London & Quadrant Housing Trust (L&Q) (202003750)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202003750

London & Quadrant Housing Trust

9 October 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:

a.     The resident’s reports of leaks in her property.

b.     The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. This service has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

  1. The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord. The property is a two-bedroom ground floor flat. The resident lives in the property with her son.

Legal and policy framework

  1. Under the terms of the tenancy agreement and duties under the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for repairing the structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for keeping installations for water, gas, electricity, space, and water heating in working order, and repairing the fixtures and fittings it provides.
  2. Landlords are required to look at the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not set out any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that can fall within the scope of HHSRS.

Repairs policy

  1. The landlord’s repair policy says that it will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs at the earliest mutually convenient appointment. Its policy at the time when the events in this case started said that residents were responsible for minor condensation issues including treating mould. However, its revised policy, effective from 6 April 2021, says that condensation and mould are the landlord’s responsibility.

Damp and mould policy

  1. The landlord’s damp and mould policy will establish if an immediate repair is required (leak, health and safety risk) and will act in accordance with its repairs policy. Following the report an assessment of the property will be agreed at a mutually convenient time within 20 working days to understand the scale of the problem. The assessment will identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould within the property and provide the tenant with guidance on managing mould. Any remedial works identified will be recorded and raised to internal or external maintenance teams within 10 working days of the assessment.

Healthy Homes Programme (HHP)

  1. The programme was introduced in 2020, in partnership with a damp contractor. The aim is to tackle the root cause of the problem and carry out any repairs needed to prevent damp and mould from reoccurring. The landlord will make a referral to the damp contractor who will visit and provide the landlord with a report advising on the severity of the issue.

Complaints policy

  1. The complaints process consists of two-stages. The response time for a stage one complaint is 10 working days, and 20 working days for a stage two response. If the landlord cannot comply with those timeframes, it will explain why and write to the resident within 10 working days.
  2. During the covid-19 pandemic the landlord operated interim service delivery arrangements. From 31 March 2020 it operated a critical and emergency only repair service responding, by appointment, to issues such as loss of heating, hot water, or power, or where there was a risk of harm to a person or property. The landlord did not carry out routine repairs during the period when government restrictions were in place.

Summary of events

  1. On 27 April 2020, the resident reported water leaking from her living room ceiling, from the first floor flat. An emergency repair was completed to seal and replace the neighbour’s bath plughole.
  2. On 11 May 2020, the resident reported a further leak, this time coming through her bedroom ceiling. The landlord’s records confirmed a job was raised, but later suspended as the leak was containable, and it was only carrying out critical and emergency repairs, in line with government guidelines.
  3. The resident emailed the landlord on 27 May 2020 which stated:

a.     On 27 April she was awoken by a dripping sound, which she reported as coming from her neighbours flat. She stated her carpet and bedroom furniture were made wet, every time her neighbour had a bath or shower.

b.     She was “fed-up” as the repair had not resolved the leak, which had caused black mould in her bedroom.

  1. In a response on 1 June 2020, the landlord apologised for the delay in resolving the leak. While an operative attended on 29 April to repair the leak, a recommendation had been made to complete follow-on works which were suspended until restrictions were lifted.
  2. The landlord completed a test to assess the leak on 2 June 2020 with the resident and her neighbour. It confirmed that there was no leak into the resident’s property when the neighbour’s bath taps were running. It confirmed once the leak was resolved, it would raise repairs to the resident’s bedroom ceiling.
  3. The resident sent a complaint to the landlord on 29 July 2020 which said:

a.     Despite notifying the landlord of the issues affecting her property over the past few months, she had not received a response.

b.     She had lived with containers in her bedroom since April 2020, which had made her nervous that water would “start gushing down.”

c.      She believed there were structural defects, and requested a surveyor inspected the property.

  1. The landlord arranged to inspect the neighbour’s property on 5 August 2020 to identify the leak. Following the appointment, it would update the resident on her repairs.
  2. In a telephone call to the resident on 13 August 2020, the landlord confirmed the leak had been resolved in the neighbour’s property. During the conversation, the resident reported holes in her living room walls and the bedroom ceiling. She stated plaster was coming off “daily” and the property had “severe damp and mould.” Following the call, the resident sent photographs of the property to the landlord. Subsequently, the landlord opened a case with its Healthy Homes Team (HHT) following the reports of damp and mould.
  3. Photographs submitted were reviewed by the landlord’s surveyor. It arranged:

a.     An operative to attend the resident’s property on 17 August 2020 (it is unclear what works this related to).

b.     A surveyor to attend the resident’s property on 25 August 2020.

c.      It’s asbestos contractor to test the bedroom ceiling on 1 September 2020.

  1. Despite being happy that the repairs appeared to be progressing, she confirmed she had “not been sleeping well” ever since the leak.
  2. Following the surveyor’s inspection on 25 August, the landlord raised a job for plastering works to be carried out in the living room and bedroom. After completion of an asbestos survey, a job was raised to replaster the bedroom ceiling on 20 October 2020.
  3. The resident made a further report of severe damp and mould on 15 October 2020, despite her ventilating and using the extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom. The landlord raised a job with its damp and mould contractors.
  4. On 29 October 2020, the landlord’s records confirmed that the bedroom ceiling was not replastered as the leak was ongoing. It confirmed all works had been completed in her neighbours flat, so would arrange an inspection to “get to the bottom of it [the leak].”
  5. On 20 November 2020, a surveyor and plumber visited the neighbour’s flat. During the visit, it sealed a small area between the bath panel and floor. The landlord raised a works order on 25 November 2020 to “inspect, measure and arrange a follow-on appointment for the ceiling in the bedroom” following the leak.
  6. On 30 November 2020, the damp and mould contractors inspected the resident’s address and confirmed that:

a.     The landlord should extend or redirect the pipe outside the bathroom wall, which was constantly dripping and splashing on the wall and causing damp.

b.     There were signs of possible rising damp on the living room front wall with a high damp reading of 33%. Further investigations were required.

  1. Works to extend the pipe outside the bathroom wall were completed on 12 January 2021. The same day, the resident emailed the landlord as her bedroom ceiling had not been repaired and said that she hoped she “did not have to wait for it to fall down before it could be fixed.”
  2. On 22 January 2021, following the damp and mould report, a concrete upstand was installed under the damp proof course to keep water away from the wall.
  3. The resident sent a video of a leak from her bedroom ceiling to the landlord on 27 January 2021. She had “had enough” as the leaks remained unresolved since April 2020. The landlord confirmed that it had arranged for an emergency plumber to attend the neighbour’s property that day.
  4. The landlord raised further jobs to investigate the brickwork outside the living room wall on 19 February 2021, and to replaster the bedroom ceiling on 8 March 2021.
  5. The landlord’s repair records confirmed a job was raised on 9 March 2021 to check/repair gutters at the front of the property, as rainwater was running down the wall, penetrating the living room, causing the plaster to blow.
  6. The landlord’s records confirmed that the plaster was repaired in the living room on 30 March 2021. The resident reported a further leak coming from her neighbours flat on 15 April 2021. The landlord arranged for a plumber to attend his property. The job to check/repair the gutters was completed on 5 May 2021. On 26 July 2021, a job was raised to replaster the hallway/entrance door in the property. The job was marked as completed the same day.
  7. The damp and mould contractors completed an inspection to the property on 9 September 2021 and confirmed:

a.     Possible damp in the property as the moisture reading was 27.5. The property suffered from visible mould/mildew.

b.     Possible water ingress from the neighbour’s walkway which may have caused damp in the hallway. It required further investigation.  

c.      Mould was in living room (left wall, front wall); entrance hall (left wall); main bedroom (back wall, right wall, front wall, left wall).

d.     The kitchen wall was damp, with watermarks on the wall.

e.     Main bedroom ceiling was damaged and needed to be repaired.

f.        The resident was provided with “behavioural advice” to reduce moisture in the property.

g.     Action was taken to clean and shield the mould in the property.

h.     The resident advised that despite having a mould wash several times, it did not resolve the problem. It suggested that the landlord explored other avenues to fully resolve the issue.

  1. On 27 October 2021 the resident reported another leak in her bedroom, from the neighbour’s property. The landlord’s notes confirmed previous contractors had been unable to source the leak and requested a “thorough investigation.” The evidence is unclear as to what if any action the landlord took to investigate.
  2. Sometime later, the resident sent a second email of complaint on 7 April 2022 which stated:

a.     She initially contacted the landlord about a leak and the large hole in the ceiling of the main bedroom in 2018. During this time whenever her neighbour used his bath/shower, water would come through the hole.

b.     The situation had been assessed by “a few” operatives but the matter remained unresolved.

c.      It was unacceptable that she was paying rent for a flat that had “a constant leak and had become quite mouldy and damp.”

d.     The bedroom was “not in the state” she wanted and found it distressing and impacting her mental health. 

e.     There was damp coming in from the right side of the property when entering the front door and her flooring had been damaged.

  1. On 8 April 2022, the landlord raised a “new complaint”, adding that its complaints team had dealt with an “ongoing complaint for the same issues” but “the majority of works are now complete.” However, it would arrange necessary appointments.
  2. The landlord raised the following works on 13 April 2022:

a.     Inspect, measure and repair bedroom ceiling following previous leak.

b.     Inspect and treat the damp and mould in the hallway.

  1. The landlord sent a stage one response on 19 April 2022 to confirm:

a.     A plasterer would attend on 5 May to inspect the bedroom ceiling, measure, and arrange a follow up to carry out repairs.

b.     Its damp and mould contractors would call the resident directly to inspect the property.

c.      The HHT would monitor the damp and mould over the next 12 months.

d.     It offered compensation for:

  1. Repair delay: £60
  2. Inconvenience: £60
  3. Decorating voucher £95

e.     The resident was given details of its insurance team to claim for damaged belongings.

  1. On 5 May 2022, the bedroom ceiling was double boarded, skimmed and made good. The landlord’s records confirm the work to inspect and treat the damp and mould in the hallway was completed on 26 May 2022.
  2. In an undated email, the resident states that she was paying rent but was “treated like a nobody.” She stated the compensation was an insult and was told at one stage to treat the damp herself and “all they do is come and wipe the walls with chemicals.” She added that she could not take much more.
  3. The mould contractors attended the resident’s property on 10 August 2022 to disinfect and shield all affected walls in the property. It reported “visible water marks” on all affected walls, and a “very high” moisture reading.
  4. The resident wrote to her MP and this Service in November 2022 as she was “at the end of her tether” with the condition of her flat and had not received a response to her complaint. This service contacted the landlord who acknowledged a complaint escalation request on 17 November 2022.
  5. A stage two response was issued on 12 December 2022 which stated:

a.     It was sorry that the issue remained unresolved.

b.     Due to a backlog of complaints, the case was not allocated until 17 November 2022. It apologised that the resident was impacted and had not received a level of service reflective of its high standards.

c.      There had been historic cases of leaks at the property caused by guttering, water ingress from the flat above, and rising damp.

d.     At the time of the original complaint, it was acting in accordance with government guidelines and only attending critical and emergency appointments, which significantly delayed remedying the issue.

e.     It acknowledged the distress and inconvenience that would have been caused.

f.        In March 2021 works had been carried out to her neighbour’s bathroom to ensure it was sealed and watertight. It was confident it would stop further leaks.

g.     An asbestos test was needed before repair works could be booked. As part of the inspection, plastering works and a damp survey would be arranged. An inspection was booked for 21 December 2022 for a supervisor inspection.

h.     She could make a claim for damaged personal items to its insurance team.

i.        It offered £1065 compensation for:

  1. Stage 1 compensation – £215
  2. Delay in complaint response – £100
  3. Distress and inconvenience – £500
  4. Delay to repair – £250

j.        The complaint would remain active, and an officer would make contact following the completion of outstanding repairs.

Events after the completion of the internal complaints process

  1. On 28 December 2022, the landlord confirmed it had instructed a timber and damp specialist to undertake a leak detection survey.
  2. In January 2023, the landlord’s internal emails confirmed its damp and mould contractors previously attended in April 2022 and reported high moisture in the property. It said, “there is definitely some sort of leak going on in the property and until this is sourced and rectified there is nothing that can be done with these areas as the walls need to dry out dramatically.”
  3. The resident instructed a solicitor to initiate a housing disrepair claim on 10 July 2023. A report was sent to the landlord on 25 August 2023 which confirmed:

a.     The flooring in the hallway should be taken up to allow the sub floor to dry and provide access to complete a full plumbing investigation, to locate the leak.

b.     The floor and walls at low level were damp causing degraded and stained plaster and damage to skirting boards (which appears to be an escape of water within the floor around the entrance door). Once walls and floor are dried out, defective plaster should be hacked off, plaster and skirting renewed and walls redecorated.

  1. The resident confirmed to this service on 14 September 2023 that the plastering work had not been completed due to ongoing leaks, causing damp and mould to several areas in her property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has detailed her request for compensation for the reported impact the ongoing issues have had on her mental and physical health. The Ombudsman does not dispute that the resident has been affected by the circumstances of the complaint.
  2. However, this would be more appropriately considered by a court, where liability can be established. This service has not sought to establish liability in this case, but has considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs, and the way in which the landlord responded to the resident’s concerns about her health.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks

  1. It is recognised that the situation has been distressing for the resident, who has lived with the leaks and damp and mould for over three years. The resident initially reported a leak from her neighbour’s property on 27 April 2020. Between April 2020 and October 2022, the resident reported at least five other leaks affecting her home. Despite several visits, the leaks remain outstanding. This is a significant failing and raises concerns as to the landlord’s approach to its repairs.
  2. In response to the resident’s complaint, the landlord apologised for the delays in repairs and offered £250. Additionally, £500 was offered for the distress and inconvenience she had experienced because of its delays in tracing the leaks. It confirmed that it would arrange another surveyor visit and would keep the resident updated on remedial works once the leak had been resolved.
  3. Where there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, this service will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the complaint satisfactorily. This service considers the offer of redress in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles; be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. The failings by the landlord were significant as:

a.     The landlord was in breach of its repair obligations as it is responsible for the structure of the property, including walls and ceilings. It is also responsible for condensation, and mould.

b.     The resident initially reported a leak in April 2020. While some repairs were carried out, at least five further leaks were reported up until its stage two response in December 2022.

c.      The resident reported leaks emanating from different areas in the property, as well as damp and mould being present. Yet the landlord’s approach was narrow and fragmented. It seemingly responded to each report in isolation, rather than considering the overall picture, to ensure it could resolve the issues at the earliest opportunity.

d.     In October 2020, following an unsuccessful repair in the neighbour’s property, the landlord’s internal records confirmed it would arrange an inspection “to get to the bottom of it [the leak].” A small repair to the neighbour’s bathroom floor was completed in November 2020, but there is little evidence of further investigations or works at this time.

e.     A year later, in October 2021 it suggested that a “thorough investigation” should be completed. The delay in investigating the leaks is significant and the landlord has not explained why there was a delay in arranging this. The landlord should review its record keeping ensuring it has clear and robust records which provide sufficient detail as to the action it has taken following a repair being raised.

f.        The resident continued to report further leaks in January, April, and October 2021. Apart from clearing and repairing the gutters in May 2021, there is no evidence to confirm that it carried out any further investigations. 

g.     The repair to the resident’s bedroom ceiling following the leak was not completed until May 2022, 25 months after the damage was reported.

h.     Despite acknowledging in its stage two response that the property had “historic cases of leaks in the property” it failed to consider an intrusive investigation, despite the significant time elapsed without a resolution. While this was considered in December 2022, over two years after the leaks were reported, there is no evidence that the landlord acted on this.

i.        It was appropriate that the landlord advised the resident that the complaint would be kept open until the works were completed. However, the landlord failed to provide the resident with any timescales as to when it would complete the works, or that it would provide regular updates to monitor the progress, therefore failing to suitably manage the resident’s expectations.

j.        In January 2023, despite acknowledging that the resident’s property was damp, its internal records confirmed that “nothing can be done” until the leak was resolved, and the walls had dried out “dramatically.” The evidence does not demonstrate any consideration was given as to how it could alleviate the resident’s living conditions, or that it considered a temporary decant, while it rectified the issues.

k.      The landlord failed to progress the investigation and subsequent repairs, and as a result, the resident initiated the disrepair protocol in July 2023. Following an inspection, the landlord was advised to “complete a full plumbing investigation” to locate the leak, 7 months after issuing its stage two response.

l.        The multiple leaks and associated damp and mould continue to affect the resident’s enjoyment of her home three years after reporting the issues. During this time, she has had to intermittently place containers in her bedroom, was unable to decorate her home, arrange access for repairs, and take time off work. The landlord was aware of the adverse effects caused to the resident who had difficulty sleeping and was caused anxiety for fear her bedroom ceiling would collapse.

j.        The landlord has continually failed in its obligations to effectively remedy the leak, put right the internal damage, support, and communicate sufficiently with the resident over a significant period.

  1. While the landlord did acknowledge the delays and the impact this had on the resident, given there were significant further delays following its stage two response, it is not evident it satisfactorily learnt from its mistakes. Additionally, while some compensation was offered, given the additional delays and ongoing poor communication, this compensation does not amount to reasonable redress. Therefore, because of the significant failings, and the impact they have had on the resident, a finding of severe maladministration has been made in this case.

Damp and mould

  1. In May 2020, the resident reported concerns of black mould in her bedroom. The lack of a proactive response from the landlord meant the resident made a further report in August 2020, before a case was opened with its HHT, three months later. Given the importance of tackling damp and mould, and the serious consequences if it does not, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to her reports.
  2. Of particular concern is that, despite the referral to HHT, its damp and mould contractors did not attend the property until 30 November 2020, 133 calendar days after the landlord was alerted to the problem. The delay in arranging the inspection was a significant departure from the timescales of 10 working days to inspect, as detailed in its damp and mould policy. During this time, the resident and her child continued to be affected by the conditions in the property, which is a particular concern.
  3. The landlord was notified by its damp and mould contractors in November 2020 that the property recorded a “high” reading of damp and that the property appeared to be suffering from rising damp. Yet, none of the HHT assessments recommended providing dehumidifiers to speed up the removal of excess moisture, or that the landlord considered this either. This was inappropriate, given the provision of dehumidifiers as part of its treatment of damp and mould. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS and are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified, which has not been evident in this case.
  4. It is not disputed that the landlord’s contractors had completed damp and mould washes and some external works to the property between November 2020 and September 2021. However, this did not address the root cause of the problem and left the resident in a position where the issue repeatedly returned and caused considerable distress.
  5. In September 2021, the landlord was recommended to explore other avenues to “fully resolve the issue.” However, the landlord continued to tackle the issue with mould washes in August 2022, despite previous unsuccessful attempts. While this may have been an appropriate temporary measure to remove the mould, the landlord had a responsibility to “take all reasonable steps to ensure damp is eradicated through the right actions taking place.” That it did not, unreasonably prolonged the issue and failed to consider the advice of its specialist.
  6. The aim of the HHT programme is to “tackle the root cause of damp and mould” and prevent reoccurrence. However, its lack of coordinated approach to trace the leak at the earliest opportunity, meant it was unable to resolve the damp and mould in the property as the “walls needed to dry out dramatically.” It is not disputed by either party that the resident has had to live with disrepair in the property, because of a combination of its failure to trace and remedy the leaks within a reasonable amount of time, and its delay in carrying out a thorough assessment of the property.
  7. Of particular concern is the lack of evidence to indicate the landlord had appropriately considered the resident’s living conditions, and its approach to alleviating the situation. For example, that it offered dehumidifiers to try and dry out the property, or considered decanting her while it rectified the root cause of the leak, and damp and mould.
  8. The landlord’s responses did not comply with the recommendations set out in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould as:

a.     It did not share all outcomes of surveys and inspections with the resident, to help her understand the findings and be clear on the next steps.

b.     The landlord did not act on survey recommendations in a timely manner.

c.      The resident had to pursue the landlord for updates which was unreasonable and added to the resident’s frustration, inconvenience, time, and delay.

  1. Despite acknowledging its failures, the landlord has continued to fail in its obligations to repair the property, and in doing so, eroded the resident’s confidence that the landlord would suitably rectify the issues.
  2. The landlord did not demonstrate in its stage two response that it had put things right as the work to rectify the damp and mould and its cause are still outstanding, three years after it was first reported to the landlord.
  3. Overall, there is evidence of the landlord repeatedly failing to address the mould and damp in the property, and repeatedly failing in its management and oversight of the investigation. The landlord’s cumulative failings are serious and constitute severe maladministration.

Complaint handling

  1. The resident initially complained to the landlord on 29 July 2020. This service as not seen evidence that the resident was issued with a stage one response at this time. A further complaint was raised on 7 April 2022 which the landlord recorded as a “new complaint” even though its complaint team had been dealing with an “ongoing complaint” in relation to the same issues. It would have been reasonable for the landlord to recognise that the complaint was a continuation from her initial complaint, and to not therefore have recorded it as a “new complaint.” This delayed and extended the resident’s timeframe significantly and the complaint process was not used effectively to resolve the complaint at the earliest opportunity.
  2. A stage one response was not issued until 14 April 2022. Due to the time taken in issuing a response, this service would have expected the landlord to evidence a detailed and thorough investigation which clearly set out the landlord’s position as to how it would remedy the leak. That it did not was a further failing, and a departure from its complaint’s procedure.
  3. In response to the resident advising of damage to her personal belongings, the landlord provided her with details to submit a claim to its insurance team as it would not consider any award under its complaints policy. This was contrary to its compensation policy which says that it will consider paying compensation where “our negligence with carrying out day-to-day repairs has caused damage to the customer’s home and/or belongings”. No evidence has been seen that the landlord did consider compensating the resident for her damaged belongings.
  4. Additionally, the compensation policy states that claims for damage caused to a customer’s belongings “we [the landlord] will refer the issue to the insurance team.” Therefore, the landlord should have referred the matter directly to its insurance team, and not inferred that it was the resident’s responsibility to submit a claim.
  5. The evidence is unclear as to when the resident requested an escalation of her complaint. However, she was forced to contact this service in November 2022 after failing to receive a response from the landlord. Although the landlord apologised and explained the reason for the delay, its complaints process was not used as an effective tool to resolve the dispute at the earliest opportunity. The resident was caused unnecessary time and trouble in contacting this service, to pursue a response.
  6. Its stage two response acknowledged the delays in providing a complaint response and offered £100 compensation. In considering whether this offer was proportionate, this service has considered the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there has been “a failure which adversely affected the resident.”
  7. Despite trying to resolve the complaint at stage 2 response, the resident continued to experience prolonged delays in repairs. The landlord’s complaints handling will have undoubtedly exacerbated the resident’s frustrations; led her to feel that her complaints were being ignored; and undermined her confidence in the landlord.
  8. Overall, there were failings in the landlord’s handling of the complaint. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident; there were delays in providing complaint responses; it did not deal with her request for compensation appropriately; and it failed to follow its complaints process which contributed to her distress over a considerable period. The landlord failed to put matters right, and its compensation offer was not fair or proportionate to the failings identified.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlords handling of:

a.     The resident’s reports of leaks in her property.

b.     The resident’s reports of damp and mould.

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to:

a.     The landlord’s complaint handling.

 

Reasons

  1. There was a significant failure to resolve the resident’s leak within a reasonable amount of time. The landlord has a responsibility to support the resident, manage her expectations and actively seek a resolution. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the inconvenience, as well as time and delay caused because of its poor handling of the matter.
  2. The landlord attempted to treat the damp and mould on occasions, however the issues persisted and continue to cause significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. It failed to communicate effectively with the resident as to what action it would take and resulted in a great deal of time and trouble for the resident in pursuing the matter.
  3. The complaint policy was not followed, and the complaint responses did not fully address the concerns raised by the resident. While it recognised failings on its part, it failed to put things right by satisfying itself as part of the complaint investigation that the leak, and damp and mould had been resolved, and the remedial works had been completed. There is no evidence that the landlord has taken steps to ‘learn from outcomes.’

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:

a.     Arrange for the Chief Executive to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.

b.     Pay the resident a total sum of £6,365 made up of:

  1. £1065 previously offered at stage two, if not already paid.
  2. £1500 for the disruption to the resident’s enjoyment of her property due to its handling of her reports of leaks.
  3. £2000 for the three-year period that the resident’s home has suffered with damp and mould.
  4. An additional £1500 for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble caused to the resident.
  5. £300 for the time and trouble incurred by the resident because of its complaint handling failures.

c.      What measures the landlord has put in place going forward to monitor whether the proposed works remedy the leak, damp, and mould.

d.     To undertake to carry out all remedial works and redecoration works required inside the property to fully put right any damage caused by the leaks, damp, and mould.

e.     What action the landlord will be taking to alleviate the resident’s living conditions while the remedial works are carried out.

  1. To replace or compensate the resident for the damage to the hallway flooring.
  2. This service has made several recommendations regarding complaints handling and repairs to the landlord via its Special Report of July 2023. This service also understands that the landlord has previously been ordered to review its HHP approach. Therefore, no further orders are made in terms of these matters, as the actions that the landlord has/will now take should mitigate the risk of these failings recurring.
  3. The landlord should refer the residents claim of damages to its insurers to ensure her claim is considered.

Recommendations

  1. Review its record keeping processes to ensure that it records accurate information in relation to its repairs.