Yorkshire Housing Limited (202116134)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202116134

Yorkshire Housing Limited

12 May 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 handling of reports of a leak, damp and mould relating to the resident’s permanent and decant property.
2. The landlord’s handling of a decant.
3. Complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.
The Ombudsman has also taken into account the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s welfare.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the decant property.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure, unless there is evidence of a complaint-handling failure and the Ombudsman is satisfied that the member has not taken action within a reasonable timescale”. Whilst the resident has raised the issue of damp and mould in the decant property, there is no evidence that she has made a formal complaint about this. Therefore, the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond to this issue. The resident may wish to open a further complaint regarding this issue.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which started on 17 November 2005. The property is a two bedroom first floor flat.
The resident has advised the landlord and her advocate of mental health vulnerabilities and this is also noted on the landlord’s own records from 2010. She has two young children both of whom were under six years old at the time of the events covered by this investigation.
The tenancy agreement sets out the landlord’s responsibilities for repairing external and internal areas of the property. Any fittings installed by the landlord including basins, sinks, baths, toilets, flushing systems and waste pipes are the landlord’s responsibility to maintain.
The tenancy agreement sets out the tenant’s responsibilities to report disrepair and to allow access to the landlord or contractors acting on its behalf to carry out necessary works.
The landlord has a two stage complaints policy and will aim to respond to complaints at stage one within ten working days and at stage two within 20 working days. The policy permits “time extensions” of up to ten working days for each stage. A time extension is not allowed “where the resolution requires undertaking works which may take weeks or months to complete”. If this is the case then the resident is to be provided with a “schedule of works and time frame in the complaint response”. The policy states that the landlord will consider compensation taking into account “quantifiable losses, time, trouble, distress and inconvenience and any payment that will put the customer back in the position that they would have been had the issue not occurred”.
The policy has a “de-escalation of complaints” stage before a complaint enters the formal process. It states that this is to allow the landlord to resolve the complaint at the first point of contact. The policy states that this stage will be recorded for learning purposes.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out priorities for repairs with emergency repairs to be completed within 24 hours of report, urgent repairs within seven calendar days of reporting, routine repairs within 28 calendar days of a report. The policy states that the landlord “will endeavour to meet the needs of vulnerable customers” and that “vulnerable customers will mean the elderly, disabled, customers with care needs and other vulnerable adult groups”. The policy further states that the landlord will “take the needs of each individual customer into consideration when arranging and providing its services”.
The landlord’s repairs policy also states:
1. Discretionary disturbance payments will be considered to cover removal costs, disconnection/reconnections, redirection of post and other reasonable expenses incurred due to an individual’s “specific circumstances such as disability, special needs etc”. Evidence of costs should be provided by the resident and residents with special needs may be awarded additional payments to cover costs.
2. A disturbance payment scheme operates “where a customer is temporarily displaced as a result of major works”. This is “to ensure that customers are treated fairly and consistently”.
The landlord’s decant policy states the landlord will:
1. “Ensure that decants are carried out effectively and efficiently with the minimum amount of stress and difficulty for the tenant(s)”.
2. “Minimize the level of disturbance and inconvenience to tenants who are obliged to decant from their homes on either a temporary or permanent basis”.
3. “Ensure that tenants are assisted and supported where they are being moved out of their home as a result of a decant.”
4. Provide a “named officer to liaise with the resident to co-ordinate advice, support and to make sure any payments due are made in a timely manner”.
5. Ensure “support will be tailored to an individual tenant’s needs and will be agreed with them and their family/carers where appropriate”.
6. “If the alternative accommodation is a temporary decant to a different Yorkshire Housing property the tenant will sign a Yorkshire Housing ‘Licence to Occupy’ agreement”.
The resident has mentioned to her landlord and advocate the effect the situation has caused to her and her family’s 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 resulting from a landlord’s service failure where vulnerability is a known factor.

Summary of events

The resident reported a potential leak to the landlord on Thursday 8 October 2020. On lifting carpets the resident found that there was water and a bad smell. The resident states that she was advised by the landlord that she would be contacted within 24 hours but reports that she was not contacted.
The resident raised a formal complaint on line on 12 October 2020 and stated:
1. She had reported the repair on 8 October 2020 and advised the landlord that water was coming through the floorboards into the main bedroom and there was “also a smell”.
2. She had been advised by the landlord that this was “urgent” and a contractor would be in contact within 24 hours. However, she had to chase the repair on 12 October 2020 and was advised a contractor would call that day.
3. Over the weekend the situation had continued with damp spreading to the second bedroom and hall.
4. The resident was concerned about the health of herself and her children as she did not know where the water was coming from. Due to the smell she felt it could have been “toilet/dirty water” and she was concerned about the risk of electrocution.
5. The bedroom window could not be opened. She had reported this to the landlord “before lockdown” and in August 2020 had been advised that a new fitting was needed and it would be booked in. No work had happened and there had been no updates either.
6. The landlord should replace/repair the carpets and floor.
The landlord’s records show the works order was upgraded to emergency status and a contractor attended on 12 October 2020 but was unable to locate any leak. The contractor requested the landlord’s surveyor attend who visited the property on 15 October 2020. A leaking waste to the wash hand basin was discovered behind fitted pipe boxing at floor level. The landlord noted it would not have been possible for the original contractor to identify the leak without fully removing the pipe boxing. It felt that the root cause of the leak was not properly investigated on the emergency repair.
A works order was raised on 19 October 2020 for remedial works to the leaking pipework behind the bathroom plasterboard to take place.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 November 2020 as she had been advised that 17 November 2020 would be the earliest date the contractor could undertake the remedial work. She stated that the smell and damp was “so bad that we have to walk on black bags and cardboard boxes to avoid stepping in water”.
On 11 November 2020 the landlord noted in an internal email that the resident wished to speak to a manager as the leak was ongoing. The landlord requested dehumidifiers to be dropped off at the property. In this email it noted that works had been passed to a different contractor due to labour constraints, and that the window needed repairing.
On 12 November 2020 the landlord emailed internally and advised that an urgent decant of the household was required following a leak that had seriously damaged the flooring throughout the property. It noted that the floor coverings had been removed and the “sub floor is completely saturated and smelling”.
The landlord considered options for the decant the same day. It offered two properties that the resident advised were too far away from the school which her children attended and she had no car. The landlord then agreed to offer a vacant market rent property with appliances in the same block as the property as a temporary decant. This was to be on the same social rent the resident was paying. It noted that caretakers could assist the resident to move. The resident moved to the decant property the same day.
The landlord noted in an internal email 12 November 2020 that the resident had put in a letter of complaint but that no case had been raised. The landlord stated “I assume this is being dealt with”.
The landlord raised a works order to replace the locking mechanism for the bedroom window on 19 November 2020. It’s Surveyor emailed the resident to advise that the contractor had been instructed to repair the window. However, when the contractor attended on 24 December 2021 it advised the landlord that a new window was needed as the existing window could not be opened without breaking it.
The landlord states in an internal email of 19 November 2020 that costs were paid for the caretakers to remove all the resident’s floor coverings and furniture to begin the drying out process. The email does not detail storage arrangements. It arranged for a contractor to measure up and provide new carpets on 23 November 2020. The landlord noted in the internal email that the resident was keeping in touch with its maintenance surveyor.
On 4 February 2021 the resident emailed the landlord. This was in response to the landlord asking if the resident would consider a permanent decant into the property she was living in. The resident advised:
1. She would consider this if the “rent amount does not change”
2. The appliances would need to be “moved… by professionals and fitted at your expense”.
3. That minor repairs needed to be completed.
4. “Resources are provided to move everything”
5. “all utility bills” at the decant property “will be paid for, in full” by the landlord.
In the same email the resident referred to the events that had taken place and stated:
1. “I am extremely disappointed and astounded that there has been zero consideration about how all of this disruption may have had on my mental health”.
2. “Initially I was told that it would be a few weeks to fix it all and that I should be back in for Christmas”. “Almost 12 weeks on, I am still no further forward and it is still not fixed. We are still living in temporary accommodation”.
3. “In all my emails and many calls to Yorkshire Housing, since 8 October 2020 I have repeatedly explained how this situation has affected not only my own, but also the wellbeing of my two young children.”
4. The resident advised of her and her children “eating their Christmas dinner on the floor” and “sleeping on mattresses for months”.
5. The resident stated she had “no physical help” from the landlord to move into the decant address and states that “fortunately my friend was able to help me carry the mattresses down the first flight of stairs”. She stated that she did not access the decant property until late afternoon when it was dark.
6. She states that she was “having to regularly go to my flat to bring more things over”. She also states that “I have had to make myself available when workmen have needed to come to let them in, breaking off from my work, sometimes without any notice”.
7. The resident “asked for a copy of your complaints procedure but this was not provided or sent”.
An internal email 8 February, from the landlord’s maintenance surveyor, details a works order raised 1 December 2020 to renew flooring, was subsequently cancelled by the contractor 21 December 2020 due to insufficient resources. A new job was raised to the same contractor for the same work 28 January 2021 and then cancelled by the contractor on 8 February 2021 as it could not resource the works.
In the same internal email the maintenance surveyor advised that work had been reallocated to another contractor though no date has been seen as to when that happened. The landlord stated that the flooring to the permanent property was “still not resolved”. The landlord stated that “the tenant has been massively let down by the organisation and contractors here”. A request was made for the resident to remain in the decant property as a permanent move at a social rent “to do the right thing”. However, an internal email of 9 February 2021 outlined that as the property sat in a different portfolio due to how it was acquired it would not be possible to change the tenure.
On 22 February 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise that after a search for a permanent property that no further properties could be identified other than the two that had been previously offered and rejected. Works would therefore be instructed to allow the resident to move back to her permanent address.
On 25 February 2021 a further complaint was sent by the resident’s advocate. This detailed:
1. The resident had reported serious damp caused by a leak in her flat from 8 October 2020.
2. The carpet and lino were soaked through and the resident had to “walk on cardboard and plastic bags”. The flat “smelt strongly of damp”.
3. The landlord offered no assistance to move the resident into the decant property. The resident had had “no contact from Yorkshire housing managers or officers to help her manage the situation, give her a proper timescale of when repairs are to be carried out or discuss compensation”.
4. The landlord asked the resident if she would consider staying in the decant property permanently. It then advised that she could not stay as the rent was higher. Two properties had been offered out of the area that were not suitable as they were not near to the school and the resident was unable to drive.
5. The resident wished to be compensated for the financial losses, discomfort and inconvenience which had affected her mental health.
The landlord logged a stage one complaint though it is not clear when this happened as the date is not shown correctly “date sent 01/01/0001”. It visited the resident on 2 March 2021 and issued a stage one response on 10 March 2021. This was some 104 days after the resident originally raised an online complaint. It detailed:
1. It apologised stating that “it was entirely unacceptable and falls short of what we expect”. It acknowledged the disruption and frustration to the resident.
2. It apologised for the length of time it took to communicate and the delays. It was considering ways to avoid this during staff leave in future.
3. Repair work was being undertaken to ensure “all leaks are resolved, the damaged flooring to be replaced, a new window to be fitted to one of the bedrooms, both bedrooms to be redecorated, kitchen worktop to be replaced in full. It would undertake a “complete clean” and the “caretaking team will be on hand to move your possessions back to your home”.
4. An investigation took place to find out “what went wrong”. The sequence of events following the emergency order raised 12 October 2020 was set out.
5. Notes from the emergency works order showed the contractor failed to identify the source of a leak. The surveyor was instructed to attend and found the whole bathroom floor to be “spongy”. It noted that damp had spread to the hallway and carpets were wet in the bedroom.
6. A works order to resolve the leak was raised and completed by the contractor on 19 October 2020.
7. The contractor had cancelled the landlord’s job raised 1 December 2020 to renew the floor on 28 January 2021. A further works order was raised 6 February 2021 to do the work.
8. A permanent decant could not be agreed and the resident would need to follow the lettings process for any transfer.
9. A request for the resident to “advise” when she would be planning to move back into her home. The landlord would then “arrange to inspect your home before you return and ensure things for removals are arranged for the day you move back”.
The landlord sent emails to its contractors to commence works 1 March 2021 to 23 March 2021. In the landlord’s email 10 March 2021 to the contractor it mentioned the need to check that the cylinder is “leak free” to rule out the possibility a leak could be coming from the cylinder. It requested the contractor to fit a new window week commencing 5 April 2021. This followed a variation of the works order sent by email from the contractor on 19 March 2021 in which the contractor advised the landlord that the window would be fitted when it was in stock.
The resident advised the landlord by email on 26 April 2021 works were still outstanding, however, she did not wish to raise a stage two complaint at this point as she wished the works to be completed.
The landlord emailed its contractors to progress remaining works between 28 April 2021 to 21 June 2021. The landlord stated that at some point the electricity was turned off and the resident’s frozen food perished. It advised the contractor to pick up the key from the keysafe. In the resident’s record of events which was not dated she referred to a keysafe being provided by the landlord but that workmen were still calling to gain access. The resident had to then show them where the keysafe was located. The landlord advised in a later email of 6 May 2021 that the keysafe number was provided to the contractor.
The landlord emailed its contractor on 21 June 2021 to advise that jobs had been cancelled and that there “is water coming up through the hallway floor near where the cylinder is located”. It noted a leak to the immersion had first been reported 27 January 2020 and then cancelled 6 February 2020. Then subsequent jobs raised 14 January 2021 and 30 March 2021 and both were cancelled by the contractor.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 July 2021 requesting her complaint be escalated to stage two. In this request the resident advised:
1. No response had been given to her after an email she had sent on 29 June 2021. Problems with her home had been ongoing since August 2020 and that it was clear the landlord had “no interest in customer care”. This had made her “feel insufficient and not valued at all”.
2. “I am really disappointed that I have not got a response or an acknowledgement to my email. Sadly the same poor customer service I have received from the time I put in my complaint in September 2020”.
3. For the landlord to “see all my correspondence in all my many emails, calls and letters”. The resident had to “live in challenging conditions and Yorkshire housing has no care at all”.
4. She was still “sleeping on mattresses and sitting on the floor” and the living conditions were unacceptable.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage two escalation request on 2 July 2021 and advised it would speak to colleagues and would be in touch again.
The landlord in its investigation of the complaint had noted in an internal email that after repairs were completed a further leak was found on the unvented cylinder. A contractor had attended on 21 June 2021 and condemned the cylinder. It was subsequently renewed week commencing 28 June 2021.
The landlord stated in an email 5 July 2021 that when its contractor attended to the cylinder there was a further leak found from the soil pipe hidden behind the plaster boarded wall that was “highly likely the cause of the initial leak” with waste water constantly dripping. The leak was fixed the week before and the floors were drying out. As a precaution an order had been raised to renew the en-suite bathroom and the sub floor. The date of renewal was from 17-18 July 2021. The landlord advised the contractor to pick up the key from the keysafe.
The landlord arranged for the contractor to board and skim the hall cylinder cupboard on 19 July 2021.
On 2 August 2021 the landlord contacted the resident to enquire whether anyone had been in touch and confirming the works that had been completed. It confirmed the floor would be ready for carpeting subject to an inspection by the surveyor due to take place the same day. In response the resident advised that there was still dampness in the hallway.
The resident emailed her advocate to discuss compensation on 17 August 2021. She advised her advocate of food needing to be thrown away the electric not being turned on again after the repair to the second leak and that there were issues with the fridge freezer. She advised of damp and mould in the decant property and that mattresses had to be thrown away as they had been damaged as a result of damp. She had to take time off work and her mental health had been affected and the situation had affected her performance at work.
The resident emailed the landlord on 17 August 2021 as she wished to know whether the landlord had carried out a damp test that had been promised to check if the damp levels had reduced. The landlord confirmed by email on 18 August 2021 that the damp tests had been carried out on 16 August 2021 and that the damp levels had reduced further. The landlord confirmed it had arranged for the dehumidifiers to be removed on 18 August and for the property to be cleaned and disinfected. It advised the resident of a carpet fitting plan that it states had been discussed with the resident by the contractor. The landlord subsequently organised a van and labour on 23 August 2021 to remove furniture to allow carpets to be fitted.
On 3 September 2021 the landlord emailed the resident to advise of the remaining outstanding repairs that would be completed. The ensuite bathroom door was to be fitted once the resident moved back in. There was also an outstanding repair to put some shelving in the cupboard and this would also be done once the resident moved back in.
The landlord noted in an internal email of 16 September 2021 that the property had been inspected on 15 September 2021 and was found to be ready to move into.
The resident emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021 stating she had been contacted by the tenancy management officer who had threatened her with a breach of contract due to her not moving back to her property. The resident reported that she was upset by this and mentioned that she had issues of damp and mould in the decant property. She also indicated that she had been forced to dispose of her mattress, some clothing and a wardrobe as they had been damaged by damp.
The landlord raised a works order on 18 October 2021 for work that would be completed following the resident’s return to her permanent address including shelving in the cupboard, a clean to a lettable standard, a towel rail, heater service and door adjustment.
The resident chased up a reply to her second stage complaint by contacting this Service on 18 October 2021. This Service contacted the landlord the same day to request a response be sent to the resident.
The landlord emailed the resident on 20 October 2021 to apologise for the delay in looking into the resident’s complaint and to arrange a phone call. This was arranged for 22 October 2021. It is not clear whether this took place as there is no record.
The landlord contacted the resident on 26 October 2021 to advise that it had been contacted by this Service and the complaint was at stage two. The complaint had been passed to a different head of service due to illness.
The landlord raised a works order on 22 October 2021 to help the resident move back into her property and the resident moved back in on 29 October 2021.
The landlord sent its stage two response on 15 November 2021 in which it:
1. Upheld the complaint and apologised for the upset and stress that had been caused to the resident.
2. Advised that the case law quoted by the advocate was “not appropriate in this case as we gave you use of an alternative property for the duration at no extra rental cost”.
3. Had investigated to see “what went wrong” and how to “stop this from happening again”. The landlord had expected the work to be “simple to resolve. However, issues with the original contractor and then the discovery of a second leak in May 2021 led to delay in completing the work to allow the resident to move back.
4. Accepted that it should have kept the resident “better informed and managed progress more closely”. It recognised that communication could have been better.
5. The maintenance surveyor had spoken to the resident in January 2021 about permanently decanting and the resident had agreed to consider this as it was ground floor but that the terms and conditions would need to be confirmed. The property was confirmed to be on a “market rent”.
6. Compensation of £1,400 compensation was offered to cover costs made up of:
  1. Mattresses and headboard £500 (previously offered)
  2. Wardrobe £300
  3. Food from fridge freezer £100
  4. Compensation to recognise the stress and inconvenience £500.
The resident contacted the landlord on 23 December 2021 to advise that she was considering the landlord’s compensation offer. The landlord states in a document on lessons learned that this offer was rejected by the resident who felt it should be higher.
The resident contacted this Service on 24 January 2022 to request thather complaint be investigated.

Assessment and findings

In reaching a decision we consider whether the landlord has kept to the law, followed proper procedure and good practice, and acted in a reasonable way. Our duty is to determine complaints by reference to what is, in the Service’s opinion, fair in all the circumstances of the case. The Service has a very specific role in considering whether the landlord has met its obligations to a resident and taken reasonable steps to resolve the complaint.

The landlord’s handling of the residents reports of a leak, damp and mould

The landlord’s repairs policy states that an uncontained leak is an urgent repair which should be attended to within 24 hours. Following the resident’s initial report, the landlord did not act within the response timescales in its policy and the resident had to chase the repair.
The landlord acknowledged internally that the leak was not properly investigated during its emergency repair. Further investigative efforts were not carried out until 19 October 2020. This was outside of its policy’s timescale for emergency repairs and water ingress was continuing to damage the resident’s flooring throughout the property. It was unreasonable that the surveyor did not visit the property until 15 October 2020 and opportunities to stem the ingress and reduce the resultant damage were missed during this period.
The resident had to again chase repairs on 9 November 2020 and the landlord provided dehumidifiers on 11 November 2020 which was appropriate in any case, but particularly so given that the uncompleted window repair meant that the resident was not fully able to ventilate the property. However, only a day later the landlord determined that the ingress and works were of such a scale that an emergency decant of the household was required.
The resident was understandably concerned for herself and her children, about the amount of water and where it was coming from given the smell. The leak from the soil stack was only discovered in June 2021 and the competency of the contractors who initially attended is questionable. A leak from a soil stack would likely be evidenced by brown/stained water under the floor covering. The resident was having to put down and remove cardboard and bin bags to walk on to avoid the damp.
Some repairs were shown as completed on 17 November 2020 and a contractor called on 21 December 2020 but there was no answer at the time. It is not clear whether this was a cold call. A contractor attended on 24 December 2020.
It was not disputed that it had been expected that all the work should have been completed within three weeks so the resident could then move back in to her permanent address. The landlord’s internal records show in considering a temporary decant that this would only be for a maximum of three weeks from 12 November 2020. This would have meant that the resident could move back into her permanent address the first week of December 2020. However, the landlord did not maintain adequate oversight of its contractor and monitor the progress of the issued works. Works had been cancelled due to lack or resources by a contractor, and then raised again a month later with the same contractor. This contractor then advised the landlord on 8 February 2021 that it could not do the works. This then added avoidable delay to the completion of the works and continued detriment to the resident.
There is no evidence seen that the landlord gave consideration to the resident’s vulnerability even though it was aware of this. It did not provide a proper timeline from the start of the works or adequate updates to the resident to manage expectations as to when different jobs were to be completed. Overall there was a significant lack of communication and coordination with the resident and contractors. The added issue of a repair that had not been done to the bedroom window (referred to in the resident’s initial unlogged complaint) meant that the resident was unable to ventilate the property or let any fresh air in.
The tenancy agreement requires the resident to provide access on reasonable notice being given. The resident was home working and had young children and during the course of the events outlined above a second national lockdown for Covid-19 started on 5 November 2020, and a third lockdown started 6 January 2021. Though a key safe was provided to minimise disruption, the resident reported contractors calling at her decant property rather than making use of the keysafe. No evidence has been seen that the landlord stressed the need to use the keysafe to the contractors rather than disturb the resident. This failure exacerbated the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
The discovery of a further leak from the unvented cylinder, that was then condemned on 21 June 2021 and replaced the following week, gives further evidence of the lack of oversight of the repairs required to provide an enduring remedy to the multiple ingress at the property. This is because the landlord must have suspected that there could be a problem with the cylinder as it asked the contractor to check it for leaks on 10 March 2021 but there was no follow up with the contractor to check this was the case. Furthermore, repairs to the cylinder had been reported and cancelled by its contractor pre lock down in 2020, and this information was not utilised at an early point by the landlord in its later investigations. The Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (S11) states that landlords are legally responsible for the provision of safe, working heating in a property.
The Government guidance at the time of the lockdown stated that urgent repairs should still have been completed during lockdown in 2020, therefore there was no justification for the landlord not to have progressed the works which it described itself as emergency/urgent during that time. It is concerning that the cylinder was condemned, and more importantly that the resident and her children had been residing in a property with a potentially unsafe cylinder.
A further leak was later discovered to the soil pipe that the landlord states would have been impossible to see without removing plasterboard. This led to additional delay in the resident being able to move back to her home. The resident was also understandably concerned as to the potential health consequences of she and her children’s exposure to waste matter from the soil stack whilst they were still living in the property.
The landlord had arranged a damp meter test after the repair to the cylinder but there is no record that a test took place following the completion of initial works, prior to the discovery of the second leak and before the new flooring was installed. This would have been a reasonable step to take to ensure the accuracy of the initial diagnosis and efficacy of works in fully ceasing the ingress. Had it done so it could have prevented further delays arising from the discovery of the second and then third leak. The landlord’s leak detection and diagnosis processes were insufficiently robust enough to ensure cohesive management of multiple points of ingress.
It is clear that the landlord needed to keep track of the work being undertaken by its contractors to ensure the timely completion and to avoid delays. It failed to do so and this caused an extended distressing period in temporary accommodation for a resident with known vulnerabilities.
In total it took 38 weeks for the landlord to fully remedy the multiple ingress into the property and a further 11 weeks before it confirmed that the property was habitable. This is significantly outside its own policy above which states that an “uncontainable water leak from water or heating pipe, tank or cistern” is an emergency repair and should be completed within 24 hours. When all the factors behind the delays are considered these failings cumulatively amount to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of a decant

The landlord needed to decant the resident on an emergency basis on 12 November 2021 due to the condition of her permanent address. It considered its options, properties available and found a solution that met the residents needs which was a reasonable response.
There were differing accounts from the resident and landlord concerning help to move the resident’s belongings. The resident advised she had no help and the landlord’s internal email of 12 November 2020 show that caretakers were available. The landlord reported that the resident chose to leave the bed frames. As there is insufficient evidence to confirm either version, this Service is unable to judge the merits of either account. However, this Service considers that the landlord should maintain accurate records on what discussions and actions were agreed and taken in respect of decants. The resident advised in her complaint that she did not receive any help. The landlord’s email of 28 March 2022 states that all reasonable costs were covered, however, this Service has seen no confirmation of this being provided to the resident. Whilst there is evidence from emails and works orders for the move back into the permanent address for a caged van and caretakers to attend on 29 October 2021, no similar emails or works orders have been seen that similar help was available on 12 November 2020. This demonstrates poor record keeping.
In respect of considering a permanent decant, the landlord was entitled to make a decision on the use of its own stock, particularly as there can be implications in connection with how funding was provided. Planning restrictions can also apply that would limit the use of a particular property under S106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.
The landlord’s policy states that a Licence to Occupy should be provided and this Service has not seen evidence that this is was in place during the decant period. A Licence to Occupy would set out the responsibilities of the landlord and resident during her occupation as well as rent liability.
The landlord stated that the permanent property was ready to move into on 15 September 2021, though the resident was understandably reluctant to return until she was confident that it was safe to do so and all the problems were resolved.
The lack of a timeline for work to be undertaken, contract management of contractors and communications added to the resident’s uncertainty and led to the resident keeping contact with the landlord through its maintenance surveyor. This was to generally respond to the resident’s emails and contacts prior to the resident moving back. The decant policy above states a “named officer” will be provided to the resident and although the maintenance surveyor was the main point of contact the resident used, there is no evidence seen that the landlord communicated its “named officer” to the resident at any point. It appeared that the maintenance surveyor became the point of contact by default as responses were given to the resident when she contacted him.
The resident’s expectations were poorly managed after being initially advised that she could move back before Christmas 2020. There are no records seen that the landlord gave any regular updates to the resident as to when she might have been able to move back. The landlord in fact asked the resident when she was going to move back in to her property in its stage one complaint response. This was unusual since all the repairs were not completed and the landlord listed the repairs being undertaken in the same stage one response. The landlord, rather than the resident, should have been aware of when the works would be complete and then when the property would be habitable. It should have provided the timeline from the beginning and at the very least in its stage one response to indicate when works would be completed and the property habitable.
The landlord’s tenancy management team had allegedly threatened the resident with a breach of contract (though there is no evidence of a contract for the decant property) due to not moving back into the permanent address during a call to the resident on 11 October 2021. This seemed a heavy handed and unsympathetic approach given all the circumstances of the case outlined above and the resident’s vulnerability. It also indicates a communication issue between the landlord’s tenancy management and maintenance departments. The landlord agreed in its stage two complaint response that communication could have been better.
Overall the decant was poorly managed throughout with poor communication and oversight, along with no consideration of the resident’s needs. This is contrary to the landlord’s policy above which states it will “ensure that decants are carried out effectively and efficiently with the minimum amount of stress and difficulty for the tenant(s)”, and “support will be tailored to an individual tenant’s needs”. This amounts to maladministration.

Complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation

The landlord did not record or acknowledge the resident’s initial complaint of 12 October 2020, though from the landlord’s records it is clear that it was aware of the complaint as it was noted on its logs. A later email from the landlord 28 March 2022 recognised this.
It was not until the resident’s advocate put in a further complaint on 25 February 2021 that the landlord chose to log this complaint at stage one. No acknowledgement was sent however. This was not in line with the landlord’s policy, nor the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (“4.1 When a complaint is made, it must be acknowledged and logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt.”).
The landlord’s stage one response was sent 10 March 2021 well outside the response time outlined in the landlord’s policy.
The resident escalated the complaint on 2 July 2021 to stage two. The landlord contacted the resident the same day and sent an acknowledgement in line with its complaints policy for a stage two complaint.
However, the stage two response was not sent to the resident until 15 November 2021, 97 working days from the resident’s stage two complaint. This was an unacceptable length of time to wait for a response and not in line with the landlord’s complaints policy.
Following the resident’s logged formal stage one complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to advise the resident how it would progress repairs and ensure their completion. It is important for a landlord to manage the resident’s expectations, and its complaint responses are an ideal opportunity to do this. Failure to manage expectations can be detrimental to the landlord/tenant relationship as it can potentially convey to the resident a feeling of being forgotten about. By giving clear target dates, explanations and details of how things would be progressed, the landlord could have managed the resident’s concerns and put her mind at ease, especially important given the mental health vulnerabilities that were known to the landlord.
The landlords complaints policy backs this position stating that where repairs are required that will take time to complete that it would provide a schedule of works and a timeframe and there is no evidence that this happened.
Complaints should address all aspects of the resident’s complaint, however, whilst apologies were made in the landlord’s stage one response no offer of compensation was given or acknowledgement that the resident had requested this. This will have contributed to the resident’s perception that she had not been listened to.
The landlord operates a ‘de-escalation’ stage or stage zero prior to its formal complaints stages. Section 4 of the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code stipulates that it is not appropriate for landlord’s to have a pre-complaint stage as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents. When a complaint is made it should be logged at stage one of the complaints procedure within five days of receipt. This clearly has not happened as the initial complaint was made 12 October 2020 and it was not acknowledged or responded to.
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 complaint puts things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. The landlord offered redress for damage to the wardrobe, headboard, mattresses and food of £900 which is appropriate. However, the landlord’s offer of £500 to recognise the stress and inconvenience does not, in the opinion of this service, adequately reflect the distress and inconvenience the resident has experienced due to the landlord’s failings. It does not take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities that were known by the landlord. Nor does it take into account the time and trouble the resident took in trying to get the landlord to resolve her complaint. There was also a short period of loss of amenities in the month prior to the resident’s decant to temporary accommodation and the distress of living in temporary accommodation for an extended period of time with young children.
Over a period of 11 months during which her rent was payable at a rate between £450 to £470 per month the resident’s property was affected by water ingress, and the resident had to occupy temporary accommodation whilst repairs were being carried out. The resident did not have the full use of her property for one month prior to the decant and for this period the landlord should pay 50% of the rent due for the loss of amenities (£460/2 x 1 = £230).
Following the emergency decant the resident had to remain in temporary accommodation for an extended period of time ( ten months) due to the landlord’s failures to remedy the multiple water ingress causing distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household. Whilst the landlord offered £500 for distress and inconvenience, this does not adequately address the cumulative effect on this vulnerable resident and her children of being in temporary accommodation. It does not consider the fact that the resident had to pay utility costs on both properties and the disruption caused to her in having to give contractors access to her permanent property, sometimes without notice. The landlord should therefore pay the resident £1,800 compensation for distress and inconvenience in not progressing the repairs in a timely manner. This is comprised of 50% of the rent due during this period minus the landlord’s offer of £500 for distress and inconvenience (£460/2 x 10 = £2,300 – £500 = £1,800).
The total additional compensation payable is £2,030 for the full 11 month period comprising £230 plus £1,800.
The significant complaint handling failures arising from not acknowledging the resident’s complaint made in November 2020, or responding to all of the issues in the complaint, as well as the extended delay in responding to the stage two complaint cumulatively amounts to maladministration. The Ombudsman considers that this caused additional distress to the resident and a frustration of being ignored. For this the landlord should pay £600 compensation.
The landlord took a positive step in having a lessons learned workshop and identified; weaknesses in its processes, lack of ownership by tenancy management, a lack of timescales with the resident and no clear plan in place. The landlord had since turned on functionality in its internal system to ensure that decant processes are managed by the tenancy management team rather than the surveyor alone.

The landlord’s consideration of the resident’s welfare

The landlord was aware of the resident’s mental health vulnerabilities and had been for over ten years. This should have alerted the landlord to ensure that it followed its own decant policy to “ensure that tenants are assisted and supported where they are being moved out of their home as a result of a decant”, and repairs policy for “vulnerable customers”. It certainly should have provided the resident a “named officer” and as stated above, this Service has not seen evidence that this happened, except by default.
An emergency decant would have had a impact on any resident, but for a resident with additional vulnerability with young children under six years old at the time, the impact would undoubtedly be far greater.
The landlord’s requirement to take the “needs of each individual customer into consideration when arranging and providing services” outlined in the repairs policy was clearly lacking. The resident had to contact the landlord on many occasions to find out what was happening and when she would likely move back. This would have likely exacerbated the resident’s anxiety and distress and the feeling of being forgotten about.
The added complaint handling failures in which the resident’s initial complaint was ignored, and stage two complaint remained unanswered would have strengthened the resident’s perception that she was unimportant to the landlord and that the landlord did not care.
Though a keysafe was provided the communications seen by this Service do not show that this was in place before April 2021 and the resident advises of disruption whilst working at home during the national lockdowns with contractors regularly disturbing her and causing distress.
The resident herself had advised the landlord on several occasions how the events and lack of communication and support offered by the landlord had impacted her mental health. This was stated in her complaint and should have alerted the landlord to consider any additional support that would be needed.
The landlord’s poor communication and oversight as well as the heavy handed approach described above will have had a much greater adverse effect on a resident with mental health vulnerabilities with young children at a time of a pandemic and national lockdowns. This lack of communication, consideration and support for a resident with mental health vulnerabilities is considered to be maladministration. The landlord should pay an additional £250 compensation to the resident for its failure to follow its own policies for vulnerable residents. It should review its policy and procedures so that any resident with vulnerability markers receives tailored support.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak, damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of a decant.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling and the resident’s request for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s consideration of the resident’s welfare.

Reasons

There was a lack of communication and coordination from the landlord to the resident and oversight of contractors. There was no recognition of the resident’s vulnerabilities that were known to the landlord for a considerable time or evidence of additional support provided. There were hazards whilst the resident remained in her property and the resident experienced considerable distress in chasing the landlord to fulfil its repairing obligations outlined within its own policies, the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 (S11) and tenancy agreement.
The resident was provided no plan or timescale for delivering the repairs or to advise when she would be able to move back. Both parties expected the repairs to take no longer than three weeks and the landlord failed to update or advise the resident when it was clear that the repairs would take longer.
The landlord’s complaint handling was poor. It failed to respond or log the initial complaint in October and when a stage one response was sent this was some 104 working days later. There was also an unreasonable delay in providing a response at stage two. The resident had to chase and contact this Service to receive a stage two response which was finally sent some 97 working days later. However, the landlord has considered lessons learned in line with the Ombudsman’s Learn from Outcomes and it should review its scrutiny process to adopt further learning from its complaints.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the publication of this report the landlord is ordered to:
1. Provide a written apology to the resident from a Director level or above. A copy should be provided to this Service, within four weeks of the date of this determination.
2. Pay the resident compensation already offered for the damaged mattresses, headboard, wardrobe and food from the fridge freezer of £900.
3. In addition to the £500 compensation offered to recognise the stress and inconvenience pay the resident a further £2,030 (for the length of time the resident remained in temporary accommodation, the failure to remedy the repairs in a timely manner, and for distress and inconvenience).
4. Pay £600 in recognition of the further distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures.
5. Pay the resident an additional £250 for failure to consider, or act in accordance with its policies, in respect of the resident’s vulnerability.
6. Complete the remaining repairs in the permanent address, if it has not already done so within six weeks from the date of this report and advise this service following effective completion.
Within twelve weeks of the publication 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 and decants where vulnerable residents are involved. 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 concerning its pre-complaint stage. It should use this to then review its complaints policy to bring this in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.