Sanctuary Housing Association (201901900)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 201901900

Sanctuary Housing Association

10 July 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning water ingress and resultant damp and mould.
2. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the external door and windows.
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns regarding gas servicing appointments in 2019.
4. The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 20 April 1998. The property is a one bedroom basement flat in a converted house.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for repairing external areas of the property. It requires the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the premises. It requires the landlord to repair internal walls, floors and ceilings, doors and door frames, door furniture and skirting boards but not including internal painting and decorating. Any installations fitted by the landlord for space heating, water heating and sanitation and for the supply of water, gas and electricity are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain. The responsibilities are echoed in the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 Section 11 requires that landlords “keep in repair and proper working order the structure and exterior of the dwelling house”. It requires landlords to “keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation”.
The tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities to report disrepair, allow access “at reasonable times and subject to reasonable notice” to inspect and to carry out necessary works.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy and will acknowledge a complaint within five working days. It will aim to respond to complaints at stage one within ten working days. A stage two response should be sent within 20 working days. The policy states that if the resident is unhappy with the stage two response that they should “make contact”, “provide any additional evidence which has not been considered, and to explain what they are looking for to resolve the complaint”. “Once this has been provided, staff will provide a final response to the customer”. This means that there are three stages in total.
The landlord’s compensation policy details its approach to compensation in the following ways:
1. Time, trouble and inconvenience – up to £400 can be awarded depending on the “effort” and “impact”.
2. Poor complaint handing – up to £150 in “recognition of time, trouble and inconvenience of a service failure”.
3. Goodwill payments – can be awarded “at the discretion of the officer handling the complaint”. This is for “non-financial gestures of goodwill” such as “arranging works over and above our repair responsibilities”, “flowers or household plants or vouchers such as paint packs”.
4. Repairs compensation – can be awarded in a number of circumstances including:
  1. Missed appointment – £10
  2. “Damage to or loss of personal belongings, property or decoration – to allow the claimant to purchase a like for like replacement.”
  3. Decorating allowance.
  4. Room loss allowance – maximum percentage of 30% of the rent payable for loss of a kitchen and bathroom, 20% for a bedroom and 10% for living/dining room, 10% for a garden/outside space in summer and 5% in winter.
The landlord’s repairs policy details:
1. Emergency repairs such as “damage to any ground floor windows, making them insecure; insecure external door that inhibits the safety of tenants and property; water leak coming through the ceiling” should be completed within 24 hours of the repair request. The policy states a second appointment may be necessary following the initial repair.
2. Appointed repairs – applies to “all non-emergency repairs for which access to the property is required”. These are to be completed within 28 days.
3. Where a pre-inspection is required this should be completed within ten working days of work being requested.
4. Where damage has been “caused by a third party” it must be reported and repaired “in accordance with the group’s building insurance”. The “service user must be kept informed at every stage of the process by the surveyor”.
The resident has mentioned to his landlord the impact the situation may cause to his health. This Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is due to the fact that claims for personal injury must, ultimately, be decided by courts of law who can consider medical evidence and make legally binding findings. However, this Service can take into account any elevated distress, inconvenience and time and trouble from a landlord’s service failure.
The resident submitted his initial complaint to his landlord on 24 April 2019 that referred to a range of issues including the issue of damp in his home, and repairs to the door and windows. The same issues were raised by the resident in his later complaint to his landlord on 11 May 2021 that was then referred to this Service. There was a time lapse from the time the resident raised his initial complaint in 2019 to the time when the resident contacted this Service to chase up a response from his landlord on 18 August 2020. However, as the landlord kept the earlier complaint open, undertaking actions concerning damp, the external door and windows, and the issues were the same in the resident’s later complaint from 11 May 2021, the time period considered in this investigation covers the resident’s initial complaint from 24 April 2019.

Summary of events

The resident raised his initial complaint concerning the damp, door and windows in an email to his landlord on 24 April 2019 to advise that he had “repeatedly contacted” his landlord “over a number of years” regarding maintenance issues. He advised the landlord that he would escalate his concerns to this Service. The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 14 May 2019 and he advised in a subsequent email to this Service of 21 June 2019 that the landlord had “reneged on several other jobs over the years”. This Service wrote to the landlord to chase up a response to the resident’s complaint on 4 July 2019.
An internal email sent on 14 August 2019 stated that “none of the things the tenant is complaining about has been reported”. A request was made to raise works orders. The complaint handler advised that as the resident was “of the opinion that he has reported these issues before” that a complaint “would need to be raised and the findings explained as part of the stage one response”. The landlord’s repair records do not detail earlier works orders raised for the damp, door and windows in the resident’s complaint.
A complaint acknowledgement was sent to the resident on 14 August 2019, to advise of the officer dealing with the complaint. This was 78 working days after the resident raised his stage one complaint.
A works order was raised by the landlord “following Ombudsman letter” on 14 August 2019 to inspect the property for damp, and to inspect the windows and door.
The inspection was arranged for 19 August 2019. A request was made during the inspection to check for “any health or safety concerns, which could warrant a possible replacement” of the windows and doors as there was no cyclical programme for this in 2019 to 2020.
Following the inspection that took place as planned on 19 August 2019 two works orders were raised on 20 August 2019 to replace the external door frame for the rear door and also to fit a new threshold/sill to the rear door to the garden. A works order was also raised on 22 October 2019 for a damp contractor to undertake damp works to the hallway and meter area under the concrete stairs. The maintenance surveyor advised of the need for a morning appointment as the resident worked. An appointment had been made to repair the door on 10 September 2019, however, the contractor had phoned the resident as they were delayed and missed the morning slot. The resident requested the work be carried out at the same time as the other jobs and for this information to be passed to the landlord’s complaint handler.
The landlord’s complaint handler wrote to the resident on 18 November 2019 to say that he had tried to contact the resident regarding his “open complaint”. It stated that if the resident did not contact within 20 working days the complaint would be closed. The reason for contacting the resident was not stipulated and whether this had anything to do with the resident’s request for a morning appointment to carry out works.
The damp contractor emailed of 7 February 2020 detailing that the steps were completed by this time however the “hallway is still drying out after we had asphalted the steps – no more water is coming in the hallway it is just taking a while to dry”. The repair records state that a damp test had been carried out two weeks prior and that a further test would be carried out the following week. The actual dates of the damp tests were not recorded in the repairs log. There is no record of any dehumidifiers provided at this time. The damp contractor requested a target completion date for the damp works in a further email of 24 February 2020 for the third week in March 2020.
The landlord’s complaint handler wrote to the resident on 9 March 2020 to advise that he had tried to contact the resident regarding his “open complaint”. The letter restated that if the resident did not get in touch within 20 working days the complaint would be closed. This was 77 working days after the previous letter sent 18 November 2019.
The landlord reported in its later stage two response letter that the damp works were completed to address damp in the hallway and bedroom on 22 May 2020. However, the repairs log does not give an actual completion date.
The resident contacted this Service on 18 August 2020 concerning his earlier complaint regarding the repairs raised with his landlord and the fact that he had “had no reply other than automated out of office”. As a result this Service wrote to the landlord on 20 August 2020 to chase up the landlord’s complaint response. The landlord advised this Service on 1 September 2020 that “due to being unable to contact” the resident his complaint had been closed. However, it would reopen the complaint and escalate it to stage two.
The landlord’s stage two response of 24 September 2020 referred to the inspection above and the repairs to the concrete stairs being completed by 14 January 2020. It detailed:
1. The resident’s report of a “small section of damp” in his bedroom and that “it was suspected that this could be originating from the flat upstairs”.
2. It stated that the maintenance surveyor had inspected the flat upstairs on 6 February 2020 in particular the area “under the sink unit of the flat above however there was no evidence of a leak although the tenant did confirm that she had recently had a new washing machine installed”.
3. The maintenance surveyor also inspected the section of damp “in the corner of the rear bedroom which is in the same proximity to the washing machine and boiler pipes. The water mark appeared dry”.
4. It stated that a damp test had been carried out by the sub-contractor on 21 February 2020 and confirmed that there was no more water ingress. These damp works were reported as complete to the “hallway and bedroom on 22 May 2020”. In its response the landlord noted that there was a delay in completing the work due to the covid restrictions.
5. The operative for the repairs to the door and windows had been delayed on 10 September 2019. “A member of the planning team contacted” to “apologise”. The resident had requested the information to be sent to the complaint handler. It was “unclear from our records what action if any was taken”. Therefore, arrangements had been made for the “order to be re raised” and the contractor to “arrange a mutually convenient appointment”.
6. The complaint handler had attempted to contact the resident on 19 August 2019 to explain that the outcome was awaited from the maintenance surveyor’s inspection. A voice mail had been left on 27 August 2019 “to advise that orders had been created for the door frame and back boiler” and that the damp contractor “had been asked to attend”.
7. It offered £510 compensation comprising £50 for the delays in completing the damp work, £50 for the delay in completing the door repair, £10 for the failed appointment of 10 September 2019, £25 for two further failed appointments, £150 for time, trouble and inconvenience, £150 for its handling of the complaint at stage one, and £75 relating to loss of heating.
8. The complaint handler was unable to contact the resident when phone calls were made on “2 and 9 March 2019”. A letter was sent on 9 March 2020 to advise that the complaint would be closed unless the resident contacted within 20 working days. “The complaint was closed on 16 April 2020”.
The landlord sent a further stage two response on 29 October 2020 after the resident contacted it, though there is no record of this contact. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the delay in updating the resident on his complaint.
2. It had discussed the “further damp” which the damp contractor found “whilst they were carrying out work in your home in May 2020”. The damp contractor had informed the landlord that the “additional areas of damp were discovered after they moved a number of items in the bedroom in order to carry out their original works order”.
3. The damp in the lounge “was pointed out to them towards the end of them completing the work they had been instructed to complete”. They could not undertake further work “without authorisation” from the landlord. However, the landlord “expected that they would have made Sanctuary aware of their findings”. The landlord apologised that this did not happen.
4. The landlord’s maintenance surveyor and damp contractor inspected the property on 27 October 2020 and it was agreed that a “quotation for the further areas identified, namely the bedroom and the lounge” be sent. It stated that these “additional works were identified during the visit however, they do not form part of this complaint”.
5. In response to the resident’s comments that “it would be counterproductive to accept the goodwill of £510 previously awarded until the further damp is resolved and the rotten cill and back door replaced”, it advised that the door “threshold/cill is due to be replaced on 1 December 2020”. It advised that “the additional areas of damp will be tracked and monitored to ensure they are completed within timely period”.
6. It appreciated the resident’s concerns “however, it would not be appropriate for your complaint to remain open pending the work being completed”. It had “taken the unusual step of considering a goodwill gesture anticipating the works will be raised on the system within 28 days”. It advised that “in the event there are further delays this would have to be considered as a separate matter”.
7. The compensation of £510 previously awarded would be increased by £100 to £610. It provided details that the resident could raise his complaint with this Service.
Following the landlord’s complaint response letter of 24 September 2020, a works order was raised on 13 October 2020 due to a “failed appointment last time” to repair the door frame and door threshold/sill to the rear door to the garden. The record does not state the reason for the failed appointment. The landlord requested “can this order be re raised, monitored and tracked”. The repair log details an email sent to “ensure they do the work that day and not just inspect it”. The appointment was booked in on 1 December 2020. It is not clear from the repair logs whether the appointment went ahead and whether repairs were completed to the door or window on this day.
The landlord’s repairs log details that a works order was raised on 28 October 2020 for a joint inspection for damp. The joint inspection was carried out by the landlord’s maintenance surveyor and damp contractor on 28 October 2020. The landlord’s maintenance surveyor advised in an internal email that “more damp has surfaced” after the resident had removed some belongings in the flat. He advised that a leak had been found from the flat above “causing water ingress into the rear bedroom of both walls”. The landlord’s maintenance surveyor requested the landlord to “assign a plumber to trace the leak”. He stated that “all the works” that had been “completed in the bedroom has been ruined”. He advised that the damp contractor “will reattend and carry out works to the front living room under the bay window and the rear bedroom”.
The landlord sent a general letter on 13 January 2021 concerning the “Prime Minister’s announcement on 4 January 2021”. This letter referred to the resident’s earlier complaint number that the landlord had said was closed. It stated that it was “committed to resolving your complaint and we are still looking to complete routine repairs to your home if you are happy for our staff to visit you”. It stated that it was “assessing each repair on a case by case basis and our specialist planning team will consider how urgent the works are, how long you have been waiting for the works and the availability of staff and the necessary materials”. It further stated that “any works that might be needed to resolve your complaint will be considered with these points mind”. It would ensure the resident was “updated with the progress of your repair”.
The repairs log details that a new upvc door was ordered from an external supplier on 25 January 2021. It is not clear from the repair log whether there was a delay in the lead in times. The landlord was “unable to contact tenant” on 26 April 2021. It is not clear from the repair log whether this was a visit or a phone call. A works order referencing “stage two complaint” was raised on 29 April 2021 to supply and fit the rear upvc door and to renew two windows.
The resident contacted this Service on 11 May 2021 and advised that he had been offered compensation in relation to a complaint he had made but had declined to accept until the work was completed. He advised:
1. “My rotten door and sill have still not been replaced.”
2. “I have fungi growing in my home, with fruiting bodies over 3 cm across”.
3. “I have detergent water still dribbling down the inside surface of my bedroom wall after it was treated, so clearly the landlord did not ensure the leak upstairs was fixed before wasting theirs and my time treating and redecorating the bedroom”.
4. “I now have black mould on the inside surface of my living room wall and bay window”.
The landlord phoned the resident on 25 May 2021 who advised the landlord that the door was not fitted. The landlord spoke to the contractor the same day. The contractor advised that the door and the windows were with the manufacturer. The work to replace the door and windows was scheduled for completion on 28 June 2021.
This Service wrote to the landlord on 4 June 2021 after clarifying the position with the resident’s previous earlier complaint of 2019 and whether this had exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints process.
The landlord logged the complaint as a new stage one complaint and sent the resident a stage one acknowledgement on 7 June 2021. In an internal email to investigate the complaint the landlord’s case resolution officer states that the order for the back door was “raised on 26 April 2021” however the contractor had been unable to contact the resident. This was a different date to the date on the repairs log.
A works order was raised on 12 June 2021 as an emergency to stop a leak to the stopcock. The repairs log does not detail when the work was completed, though it was scheduled for the following Monday, 14 June 2021. The repairs log does not give any detail of what action was taken during this visit.
On 21 June 2021 the landlord sent a further stage one acknowledgement and advised:
1. A “full investigation” would be completed.
2. In respect of the “rear door”. “Approval of the new door was raised on the 26 April 2020”. An appointment had been confirmed for 28 June 2021.
3. In respect of “damp within your home”, the landlord stated that it could see that “this relates back to concerns raised 28 October 2020. “The notes added to the order was for a possible leak in the flat above”. Information had been checked and “it was reported back as no leaks found and no further reports have been raised”.
4. With regard to “water ingress to bedroom” the operatives had attended on 30 November 2020 “to trace leaks for possible ingress and was reported back no leaks found no further actions have been raised”.
5. The resident’s “concerns have not been reported to the repair centre since October 2020”. It offered to arrange “a new inspection to be completed to identify and trace the possible cause of damp and water ingress”.
The resident confirmed that the door and windows were replaced on 28 June 2021.
On 6 July 2021 the landlord’s complaint handler dealing with the stage one complaint emailed its maintenance surveyor to request a “further inspection to be raised” due to “concerns for water ingress and damp please see photos from tenant”. The photos supplied to this Service show pictures of the damp and fruiting fungi present in the property though are not dated and it is not clear whether these are the same photos referred to by the complaint handler. In another email the same day the complaint handler advises that the “tenant is reporting damp and water ingress to the bedroom, this could be linked to leak from property above”.
The resident contacted this Service on 28 August 2021 as he had not heard back from the landlord in response to his complaint of 11 May 2021. In his email he stated:
1. That he had “since paid for a plumber to come out to my property to replace some taps (at my expense). The resident’s plumber had advised the resident of an “incorrectly fitted bath waste pipe”, as well as “a further unconnected leak from the stop cock”. This had led to “water periodically getting under the flooring for some time”.
2. The resident had sent photos showing “damp patches and fungal/mould growth over months and years”. He reported that there was a “strong smell of damp and associated fungal/mould growth throughout” the property. He had requested his landlord to investigate the “damp and fungal/mould growth on several occasions”. He had sought some quotes to replace the flooring, however felt the property needed to “dry out, be treated or, especially if asbestos is present, all removed by a specialist firm”
3. The resident had “spent some time and money redecorating”. He wished to be compensated for the money spent for the plumber to “make good the bath waste and cistern”.
4. The landlord had not paid compensation offered previously of £500. The resident felt this should be higher.
5. The resident considered this to be “an extension of the same repeated complaint of damp that has gone through their complaint procedures on numerous occasions and each time is treated as a new stage one complaint”.
After advice from this Service to escalate the complaint to stage two with his landlord, this Service wrote to the landlord on 21 October 2021 with the resident’s escalation request to stage two of the landlord’s complaints process.
On 21 October 2021 the landlord’s complaint handler requested an urgent inspection in an internal email to inspect for the “ongoing issue with the damp within the property”. This was due to “no response from the surveyor to previous information sent”. A request was made to “mark this as urgent for the surveyor to attend and inspect the damp/water ingress to the property”.
The landlord sent its stage one response on 25 October 2021. In this it detailed:
1. An apology for the problems the resident had experienced, together with the “delays in my communication to you.”
2. It acknowledged that the resident had “cause to raise a previous complaint in relation to damp, doors, windows and boiler”. It had offered £510 compensation in a response of 24 October 2020. This had been increased in a further response of 29 October 2020 to £610. It attached the letter offering £610 compensation.
3. As “no further response” was made by the resident, the complaint was closed on 22 March 2021. It advised that “this offer is still open to you if you wish to accept”. It advised that this particular earlier complaint had completed the internal complaint procedure and that if the resident “remained dissatisfied” he could contact this Service.
4. Referring to the current complaint, the landlord apologised for “the time taken to replace the rear door. The work had been approved on 25 January 2021 and sent to the contractor. The contractor had “advised that more works were required and submitted a further quotation”. After approval the work was scheduled for completion on 28 June 2021 and the work was completed on this day.
5. In relation to the damp, the landlord advised that over a six month period prior to the resident’s complaint of 7 June 2021 it was “unable to locate any works or concerns raised to Sanctuary since October 2020”.
6. The work raised in October 2020 was a joint inspection between the landlord’s maintenance surveyor and the damp contractor. The feedback from this inspection was “no leaks found” and the landlord advised “no further concerns have been reported until the complaint was logged on 7 June 2021”.
7. Records had been reviewed for “the property above your address and can see that no further concerns for a leak within the property have been raised following the attendance on 30 November 2020”.
8. It apologised for the delay in responding further and advised that the maintenance surveyor was due to inspect the property on 1 November 2021 in relation to the resident’s “concerns about damp and mould”.
9. It offered a further £300 compensation comprising £150 for the “time, trouble and inconvenience, and £150 for the “delay in responding to your complaint and poor communication”.
The resident was unhappy with the landlord’s stage one response and according to the landlord confirmed this in an email to his landlord on 26 October 2021. This email has not been seen by this Service.
An appointment was made for 1 November 2021 and the maintenance surveyor carried out an inspection. In his internal email he advised that the damp works previously undertaken by the damp contractor “has nothing to do with works that he (the resident) brought to my attention”. He advised that the resident was “seeking compensation for an intermittent leak from under his bath that he has dealt with himself”. The resident had shown the maintenance surveyor some photographs of the issue of the leak from the bath trap which had affected “various areas of his flat. The maintenance surveyor confirmed that he had requested a report and a quote from the damp works contractor for the “new damp works in this flat”.
The landlord wrote to this Service on 3 November 2021 to advise that a previous complaint had been closed on 22 March 2021 due to “no contact”. A further complaint was raised at “the first stage of our complaints process in respect of some outstanding repairs”. It had advised the resident that the “goodwill gesture previously offered at the final stage of his complaint was still open for him to accept”.
The landlord sent a stage two acknowledgement to the resident on 5 November 2021.
The landlord sent a further stage two acknowledgement to the resident on 11 November 2021. In this it requested a copy of the “invoice £210 and quotation for consideration”. It asked the resident whether its surveyor who attended on 1 November 2021 had shown him the flooring and “did he take photos please advise?”.
In internal emails of 11 November 2021 and 12 November 2021 between the landlord’s complaint handler and maintenance surveyor, the maintenance surveyor explained that “the purpose of my inspection was to look at a new damp issue the tenant had in the bedroom”. He advised that the leak under the bath was “a complete separate issue” and that the resident had “stated was being dealt with already by the complaints team”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 15 November 2021 enclosing an invoice for plumbing work of £210 and a quote for replacement flooring in the bathroom and hallway.
A further asbestos report was requested by the landlord on 15 November 2021. In an email sent by the resident the same day he referred to his landlord’s request for any “photographs taken by your surveyor”. He advised the landlord to “ask them. I have no contact information for your surveyor”. He reminded the landlord that a contractor had attended on 14 June 2021 to “fix the leaking stop cock”. He stated that he had “showed them the damp, skirting and stud wall, flooring and fungus. He advised that the landlord had told him that “another contractor investigated damp from within the upstairs property”. He queried whether the “greater risk to my health comes from the damp, the asbestos in the sub tiles/adhesive or from the fungus in and around”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 22 November 2021 noting the concerns regarding the “sub flooring”. This information had been passed to the maintenance surveyor and once a reply was received it would be back in touch. It also asked the resident for a quotation for the bathroom flooring as a screen shot had been sent and the landlord “will not be able to consider compensation from a screen shot”.
On 23 November 2021 the landlord’s complaint handler emailed the resident to clarify the resident’s request for compensation to replace the flooring in the bathroom. The complaint handler asked if the existing flooring was new and “if so do you have a receipt for this”? The complaint handler explained that “we have our own internal guidance and this is in line with offering for a like for like product”. The resident’s request to replace damaged decoration was also queried and further information requested from the resident. The landlord advised that it had hoped to complete the complaint response by 3 December 2021, however it was “still waiting further information from our surveyor”. This meant that the response would be sent “no later than 24 December 2021. It apologised for any inconvenience. It would also “offer a goodwill gesture in recognition of this delay”.
On 30 November 2021 the damp contractor emailed the landlord to advise that a joint inspection had taken place (it is not clear from the record whether this was the same inspection of 2 November 2021). The damp contractor advised that “damp is coming in from the flat above – we were made aware that the tenant thinks that a Sanctuary plumber has attended but we are not sure the fault has been rectified”. The contractor advised that the bedroom had been affected by the leak from the flat above as well as the leak the resident referred to in the bathroom “in a small way” for which he had paid his own plumber to rectify. The contractor referred to the resident’s concern that there could be asbestos in the flooring which meant that the damp contractor could not submit the report until the asbestos situation was known. The damp contractor advised “I submitted our report dated 8 November 2020 some seven working days after my visit – no order was placed”. In this report the “front lounge damp wall was detailed”. The damp contractor referred to the landlord’s complaint response of 29 September and the fact that he was “aggrieved that my name was maligned in this way to the tenant”.
A works order to remove asbestos was placed on 30 November 2021 requesting a quote for the removal.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 1 December 2021. In this it stated:
1. It apologised that it was unable to resolve the complaint at “front line resolution” (stage one).
2. In respect of the resident’s request for a refund for the plumber’s invoice, the landlord was “unable to locate from our records” that it had “raised repairs for a leak to the bath and toilet cistern”. It was “unable to identify” that it had “failed in the service provided to you”. The request was therefore refused.
3. In respect of compensation for the damaged flooring the maintenance surveyor who inspected the property on 1 November 2021 “confirmed damages to the hall and bathroom flooring”.
4. On receipt of the referral from this Service on 7 June 2021, the complaint was logged to be dealt with at stage one and the maintenance surveyor was due to visit. It was “very disappointed to hear that the inspection didn’t take place until 1 November 2021” It apologised for the delay.
5. Following the inspection the maintenance surveyor had requested a “further report” and a “quotation for the damp works in your home”.
6. An order had been placed to “remove the black floor tiles under the lino in the bathroom, due to asbestos and they will be in contact with you shortly to arrange a mutually convenient appointment”.
7. It apologised for the “delays and disruption in relation to the damp/leak repairs”. It had forwarded the details of the complaint to “senior management in our maintenance team” to “prevent similar situations like this occurring in the future. It was “sorry you felt you had to contact the Housing Ombudsman to log a complaint as there was no progress with the leak/damp repairs”. It recognised that “communication with you could have been better”.
8. It offered compensation of £1,256 comprising £300 previously offered at stage one for “time and trouble and inconvenience caused” and “delays in responding to your complaint and poor communication”, £400 for “further time and trouble” in relation to “delays with damp/leak associated works being raised” and £556 “towards flooring”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 December 2021 referring to the leaks that his plumber had fixed. He stated that the plumber he had organised was there to “change a sink and taps”. He stated “are you really suggesting I should have let him go without fixing them and then report it and wait for a Sanctuary plumber”. He reminded the landlord that its plumber had conducted a visit “as recently as June this year when all this was clearly already ongoing”. He referred to the report that the maintenance surveyor had requested from its damp contractor for “damp works in your home” after visiting 1 November 2021. He requested a “timetable for any proposed works”. He advised that he had been “holding work to replace the flooring for six months” expecting it to be completed by Christmas.
The landlord replied on 3 December 2021 to restate that as they had not been “given the opportunity to attend to the repair” it was unable to reimburse the plumber’s bill. It offered assurance that the “customer service centre are monitoring the repairs and as soon as they receive further information they will update you accordingly”. The resident emailed the landlord back the same day reiterating that the landlord had sent a plumber “six months ago when I showed him the extent of the damp did not identify all the sources”. His own plumber had identified and fixed “two leaks” and the landlord’s plumber “had at least one chance to but did not”.
On 6 December 2021 the resident referred his complaint to this Service. He advised that:
1. He was unhappy that the landlord would not reimburse the “plumber’s bill of £210”. The landlord had sent a plumber on 14 June 2021 who “failed to locate the leaks later fixed”. He advised that he had shown the landlord’s plumber the “stains, fungus, photographs and even asked about the bath overflow”.
2. The landlord had not provided a “schedule nor even description of works to be carried out to remedy the damp in my flat (walls, floors, bath frame or skirtings)”. The landlord’s “surveyor and contractor seemed to suggest to me there were multiple issues leading to damp and rising damp/fungus requiring measures to be taken”.
3. He had accepted and received the £610 compensation offered the previous year. He had advised the landlord he would accept the compensation of £1,256 offered if the plumber’s bill was also covered.
4. He had been waiting for six months “to replace the hall and bathroom flooring and bath panels left off to facilitate drying out”. He wished to know if he should “go ahead then charge them to replace again if they need to remove to treat the various damp”.
Since the referral to this Service, a quote for asbestos removal was received by the landlord on 15 December 2021. The damp contractor emailed the landlord on 21 December 2021 to advise that he had texted the resident with his intention to make contact between Christmas and New Year “with a view to starting works in January”. In this email the damp contractor advised that the scheduled completion date of 4 February 2021 could not be achieved due to the need for four to six weeks “curing before rendering”. The completion date requested was end of March 2022. The damp contractor asked “if a Sanctuary plumber has inspected the flat above to check for leaks”. He offered to attend the flat above to have a look.
In a further email on 21 December 2021 the damp contractor advised the landlord that “the tenant is at complaint stage”. He advised that dampness is “getting into his bedroom and it appears from ceiling level”. “According to the tenant he has reported this to Sanctuary many times”. The resident reportedly advised the landlord that a plumber visited the flat above and found “no leaks”. “It appears he has been incorrectly informed”. To “safeguard our works and to stop further complaints and compensation claims” he could “make a cursory inspection” of the flat above and report back. The contractor advised that he was aware that the kitchen in the flat above the resident’s flat was directly above the bedroom. He states “I have tried to minimise this email as much as possible – please advise”.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email that a works order was raised 31 December 2021 to trace a leak from the flat above. This was 14 months after the maintenance surveyor had discovered the leak from the flat above.
The landlord sent a further stage two response on 22 February 2022 in which it proposed an increase to the compensation offered in its response of 1 December 2021 from £1,256 to £1,506 reflecting £50 for a lack of updates in December 2021 “regarding the damp works”, £100 for “delays” in sending a “final response” and £100 as a “further time and trouble payment in relation to completing the damp repairs in March 2022”.
Some further correspondence has been sent by the landlord to this Service that details an inspection request of 26 January 2023 for the landlord’s maintenance surveyor to inspect the flat above “for a leak”. The repair records detail an inspection was carried out with the damp contractor on 3 February 2023 to “investigate an ongoing leak from flat B which is causing damage into the basement flat”, i.e. the resident’s property. In a email of 4 February 2023, the damp contractor had been contacted by the resident who advised that the landlord’s contractors had started work at his property the Friday before. In a further email sent by the damp contractor on 10 February 2023 he asks if the landlord had found “a leak in the kitchen and sorted it” from the flat above which was at this point void. There were therefore no access issues that would have prevented the landlord from carrying out work in the flat above. The damp contractor goes on to say “I am very concerned as (the resident’s) bedroom is affected”. He states that the resident “did negotiate compensation with Sanctuary in the past and don’t want that to repeat again”. The repair logs do not give a completion date for work to source and remedy a leak from the flat above.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning water ingress and the resultant damp and mould

There are a number of issues that this investigation has considered in respect of the multiple points of water ingress and the resultant damp and mould. These concern the initial repairs to the concrete steps that had been found to be cracked and a possible cause for water ingress, the reports of a possible leak from the flat above the resident’s flat and the landlord’s response to this, and also the landlord’s response concerning the other leaks found in the property.
In the first instance, the landlord was made aware of the resident’s issues of damp following the resident’s report of 24 April 2019, followed up in the letter sent by this Service on 14 August 2019. However, an inspection did not take place until 19 August 2019, four months later which was considerably outside of the landlord’s policy above. The work to repair the cracks in the concrete steps was identified as being the possible cause of the water ingress, however, the repair was not completed until 14 January 2020. This was nine months after the resident’s initial report of damp and the delay was particularly unreasonable, given the purpose of such works was to prevent damp and mould. It was considerably outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescale of 28 days. The original inspection was to check for damp and whether the condition of the door and windows warranted replacement. The landlord failed to keep a detailed record of its actions at the inspection and the outcomes.
No records have been seen that dehumidifiers were provided to assist in the drying out process and it is of no surprise that the damp contractor stated in its email of 7 February 2020 that the property was “taking a while to dry”. Dehumidifiers would have significantly speeded up the drying out process, especially given the time of year that the work was completed being during the winter. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord did not provide these to speed up the drying out process. There are no records of any advice provided to the resident regarding ventilation and heating that may have assisted in the drying out process. This meant the property took much longer dry out over an extended period from the work being undertaken on 19 August 2019 causing detriment to the resident living in these damp conditions.
There is no evidence that the landlord checked for other possible points of water ingress, for example, using investigative techniques and damp tests at an earlier point that may have prevented the “ruined” works and more importantly the further detriment to the resident.
The landlord clearly blamed the contractor in its stage one response for not passing on the report of further damp in the lounge that had been “pointed out to them”, presumably in May 2020, though this is not recorded in the repair logs. It is an example of inadequate record keeping. However, ultimately the landlord has responsibility for monitoring the actions of the contractor and for post-inspecting works carried out. If it had done so then the further damp issues that had come to light could have been investigated and remedied. It is not clear from the landlord’s repair logs why it proceeded with the internal decorative works without satisfying itself that there was no further water ingress. This ultimately meant that the works undertaken were found on inspection on 28 October 2020 to “be ruined”.
There are differing records in the landlord’s account of a leak from the flat above. The landlord’s records show that it was aware that there could be a leak from the flat above as early as February 2020 when its complaint response referred to the fact that its maintenance surveyor had inspected and found no leak at that time. The landlord could of carried out further investigation if it had carried out a post-inspection of the works carried out by its contractor in May 2020 when the contractor had discovered further damp. It missed this opportunity. However during a later inspection undertaken by the maintenance surveyor on 28 October 2020 a leak was then identified from the flat above and despite a request made by the maintenance surveyor to the landlord to “assign a plumber to trace the leak”, no further works order was raised. The damp contractor was requested to reattend the resident’s property at this time, however, without the source of the water ingress first being identified, this would be potentially further abortive work. The landlord’s internal email of 7 June 2021 confirm that it was aware of the need to investigate a leak from the flat above stating that the “black mould in the living room wall and bay window “cannot be resolved until the leak from above has been investigated”.
In the landlord’s stage one complaint acknowledgement email of 21 June 2021 it gave incorrect information to the resident and advised that there was no leak found in the flat above. The landlord then reiterated that no leak had been found from the flat above in its stage one complaint response of 25 October 2021 “following the attendance on 30 November 2020” by its operatives. It was concerning that the landlord’s damp contractor reported over a year later on 21 December 2021 that the resident had been “incorrectly informed” regarding the inspection to the flat above. To “safeguard our works and to stop further complaints and compensation claims” he could “make a cursory inspection” of the flat above and report back. This evidenced the landlord’s clear lack of oversight and management of its contractor and the works being undertaken. It is not known why the damp contractor made the statement “I have tried to minimise this email as much as possible – please advise”. However, on reading comments of this nature, along with the complaint responses this indicates serious failings and a lack of ownership and oversight by the landlord in admitting its failings to the resident at the time.
The landlord confirmed in an internal email that a works order was only raised 31 December 2021 to trace a leak from the flat above. This was one year and two months after the maintenance surveyor had discovered the leak from the flat above. Further records show that as at 15 February 2023 work required to remedy the leak from the upstairs flat had only just been identified. This was a totally unacceptable time frame resulting in considerable detriment to the resident who was understandably concerned about the effects to his health. Whilst it is recognised that the resident had not contacted the landlord for a period of time about the damp issues between October 2020 and May 2021, the landlord needed to sustain its ownership of issues previously identified and stop the water ingress from the flat above but failed to do so. The results were continued damage to the resident’s property, as well as the “ruined” work undertaken by the landlord’s damp contractor.
There is no record on the landlord’s repairs logs that detail a works order being raised to the damp contractor following the inspection on 28 October 2020 following the damp contractor’s statement that he submitted a report on 8 November 2020. There was a clear lack of follow up by the landlord to expedite the work to remedy the water ingress and provide a lasting solution causing continued detriment to the resident. There was no sense of urgency, when water ingress would cause additional damage to the property and cost the landlord more to resolve in the longer term. More importantly the resident was living in a damp and mouldy home with fruiting fungi, concerned about the effect this would have on him.
Once again the landlord’s repair logs do not correspond to the stage one complaint acknowledgement of 21 June 2021 with regard to the “water ingress to bedroom” that stated that operatives had attended on 30 November 2020 “to trace leaks for possible ingress and was reported back no leaks found no further actions have been raised”. The repair logs do not detail any operatives in attendance on 30 November 2020. This is further evidence of the record keeping and communication failings identified in this case. It can also lessen a resident’s confidence in the landlord’s ability to resolve a complaint.
In summary the landlord failed to adequately investigate and provide a lasting and effective remedy to address the water ingress from several sources into the property from resident’s initial report of 24 April 2019 up until the resident referred his complaint to this Service on 6 December 2021, some 669 working days later. It failed to investigate and remedy the leak from the flat above when it realised its existence on 28 October 2020 and to date it is not known whether the leak from the flat above has been effectively remedied. It also gave conflicting accounts to the resident concerning the leak from the flat above. The resident was therefore left for two years and eight months to endure the damp, fruiting fungi and mould in his property. The considerable failures of the landlord caused detriment to the resident who was understandably concerned about the effect the damp and mould would have on his health. The combined effect of the failures and impact on the resident amount to severe maladministration. Orders have been made in respect of this below.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the external door and windows.

The resident reported the repairs required to the external door and windows in his complaint raised on 24 April 2019. As there was no action taken by the landlord the resident felt the need to contact this Service to chase up the landlord. In response to the chase up by this Service, the landlord carried out its inspection on 19 August 2019, which was considerably outside of its policy timescales for a pre-inspection of ten working days. The resident’s reports concerning the external door and windows were reported at the same time as the damp issue and the delays combined will have exacerbated the impact on the resident, given that he was not seeing the landlord take timely action on either issue.
The works order was raised the day after the inspection, and following the failed appointment of 10 September 2019 the resident referred the contractor back to the landlord to raise this with the complaint handler as described below. However, the landlord failed to keep track of the works orders to ensure the timely completion of the work required. In its stage two complaint response of 24 September 2020 the landlord advised that it had “re raised” the order indicating that the original order had been cancelled. This was 107 working days later. This indicated, along with the issues with the damp consultant, a breakdown in the landlord’s operational management of its contractors. No indication was given when the resident could expect the work to be undertaken. The handling of the resident’s initial report of repairs required was evidently very poor.
Despite the promised “28 days” turnaround for works to be undertaken in the landlord’s second stage two response of 29 October 2020, no records have been seen that any work took place to repair the door and windows. No record has been seen that the appointment scheduled for 1 December 2020 took place. Despite the landlord’s request that the repairs to the door and windows be “monitored and tracked”, no records have been seen that this happened. This was a further indication, along with the issues of record keeping mentioned above with regard to the damp, of the landlord’s record keeping failings causing it to lose track of repairs which consequently remained unresolved. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the building’s structure and its fittings. It enables the landlord to monitor and manage outstanding repairs, and enables the landlord to provide accurate information to its residents minimising the period which residents experience adverse impact.
It is not clear from the repair records what prompted the landlord to order a new door in January 2021, and the two new windows as the landlord had initially raised works order to repair to the door and windows taking into account the health and safety concerns it referred to. However, the landlord’s records do not detail that it took any effective action until January 2021 and according to the resident in his report to this Service, it did not complete the works identified earlier.
Finally the landlord advised the resident by phone on 25 May 2021 that the work was scheduled for completion of 28 June 2021. The landlord confirmed in its complaint response of 25 October 2021 that the appointment took place and that no further concerns were raised by the resident regarding the door and windows. The completion date was 554 working days after the resident’s initial report made on 24 April 2019. This was a completely unacceptable timeframe The repair needed to the back door frame indicated that the door was not as secure as it could be. It is of note that the landlord’s failure to carry out the work spanned the course of two winters with dark evenings that would be concerning to anyone, and potentially even more so being a basement flat with a door that was not as secure as it should be.
In summary, the landlord demonstrated a complete lack of coordination and management of its contractors in carrying out the repairs to the door and windows. It failed to keep track and monitor the repairs to be undertaken to ensure effective completion. No record was seen of any action that was taken by the landlord following the failed appointment on 10 September 2019 to rebook at a convenient time for the resident. The landlord failed to act with any degree of urgency given the security issues with the defective door frame being in a basement flat over the course of two winters causing continued detriment to the resident as well as the time and trouble in chasing the landlord to fulfil its repairing obligations within the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The cumulative effect of these issues amount to maladministration for which an order has been made.

The landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

When the resident raised his initial complaint referring to the damp as well as the door and windows to the landlord on 24 April 2019, the stage one acknowledgement was not sent until 14 August 2019, four months later. It was unsurprising therefore that the resident felt the need to pursue his complaint by contacting this Service.
No stage one complaint response has been seen by this Service as set out in the landlord’s policy and in section three of the Complaint Handling Code published July 2020 in operation at the time of the complaint. The resident took action following the failed appointment on 10 September 2020 requesting the details to be sent to the landlord’s complaint handler. This indicated the resident’s desire for the complaint handler to take this into account in forming a response. However, despite this contact by the resident the landlord failed to respond to the resident and threatened to close the complaint on 18 November 2019 putting the onus on the resident to contact, without properly investigating the issues raised to provide a response. This approach was repeated by the landlord on 9 March 2020 with the same threat to close the complaint without actually investigating the issues raised.
Whilst the landlord’s stage two response of 24 September 2020 referred to a couple of calls being made by the complaint handler, no record has been seen of this. The next contact by the landlord concerning the resident’s complaint was the letter sent in January 2021 which concerned the Prime Minister’s announcement. This gave the same complaint number indicating that the complaint was still in fact open. The complaint had not been investigated appropriately by the landlord and it was left to drift. This would have left the resident feeling that his concerns were ignored and unimportant to the landlord.
The lack of a stage one response meant that the landlord missed the opportunity to update the resident on the actions it had taken, or would take to remedy the water ingress and resultant damp and mould. It could have also provided an update on the resident’s repair requests for the door and windows. It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have checked with its relevant teams and its own records to provide its stage one response in accordance with its own policy. Clearly actions were being taken by the landlord that it could have referred to, for example, the inspection and repairs to the steps. It had a responsibility to consider these actions in the context of the resident’s complaint and send a formal complaint response.
However, the landlord failed to keep track of the complaint and the issues raised within it, which led to the resident contacting this Service again on 18 August 2020. This led to another chase up by this Service for the landlord to respond to the resident in line with its policy. On contacting this Service on 1 September 2020 the landlord referred to being unable to contact the resident and that the complaint had been closed but would be reopened and “escalated to stage two”. However, as mentioned, the landlord had not yet issued its stage one response.
The landlord escalated the complaint to stage two before completing stage one and its stage two response was sent 24 September 2020. This was 363 working days after the resident’s formal complaint sent to his landlord on 24 April 2019, and 285 working days after its acknowledgement was sent on 14 August 2019. This was a highly unacceptable length of time for the resident to wait for a response of any sort. The landlord then sent a further final stage two response on 29 September 2020. This in effect, is a third stage in the landlord’s complaints process and could have caused confusion for the resident. It also then closed the complaint in advance of the repairs being completed, and passed blame on to the damp contractor for not submitting details of further work required, for which the damp contractor expressed his grievance in a later email that he had been “maligned” to the resident. As paragraph 6.2 of the Code states “accountability and transparency should be embedded in a positive complaint handling culture”. The dispute with the contractor indicates that the landlord did not follow this part of the code.
In relation to the compensation offered, for the resident’s earlier complaint, the landlord initially offered £510 in its initial stage two response of 24 September 2020 and increased this by £100 in its final stage two response of 29 September 2020.
The resident raised a further complaint via this Service on 11 May 2021 concerning the same issues that had remained unresolved. This was brought to the landlord’s attention on 4 June 2021 and acknowledged by the landlord within five working days on 7 June 2021 in accordance with its policy and the Code. However, confusingly a further stage one complaint acknowledgement was then sent on 21 June 2021 which read more like a stage one response as it was dealing with the specific points raised in the resident’s complaint.
The resident then experienced the same delays he experienced for his previous complaint. This led to the resident feeling the need to contact this Service again to chase up a response. It was then that the landlord provided its stage one response which was 118 working days after the resident submitted his complaint on 11 May 2021. Again this was considerably outside of the landlord’s own policy and the Complaint Handling Code which requires a response at stage one within ten working days. More importantly, the landlord failed to manage and monitor the progress of the complaint until it was prompted by this Service.
Following the escalation request of 26 October 2021, the landlord acknowledged the stage two complaint on 5 November 2021 which was eight working days later so outside of the landlord’s policy timescale. It then sent a further stage two acknowledgement on 11 November 2021 which would be confusing to the resident.
The landlord’s stage two response was sent on 1 December 2021 which was 145 working days after the resident submitted his complaint of 11 May 2021. This was once again a failure by the landlord to respond within its policy timescales and Complaint Handling Code timescales of 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord in respect of its acknowledged failings in handling the resident’s complaints put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord offered redress of £610 which it later increased by £300 to £910 for the resident’s initial complaint concerning water ingress and the repairs to the back door and window. This was accepted by the resident at this time. The landlord then offered £1256 compensation in its stage two response for the resident’s later complaint on 1 December 2021. This was increased in a further stage two response of 21 February 2022 following the resident’s referral to this Service to £1506. It comprised £1,256 originally offered on 1 December 2021, £50 for a lack of updates concerning damp works, £100 for a delay in sending the final response and £100 as a further time and trouble payment in relation to completing the damp repairs in March 2022. It is not clear whether the monies offered were paid to the resident.
In summary over a period of 31 months that the resident submitted his complaints to his landlord, the landlord failed to respond in a timely manner. It failed to follow its own policy timescales or the Complaint Handling Code. The landlord’s complaint handling culture did not demonstrate transparency and openness, with comments from the damp contractor in his email of 21 December 2021 to the landlord to “safeguard our works and to stop further complaints and compensation claims” and that he had tried to “minimise this email as much as possible” evidence of a culture that is more concerned with reputational damage than positive outcomes for its residents. The landlord demonstrated an unwillingness to progress the resident’s complaint, except when this Service intervened on the resident’s behalf. This meant the resident had additional time and trouble in pursuing his complaints, having to contact this Service to chase up the landlord on his behalf. The resident must have felt ignored and that the landlord did not care about the issues raised. The offers of compensation, rather than ensuring that the issues were dealt with adequately, were of little benefit to the resident in resolving the complaints raised. It is the opinion of this Service that the final offer of £1,506 which included £950 for delays, distress, inconvenience, time and trouble was not proportionate to the length of delay experienced by the resident, and the continued detriment the resident experienced through the landlord’s inaction over this significant period of time. These combined issues amount to severe maladministration for which an order is made.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning water ingress and the resultant damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the external door and windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.

Reasons

Despite the resident’s reports of damp made on 24 April 2019, the landlord failed to carry out a sufficiently thorough inspection or to diagnosis all the possible points of water ingress. It failed to progress work in line with its own policy to provide and enduring and lasting remedy to the water ingress. There was a complete lack of oversight and ownership demonstrated by the landlord to manage its contractors and to monitor the completion of works to address the multiple points of water ingress over a prolonged period of two years and eight months. There was clear evidence of communication and record keeping failures. This caused considerable detriment to the resident as well as the time and inconvenience in pursuing his landlord to fulfil its obligations set out in the tenancy agreement and Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985.
The landlord failed to monitor and to progress the work required in line with its own policy to the external door and windows after the resident’s initial report of 24 April 2019. The landlord failed to take ownership and monitor the completion of the works leaving the resident with a door that was not as secure as it could be, over a period of over two years, including two winters, until the work was finally completed on 28 June 2021. The complete lack of oversight meant that there were missed opportunities to ensure that the work was completed at an earlier point causing potential detriment to the resident and time and trouble in trying to get the landlord to undertake the work.
The landlord failed to progress the resident’s complaints in a timely manner on each occasion or act in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code in place at the time. Its responses gave conflicting information that lacked openness and transparency. Its approach to issuing two complaint acknowledgements added confusion to what should be a straightforward process. It failed to provide a stage one response to the resident’s initial complaint and escalated this directly to stage two. Its stage two responses exceeded its policy timescales on each occasion. Its second round of stage two responses added further confusion and an additional stage three to its complaints process.

Orders and recommendations

Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from the chief executive. A copy should be provided to this Service.
2. Pay the resident £5,300 compensation for the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports concerning water ingress and the resultant damp and mould. This incorporates distress, inconvenience and time and trouble elements.
3. Pay the resident £900 compensation in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the external door and windows. This includes distress, inconvenience and time and trouble elements.
4. Pay £1,900 (comprising £1,506 already offered and a further £394) in recognition of the distress, inconvenience and time and trouble caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
Within six weeks from the date of this report to complete any known or as yet unidentified repairs in the resident’s property and repairs to the flat above to fully remedy all water ingress and advise this Service following effective completion.
Within twelve weeks of the date of this report the landlord must initiate and complete a review of this case, identify learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s Board and Resident’s Panel outlining at minimum:
1. The learning points identified from this case and what improvements it intends to make to its policy and procedures in dealing with repairs concerning water ingress. This should set out a clear timescale for actions, overall case management and oversight by named postholders and a monitoring process.
2. The intentions and a timescale to refresh the self-assessment of its complaints policy using the Ombudsman’s self-assessment toolkit (available on our website). It should pay particular attention to Section 4 – Complaint Handling Principles and Section 5 – Complaint Stages with reference to timescales and the additional stage three. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.