the landlord as it had been refused for a third time. They stated that they asked if the landlord could transfer them to another housing provider if it could not provide a property within its stock.
The landlord responded on the same day, it confirmed that it would raise the repair and asked the resident for photographs of the area. The landlord also asked the resident if they were able to use the heater in the bedroom following the replacement. It asked the housing team to get in touch with the resident about their application for a transfer.
On 8 September 2021, the resident submitted a complaint about the landlord’s response to their application for a housing transfer and its response to their reports of mould in the bedroom in August 2021. The resident specified that they had asked the landlord for a medical transfer form weeks prior but received no response. The resident stated in relation to their request for a transfer, that the landlord had not provided any justification as to why it would not agree to a transfer. The resident wanted the landlord to provide a formal letter as to why it did not consider the supporting evidence that they provided, sufficient to grant a transfer.
On 27 September 2021, the resident submitted a complaint again. They advised that they had received information that day from the landlord, that they did not require medical grounds to be granted an internal move with the landlord. They questioned why the landlord had asked for them to provide medical information previously. The resident also stated that they were aware of new build developments the landlord had and asked if they could be put forward for these.
The resident reiterated that the landlord had not addressed the mould they reported in the bedroom. They also said that the landlord had not addressed a repair to the cracked lounge flooring that they said they in March 2021 after the landlord had carried out work to renew the sub flooring.
The landlord’s contractor attended for the mould reported in the bedroom, on 28 September 2021. It stated that no mould was found to the internal or external walls but the plaster board to the wall had been damaged. The contractor filled the hole in the plaster in the wall and applied stain block to a small patch. This Service has been provided images taken by the contractor during the visit. The images confirm that the plasterboard was damaged. There is evidence that there was a small area, less than 1 square centimetre in size, which had what appears to be mould to the lower corner of the damaged wall.
The landlord provided its stage one response to the complaint on 14 October 2021. It advised that the repair for the mould was raised on 19 August 2021 and should have been completed by 16 September 2021, but was not completed until 28 September 2021. It explained the delay was due to its contractor’s staff availability and apologised for the delay. It advised that the wall would be painted on 7 November 2021. It said that the crack to the lounge flooring was reported on 28 September 2021, and was repaired on 7 October 2021.
Regarding the complaint about the management transfer decision, the landlord stated that the resident’s circumstances did not meet its criteria to grant a move, because the evidence provided did not show that there was a significant risk of harm. It said that the GP stated in the supporting letter provided, that the heating type may contribute to the baby’s skin condition, however the GP noted that they could not be sure. The landlord advised that it required more evidence to consider the request and advised the resident, if they were able to provide this information it would review the decision.
The landlord reiterated the advice that the resident register with the local authority and advised the resident to consider home swapper. It apologised that it had not provided the resident with a decision regarding their transfer request in writing at an earlier date and said that this was an oversight. It apologised for the inconvenience of this.
The landlord recognised that the resident had to pursue a complaint in order to get an update in relation to repair reported for the mould and their request for a transfer. It offered the resident £150 for the inconvenience of having to wait for the repair to the mould to be completed.

62.On 20 October 2021, the resident responded to the landlord and stated:

The mould and the issue with the floor were reported before the dates stated in the landlord’s response.
The landlord had admitted that within the wall was damp thus the treatment applied would only cover the mould.
That they had more evidence in support of their transfer application but was not willing to provide this or be transferred by the landlord. They advised that they had found a mutual exchange and asked that the landlord provide them with the relevant forms as their priority was to be moved from the property.
They found that the compensation offered was not enough to reflect several months of waiting for repairs and the overall time they spent pursuing the landlord to resolve matters.

The landlord’s contractor attended to the property on 2 November 2021 again to review whether there was mould in the property. The contractor reported back that there was condensation throughout the property. The contractor stated that they advised the resident to open the window to improve the airflow.
On 5 November 2021, the resident sent the landlord images and a video of condensation on their windows. On the same day, the landlord raised an order for its contractor to attend and install trickle vents.
The landlord provided its final repsonse to the resident’s complaint on 19 November 2021. It apologised again for the service failures it identified in the stage one response and said that it considered the £150 compensation offered at stage one for the delay in responding to the mould repair, appropriate.
In relation the resident’s point about having dealt with repairs for several months, the landlord stated that it had taken concerns the resident raised about mould seriously. It stated that over the course of time, it had attended and treated identifiable patches of mould and provided guidance about how to avoid this from reappearing. It noted that it was important to keep the property ventilated and ensure that it was adequately warm.
The landlord also mentioned that it was aware that other repairs had been completed to the property since the start of the tenancy (that had been subject to previous complaints it considered) and it understood from conversations with the resident, that they were happy with the works. It advised the resident to inform it if this was not the case.
It acknowledged the concerns the resident had raised about the use of the storage heaters and the impact this had on the resident’s baby’s skin. It confirmed that the property was fuelled by electric and it could not therefore, replace the heating system with an alternative, namely, gas central heating.
The landlord also acknowledged the video the resident had sent of the condensation on their windows, on 5 November 2021. It confirmed that this was not mould but acknowledged that condensation could result in mould, if there was no adequate ventilation and heating to the property. It confirmed that it had instructed its contractor to visit and inspect the existing extractor fans in place and install trickle vents to the windows. It confirmed that it was confident that its heating system worked well when in use.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident sought support with a move to a property with gas central heating. It confirmed it had provided information to support the resident’s application with the local authority and confirmed that it had since the stage two complaint, added the resident to its management transfer list for a two bedroom property with central heating.

Events after the formal complaint

The contractor attended to the property in December 2021 in response to the repair for the extractor fan and trickle vents. It overhauled five trickle vents and replaced two.
In March 2022, the landlord offered the resident a property. The resident declined the offer as they did not consider it appropriate as it had a wet room. In June 2022, the resident terminated their tenancy with the landlord.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

This Service is aware that the resident has previously complained to the landlord about the presence of mould in the property. Following investigations, the landlord carried out, it found mould in the kitchen, bathroom and within an adjoining wall between those rooms. The landlord treated mould that it found in the kitchen and bathroom at the time it identified this.
The mould treatment the landlord applied to the areas, formed part of the resolution to separate formal complaints that the resident raised to the landlord in March and May 2021. The complaints were considered and responded to by the landlord, however, were not progressed through the complaints process. After the mould treatments had been carried out, the resident accepted the landlord’s offer of compensation, which was £200 in decoration vouchers, as a resolution to the complaints concerning the mould found in the kitchen and bathroom.
As the resident’s former complaints did not exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, the following assessment will not consider the landlord’s handling of the matters raised within those complaints. However, this assessment will refer to actions the landlord completed during the course of the previous complaints, to provide context to this complaint about the response to the repairs reported in August 2021.

The landlord’s handling of the reported repairs in August 2021.

In accordance with the tenancy agreement, the landlord is responsible for repairing and maintaining, the walls, floors and ceilings of the property. This excludes floor coverings other than in the bathroom and kitchen. Decorations are also not considered the landlord’s responsibility.
In June 2021, following a report of mould that the resident raised on 10 May 2021, the contractor attended with a borescope and checked for mould within the walls of the property. A borescope is an instrument used to visually inspect the inside of a structure through a hole.
During the visit with the borescope, the contractor checked all the internal walls in the property. It did not find mould growth on the surface of any walls, however, did find a section of mould growth within the stud wall between the kitchen and the bathroom. To address the mould found, the landlord cut out the affected section of the wall and replaced it with plasterboard.
When the resident reported on 12 August 2021, that there was mould behind the radiator that was being replaced in the bedroom, the landlord responded promptly. It arranged for a treatment of the area within two days of the report.
The landlord’s repairs policy explains that it aims to attend to non-emergency repairs, that is, those that do not pose a threat to its residents, properties or the wider community, within 28 days of receiving notice of the repair. In the case of mould, while its presence is known to have risks, this would be classed as a non-emergency repair. The landlord is, however, required to investigate the cause of the issue and undertake repairs following this.
There is no evidence that when the landlord attended on 14 August 2021, that it undertook any investigation to ascertain if there were any repair issues with the property that contributed to the presence of mould. This is reasonable given that it had completed an investigation two months before, with the borescope, which confirmed no evidence of a wider mould issue throughout the property.
When the resident reported that they found mould in the bedroom on 17 August 2021, the landlord responded to the report within the same day and asked the resident for details, including whether they had been using the heater in the bedroom after it was replaced and photographs of the area affected. This was appropriate as the landlord was asking the resident for relevant information to clarify what the repair issue was so that it could arrange for the appropriate work to be carried out.
The resident indicated in their complaint that they had reported mould in the bedroom previously, and said they were told to wipe the mould down when they previously reported it. Having seen the repair records and the correspondence between the parties of the complaint, there is no evidence of a report of mould in the bedroom prior to the 12 August 2021. And when the report was made on 12 August 2021, the landlord arranged a treatment.
After the report on 17 August 2021, there was a delay in the contractor attending to the property to address the issue. The contractor did not attend to the repair until 28 September 2021, over a month later. During the time the repair was outstanding, the resident chased the landlord on 6 September 2021 and subsequently submitted complaints, on 8 and 27 September 2021 due to the lack of response to the matter.
When the landlord’s contractor attended on 28 September 2021, it reported that there was no mould, but damage to plaster in the wall. The images provided from the visit, confirm that there was damage to the plasterboard. The image also shows that there was something on the lower corner of the wall that appeared to be mould, this was no larger than 1 centimetre square in size.
The contractor was satisfied from its inspection that there was no issue of damp. The contractor provided an effective repair to the wall affected, it filled the hole and stain blocked the area when it attended on 28 September 2021.
In its response to the resident’s complaints submitted in September 2021, the landlord recognised that there was a delay in it attending to the report about the mould on 17 August 2021. It explained that the reason for the delay was due to a shortage in its contractor’s staff and it advised that its contractor was working to recruit in order to try and maintain its staffing levels.
The landlord confirmed when it would be returning to paint the bedroom wall following the works that were completed on 28 September 2021. This was appropriate, it informed the resident of its next course of action to restore the wall back to its condition before the mould and damage to the wall plaster was identified.
The landlord also offered the resident £150 in recognition of the delays identified in addressing the mould and wall plaster in the bedroom. The landlord’s complaints policy explains that any compensation payments will be fair and proportionate to the service failure identified and the impact of this on the customer. Its compensation policy does not set out amounts of compensation that it can pay in circumstances. In this case, there was a delay of two weeks in the landlord completing the repair and the resident was required to chase the landlord before its contractor attended. When it attended, the landlord was able to provide an effective remedy to the wall and it restored the wall to its condition before the mould was reported.
Undertaking the relevant repair to the affected area as well offering £150 compensation was proportionate to the service failure as there was an inconvenience to the resident as a result of the landlord’s service failure however, this was short term and the wall was remedied.
As well as the mould in the bedroom, the resident also raised in their complaints submitted in September 2021, that the landlord had not addressed cracks in the lounge flooring that they had reported in March 2021.
Having reviewed the repair records, correspondence between the parties and the information provided about the previous complaints, there is no evidence of the resident having reported cracked flooring in the lounge after the landlord completed work to the flooring in March and April 2021. Therefore, it is reasonable that the landlord accepted that the first notice it had of this issue was when the complaint was raised on 27 September 2021.
In the response to the complaint, the landlord noted that the first report it received was on 28 September 2021. This was inaccurate by a day, but this has no bearing on the outcome of the complaint. It confirmed that its contractor attended to the repair on 7 October 2021, which was 9 days after the landlord was made aware. The repair was therefore, completed within the 28 day service standard.
In their stage two complaint, the resident challenged the landlord’s account of when the issues with the damp, mould and flooring were reported. Following their submission of the stage two complaint, they provided the landlord with images and videos of the windows in the property. The location of the windows could not be confirmed however, the photographs and videos show that there was condensation to the windows.
Within its final response to the complaint, the landlord upheld the compensation it offered at stage one for the delay in the response to the report about mould on 17 August 2021. It provided information about the importance of maintaining ventilation throughout the property, which was appropriate given that its contractor had confirmed, following the visit on 2 November 2021, that there was condensation throughout the property and the resident had provided images to it on 5 November 2021, showing condensation to the windows in the property.
The landlord explained that over time, it had attended and treated identifiable patches of mould and provided support as to how to avoid mould from reappearing. Although the mould in the bedroom was not reported before August 2021, it was appropriate that the landlord acknowledged the resident’s previous experience with issues of mould in the property. This is because, the resident referenced their historical experience with repairs in the property within their stage two complaint.
However, the landlord did not specifically address the resident’s dispute about when the repairs were raised.
The landlord believed that there was condensation in the property, on the basis of its contractor’s feedback from visits to the property, including that in June 2021 when it used a borescope to check for mould between walls, the visit on 28 September 2021 and the visit on 2 November 2021 where it was reported that there was no mould in the property but there was condensation. In addition to this, it considered the images and videos the resident provided of their property.
The landlord’s conclusions were reasonable given the evidence it had available. The mould reported in the bedroom initially, was behind the bedroom heater and when mould was reported the second time in August 2021, this was in another area within the bedroom. There was no report about mould in the bedroom prior to August 2021, evidence of a wider damp or mould issue throughout the property when the landlord completed its investigations in June 2021 nor was there any indication that areas the landlord had previously applied mould treatment to, had experienced a mould issue since being treated.
On the basis of its findings that ventilation was contributing to the condensation found in the property, the landlord responded appropriately. It arranged for its contractor to carry out work to the window trickle vents and check the ventilation systems.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

A management transfer is when alternative accommodation is offered as it is not safe for the tenant or, a member of the household to stay in their property.
The landlord’s policy explains that at risk households can be identified through various ways, including a self-referral by the resident. The policy specifies that management transfer requests will be considered in certain circumstances such as where a home poses a significant risk to health and this evidenced.
In relation to the resident’s request for a transfer from the property, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of this.
It was notified by the resident on 12 March 2021 during a conversation, that the resident did not believe that the storage heaters in the property were suitable for thier baby. During this initial call, the landlord informed that the resident that they did not qualify for a move. It did not give the resident a reason as to why they did not qualify for a management transfer, what information it would need to consider the resident for a transfer or if it was possible for the resident to have this decision reviewed.
On 7 April 2021, after receiving supporting evidence from the resident’s health visitor on 29 March 2021, the landlord reiterated to the resident that they did not meet its criteria for a management move. It did not provide any explanation as to how it had come to this decision. Despite being made aware within the supporting evidence provided, that there was a concern with the functionality of the heaters, it did not make any effort at that stage, to assess the condition of the heaters. It advised the resident to forward the healthcare professional’s letters to the local authority.
After 7 April, until July 2021, the landlord was provided with three more letters of supporting evidence from health and social care professionals, all of which raised concerns about the effect of the storage heaters on the baby’s skin condition. The resident also provided images of the baby, which showed the severity of the baby’s eczema. During this period, the landlord also received a suggestion from the local authority that it assess the condition of the heaters, which it did on 19 May 2021. It found no faults with the heaters however, the resident maintained that they were causing the baby’s skin condition.
After considering the information it was provided between April and July 2021, the landlord called the resident on 28 July 2021 to inform them that they did not evidence its threshold of significant harm for a transfer. Again, it did not provide reasons why it did not consider the information provided, met this threshold.
The landlord’s management transfer policy does not stipulate that a decision following a management transfer request needs to be made in writing. Nevertheless, it is considered good practice to provide a decision in writing with reasons to demonstrate what, if any, information has been considered in the consideration of the request and why the decision has been made. Doing this would provide the resident with clarity on the landlord’s decision, including what criteria it had assessed the request against. Providing a decision in writing also should provide the resident with information about any options they may have to have the decision reviewed.
In this case, the landlord verbally informed the resident on at least three occasions between March and July 2021, that they did not meet its criteria for a management transfer. On each occasion it did not offer any explanation as to how it came to its decision or, inform the resident whether they could request a review of its decision.
In the initial response to the complaint, the landlord acknowledged that it did not provide a decision regarding the transfer in writing and it was appropriate for it to apologise for this. The landlord also provided clarification for why it did not believe the supporting information the resident provided, demonstrated that there was significant harm. The reasons it gave was that the GP stated that the heaters in the property may be contributing to the baby’s skin condition however, the GP could not provide confirmation that the heaters were causing the condition. It was necessary that it explain its reasons for refusing the resident a transfer. However, the landlord did not recognise the impact its failure to provide a formal decision to the transfer request, had on the resident.
Although the supporting evidence provided, did not confirm a direct link between the baby’s eczema and the storage heaters, it was clear that the resident was distressed about living in the property because they believed that the heaters were causing the baby’s eczema. The landlord’s failure to properly consider the request and provide the resident with a formal decision, resulted in the resident spending seven months pursuing a transfer with the landlord, with no advice as to if, and how they could have this decision reviewed.
At stage two, the landlord changed its decision regarding the transfer request and agreed to place the resident on its register for a management move. Having seen the application form, its decision for agreeing to the transfer, was that the resident met its threshold for significant harm. The landlord’s decision was based on the supporting evidence that the resident had provide to it between 29 March and 21 June 2021. No new evidence was submitted to the landlord.
Given that this information was made available to the landlord from 21 June 2021, it is considered a significant failure that it took until 11 November 2021 to grant the transfer. The landlord has not provided any explanation as to why it overturned its decision regarding the request and based on the fact that it made the decision on evidence it had been provided several months before, it is evident that that it could have agreed to offer the resident a management transfer at an earlier stage.
This Service is aware that the resident has now left the property but this does not eliminate the fact that there was an avoidable delay in the landlord granting the transfer, given that the information it relied on to make its decision, was available to it from 21 June 2021. The landlord missed an earlier opportunity to provide the resident with a resolution to the serious concern they raised about the impact the property was having on the baby.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 53b, with regard to the complaint about the handling of the repairs, the landlord had made an offer of redress to the complainant prior to the Ombudsman’s investigation which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, resolves the complaint satisfactorily.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

Reasons

The landlord recognised the service failures in the time it took to address the mould after it was reported on 17 August 2021. As well as completing the repair and restoring the wall to its condition before the repair was required, the landlord offered compensation in recognition of the delays it identified in responding to the report.
In relation to the handling of the resident’s request for a transfer, the landlord acknowledged that it had not provided the resident with a decision in writing. Its final decision to grant the resident a management transfer was based on the information that was made available to it in June 2021. Given this, it is evident that the landlord could have offered the resident the management transfer at an earlier stage. When responding to the complaint, the landlord failed to recognise that this missed opportunity to provide a resolution to the issue earlier, had a significant impact on the resident, who demonstrated the issues their baby was experiencing with their skin and since the final decision, made the decision to leave the property.

Order

It is ordered that the landlord pay the resident £500 in recognition of the maladministration in its handling of the resident’s transfer request. The landlord is to arrange for the payment to be made within three weeks of the date of this report.
Once the payment has been made, the landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service.

Recommendation

The above finding in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs, is dependent on the landlord completing the actions it agreed to resolve the complaint. Therefore, if the landlord has not already done so, it is to pay the resident the £150 compensation that it offered in response to the complaint.
The landlord is to provide confirmation to this Service within three weeks, that the payment has been made.