Platform Housing Group Limited (202208458)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202208458

Platform Housing Group Limited

17 November 2023

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration,’ for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice, or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman, and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s response to:
1. Reports of leaks to the property and the handling of repairs.
2. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
3. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s communication and complaint handling.

Background

The resident had an assured tenancy with the landlord, from 18 September 2019. The landlord is a registered provider of social housing. The property is a converted 2-bedroom maisonette in a grade 2 listed building. The property has non-standard features and the windows in the property are approximately 12 to 15ft high.
The resident resided at the property with her 2 young children. The landlord has no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The resident has informed the Service that she moved out of the property on 19 December 2022. The landlord has confirmed the tenancy ended on 19 January 2023.
The landlord’s repair records show that the resident reported leaks coming from the roof of the property on 24 February 2020. The resident said the water was coming into her hallway and both bedrooms. The resident raised a further 2 reports in 2020 of rain coming through the roof into both bedrooms, landing, and bathroom and that there were water stains on the ceilings in the property.
On 20 August 2020, the landlord agreed a schedule of works to repair the roof which included removing the roof tiles, retiling the roof, and checking for any damage. On 8 September 2020, the resident contacted the landlord to request a date for the roof repair to take place. It is not clear from the repair records whether any roof repairs were carried out in 2020.
From the repair records provided, the resident first raised issues with condensation, damp, and mould in the property on 25 January 2021. The resident raised further concerns about damp and mould throughout 2021 including:
1. Mould in the hallway, lounge, kitchen, bathroom, toilet, and bedroom.
2. Issues with the windows in the property. This included black mould spores around the windows and condensation as well as damaged silicone which had crumbled allowing water ingress. The resident explained to the landlord that due to the height of the windows in the property she could not properly reach to clean them.
On 16 August 2021, the landlord inspected the property. It identified that condensation was a problem in most rooms. It recommended:
1. Repairs to the kitchen including mould inhibiting decoration, replastering to the window reveals and an anti-fungicidal wash to the window reveals as black mould spores were present. The report said the mould was possibly caused by the metal framed window but could not be replaced as the building was listed and there was no budget.
2. Repairs to the lounge windows and the same treatment referred to above.
3. Repairs to the bathroom window and the same treatment referred to above.
4. Repairs to the small bedroom and the same treatment referred to above. In addition, the window required a child lock and a block board barrier. The barrier was due to the window opening low which could have been a risk to health.
5. A mould wash of the top landing ceiling and white mould inhibiting emulsion to the main bedroom.
The resident first made a complaint to the landlord on 2 September 2021. In her complaint, she said:
1. She had made a repair request in March 2021 about damp and mould in the property and that she had been chasing the landlord for months but had no response.
2. She was concerned about respiratory problems because of the damp and mould and an Environmental Officer from the council had attended the property. She also asked for an updated EPC certificate for the property.
From the evidence provided, the landlord said it would deal with the resident’s complaint as a “quick resolution” as per its complaint procedure. The landlord said it spoke with the resident and agreed it would contact her with appointments to complete the works identified in August 2021. It said it would also send the resident an EPC certificate.
On 22 September 2021, the council’s Environmental Health Department issued the landlord with a warning to carry out repair works to the property by 3 December 2021. It said failure to do so could result in an Improvement Notice being issued. The council said it had inspected the property and there was a Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) hazard of excess cold and a secondary hazard of damp and mould growth. The council requested the landlord to install secondary glazing to the property, keeping the windows intact and asked it to complete all the works listed in the inspection carried out in August 2021.
The resident reported further leaks coming from the roof on 20 October 2021. She contacted the landlord again on 5 January 2022 as she said the landlord had erected scaffolding, but nobody had attended to complete the works. On 19 January 2022, in an internal email, the landlord said that the primary roof leak had been identified and additional works were required. The landlord said further scaffolding was needed and it would assess the extent of the repair or replacement once the roof had been “stripped”.
The resident raised another complaint on 5 and 7 January 2022. In her complaint, the resident said:
1. There were ongoing issues with mould, damp, condensation, and no secondary glazing in the property. She said the roof was leaking and she could not use the loft space due to the leak. She raised an issue with delays to the roof repair and said she could not use the second bedroom due to rain coming through the ceiling and down the walls.
2. There was a burst water pipe in the communal area on 4 January 2022 which had flooded her property. The resident said she reported this to the landlord, but nobody arrived, and she therefore had to call the Fire Service to contain the leak. She said the burst water pipe had ruined her carpets and flooring and the landlord had not attended the property to clean the water or check the electrics. The resident said the landlord had made an attempt to repair the pipe, but it was still leaking, and that the landlord’s engineer had told her that the whole mains unit required replacement.
3. She wanted the landlord to complete all repairs, the landlord to replace her flooring, a new air ventilation system to be installed and a new EPC certificate issued as she said the current EPC said there was double glazing in the property which was incorrect. The resident also asked the landlord to replace any damaged loft insulation and redecorate her ceiling and bedroom walls.
The landlord provided its stage 1 response on 19 January 2022 and upheld the resident’s complaint. The landlord said:
1. There had been several attempts to inspect the leak and find the cause of the leak to the roof. It said works should be “completed by 21 January 2022” and some timber reconstruction would be required thereafter. The landlord said it would investigate the requirement of new loft insulation. It said it would investigate the request for double glazing and an EPC inspection.
2. Once it had repaired the roof it would investigate the replacement of the flooring and decorating. It said the resident should claim through her content’s insurance for any damaged personal items.
3. Works relating to damp and mould were passed to a contractor in October 2021. It said it would provide the resident with dehumidifiers and would complete the works for the damp and mould once the property was dry. The landlord offered the resident £250 compensation for the “failure of staff to take reasonable care”.
The resident requested escalation of her complaint on 26 January 2022. She said:
1. The landlord had not provided timescales for when the works to the roof would be completed. She explained the landlord had only repaired half the roof. The resident said nobody had returned to complete the works. The resident also explained that her children could not be in their own bedroom as water was running down the wall and across the ceiling and could therefore only use 1 bedroom. The resident said the property was cold and there was still damp and mould.
2. The landlord had not given her any reassurance that it would cover the cost of running the dehumidifiers and that it had failed to acknowledge the burst water pipe in the communal area. The resident also said she did not have water, heating, or use of a toilet until an operative attended the property to fix the burst water pipe issue. She went on to say that she could not afford home insurance.
3. The landlord had not addressed the issues with the air vents which were dirty and needed to be cleaned or replaced.
On 7 April 2022, the council’s Environmental Health Department issued an Improvement Notice to the landlord in accordance with s.11 of the Housing Act 2004. The council listed a category 1 hazard of damp and mould caused by a leak from the roof and no tiles on the roof. The council said communication from the landlord was “poor”. It also said that damp was witnessed in the upstairs story of the property on 2 separate inspections. The council ordered the landlord to carry out repair works to the roof by 19 May 2022. The landlord said that it contacted the council on 25 April 2022 and applied for planning permission. The landlord said the council granted planning for a proposed roof replacement on 28 April 2022.
The landlord provided its final response on 30 May 2022 and said:
1. Delays to its response were due to ongoing works to the roof and it apologised for the inconvenience caused to the resident. The landlord said if the property were vacant, it would not re-let it until the roof works were completed. As such, the landlord said it would support the resident with a managed move into an alternative property. However, it said the resident was “suitably housed” and the roof repair works did not represent a risk to the resident or her family.
2. It had completed temporary repairs which had outlined major works to the roof. The landlord said the works were required to fully resolve the leak. The landlord said the delays in completing the roof works were due to the fact the property is a listed building and it had to seek out the right contractor to carry out works in “the most cost-effective way”.
3. The windows did not pose a risk to the resident or her children as they have restricted openers. The landlord said the original windows were retained in line with planning permission. The landlord said the windows were prone to condensation, but it had carried out work to the exterior of the windows to ensure they were sealed properly. It said it would not offer secondary glazing as this “would not provide any further benefit to the property”.
4. It had paid £150 to the resident towards household expenses from the welfare fund. It offered a further £25 for the cost of dehumidifiers following the burst water pipe in the communal area. The landlord said it would also clean the ceiling fan and would replace the loft insulation when the roof repairs were completed.
5. It had paid for flooring to the property, and it was increasing the compensation offered to the resident. The landlord offered the resident £150 compensation, plus the £150 paid by its welfare fund and the £25 dehumidifier payment (£325 in total). Although a clear breakdown has not been provided, it appears the landlord offered the resident a total of £575 compensation across its 2 responses.
The landlord contacted the resident in June 2022 and advised that the roof delays were due to strict planning constraints in place due to the building being grade 2 listed and issues with the mortar which meant the scaffolding could not be securely fixed. The landlord said it was aiming for “practical completion” by 5 September 2022. The landlord has informed the Service that works commenced to the roof on 27 July 2022. On 17 October 2022, the landlord completed the roof works and took down scaffolding from the property.
The resident has informed the Service that scaffolding was erected at the property three times over a 3-year period. The resident said some temporary repairs were undertaken throughout this period. She further explained that the temporary repairs did not fully repair the leak and water continued to ingress. Lastly, she explained to the Ombudsman that there were no roof tiles on the property for 6 months.
The resident has informed the Service that a mould wash was carried out in the property in December 2022, but this was only carried out in 1 bedroom. The resident said the windows were not replaced during the tenancy period and 1 window was repaired at the same time as the mould wash. The landlord has informed the Service that internal decoration took place on 5 December 2022 to both bedrooms, the staircase, and the entrance hallway.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for the structure and exterior of the property including the roof, plasterwork, internal walls, floors, and ceilings, as well as repairs to water pipes and repairs to common parts.
The landlord’s repairs policy and resident handbook state that the landlord will attend to emergency repairs, such as severe water leaks, within 24 hours. This policy also states the landlord would offer repairs at the “first point of contact”. The policy also confirms drainage within the property boundary is the landlord’s responsibility as well as repair or replacement of windows and leaks to water pipes.
The landlord’s compensation policy and resident handbook, provides for payment of compensation where there has been a loss of facilities in the property, failure of staff to take reasonable care or actual loss resulting from a service failure.
The landlord’s complaints policy and customer feedback handbook, provides for a two-stage formal complaint procedure, where the landlord aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days. The landlord aims to respond to complaints at stage 2 within 20 working days. This policy confirms that the landlord may escalate complaints to the final stage if no new evidence is provided to support the escalation request, the reasons for escalation were already considered at stage 1, and the escalation reasons would not lead to a change of outcome. The policy states that the landlord can respond to some complaints under its “Quick Resolution” policy which is to be used “when the issue can be resolved within 2 working days”.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) is a risk‑based evaluation tool to help local authorities identify and protect against potential risks and hazards to health and safety from any deficiencies identified in dwellings. As per the Decent Homes Standard, for a property: “To be decent, a dwelling should be free of category 1 hazards, and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action unless practical steps cannot be taken without disproportionate expense or disruption. Landlords should consider the circumstances very carefully in the interests of the occupiers of the dwelling before concluding that a hazard cannot be dealt with effectively, and in such cases should ensure that the occupiers are fully aware of the position.”
A landlord is obliged, in accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the Decent Homes Standard, and the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, to ensure that a property is fit for human habitation and free from category 1 hazards.

The landlord’s response to reports of leaks to the property and the handling of repairs

The landlord’s repair records are unclear and inconsistent, making it difficult to establish when, if any, the landlord’s contractors undertook repairs. The landlord’s repair records note that leaks were reported coming from the roof of the property on 24 January 2019. It is not clear whether a previous tenant raised the repair issue or whether it was an error, as the repair log pre-dates the tenancy start date provided by the landlord for the resident. The resident has informed the Service that the issue with the roof began almost as soon as she moved into the property – so it could be inferred that the landlord was aware of the position before the resident took up occupation.
The landlord has not provided any void information or details about the condition of the property at the tenancy start date. It is also not clear from the repair records whether the landlord undertook any repair works to the roof in 2019 as the landlord has not provided any evidence during this period.
There was a significant delay in the landlord identifying the primary cause of the roof leak. From the evidence provided, the landlord had not identified the primary roof leak until January 2022, and it did not complete a full roof repair until October 2022. This was despite there being some notice to the landlord in February 2020. The landlord said the delays were because of additional planning requirements, as well as issues with securing scaffolding to the building. While this may be the case, the landlord should have carried out investigations into the cause of the leak sooner and it should have kept the resident informed with regular updates. It is also unclear why the landlord waited until 25 April 2022 to contact the council for planning permission. The landlord said that the council granted permission 3 days later.
There was a significant delay in the landlord repairing the roof. The landlord’s repairs policy does not give a timescale for “non-emergency repairs” but states emergency repairs, including major roofing leaks, will be attended to within 24 hours. While the landlord said delays were due to issues with the scaffolding and the complexity of the works required, at various points during the complaint, the landlord left the resident with leaks entering the property. The landlord also failed to meet the timescale set by the council to repair the roof, despite an Improvement Notice being issued for a category 1 hazard. This is the most serious hazard and should have been appropriately actioned by the landlord, with the resident informed of any scheduled works or potential delays in repairing the roof. The landlord has not provided the Service with any correspondence between it and the council, other than the documents referred to on 22 September 2021 and 7 April 2022 following the council’s inspections of the property.
The landlord did not consider the impact of the roof leak on the resident and her family and failed to evidence or explore options of a temporary decant, despite an Improvement Notice being issued by the council identifying a category 1 hazard. Instead, the landlord said in its stage 2 response that the resident was “suitably housed”. The landlord’s stage 2 response which stated the resident was “suitably housed” is of serious concern and shows a disregard and lack of awareness of the severity of the hazards identified. However, the landlord did indicate it would support the resident with a managed move to an alternative property, but it did not give the resident a definitive timescale for this and therefore left her in a property that had ongoing disrepair. The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that it supported the resident with a managed move to an alternative property and she was placed on the “managed move register” on 5 May 2022. The landlord said the resident was offered an alternative property on 24 May 2022, but the resident declined this as it was not suitable for her needs. The landlord confirmed the resident moved out of the property in December 2022.
The landlord failed to appropriately address the resident’s concerns about her belongings in the loft. While it advised the resident to go through her content’s insurance, it did not refer to its own insurance, despite the resident informing the landlord she could not get insurance as there was no roof on the property. Once the resident informed the landlord that she did not have insurance, it would have been customer focussed for it to have contacted the resident to understand the extent of the damage to her belongings and provide the resident with a clear response.
Throughout the complaint, the resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and on multiple occasions explained the impact that the roof leak had on her and her family. While the Ombudsman understands that complex repairs may require additional time for the landlord to complete them, there is an expectation that the landlord keeps in communication with the resident and updates them on the progress of the repairs.
The landlord has not provided comprehensive and detailed repair records showing the dates of all temporary repairs undertaken to the roof. The landlord has provided details of a repair raised on 24 February 2020 which was cancelled due to COVID-19 and a repair logged on 23 June 2020 which was completed on 31 July 2020. However, there are significant gaps in the repair timeline and no recorded information of the roof leak report referred to in 2019. This is a record handling failure. Internal emails also show departments chasing for updates on repairs. The landlord should keep up to date repair records which are easily accessible to all staff. The landlord failed to keep its repair records up to date which caused unnecessary delays and worsened the situation for the resident and her family. It is best practice for landlords to appropriately record information including any reports of repairs, agreed actions or further issues raised by the resident. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities to identify that actions were wrong or inadequate, and contributing to inadequate communication and redress.
On 31 October 2023, the Ombudsman requested documentation and correspondence from the landlord relating to the burst water pipe referred to in the resident’s complaint on 5 and 7 January 2022. On 7 November 2023, the landlord confirmed to the Ombudsman that it attended the property on 5 January 2022 as an emergency call out and reinstated the water supply to the resident’s property. The landlord said it returned to the building to carry out further repair works on 6 January 2022. The landlord said it completed the repairs and it did not identify any additional works.
There was an unacceptable delay from the landlord to attend the property to contain the burst water pipe. The resident said in her complaint that the burst water pipe occurred on 4 January 2022, but in the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman it said it attended the property on 5 January 2022. The landlord’s repair log states it attended at some time on 4 January 2022 to reinstate water to the property, but the repair log does not refer to the landlord containing the leak or repairing the pipe on this date. This information also contradicts the landlord’s response to the Ombudsman on 7 November 2023. The resident said the landlord did not attend the property when she first reported the leak. The resident said she felt she had no choice but to contact the Fire Service and ask them to contain the leak. The resident said the landlord also failed to drain water from the property. While the landlord’s attendance may have been within a 24-hour period, it is not clear why the landlord did not attend the property to control the leak on 4 January 2022 when the resident said the leak was uncontrollable, or if it did attend and contained the leak, why this was not appropriately recorded. The landlord should have responded promptly to any reports of major leaks to the property, particularly as the resident said there was no water to the property for 24-hours. The resident said the landlord’s operative told her that it needed to complete further works to the mains unit. It is not clear if these further works have taken place. The landlord has informed the Service that it was not aware of any follow-on works required to the pipe.
The consequence of the delayed response to fixing the leaks and repairing the roof of the property was inappropriate and falls significantly outside of the service expected by the Ombudsman in accordance with its repair obligations. The landlord has exacerbated the associated impact on the resident over an extended period and this amounts to a severe failing by the landlord.
The landlord was under a duty not to act in a way which was incompatible with the resident’s right to private and family life or interfere with their rights in their home. This includes a failure to act, as set out in section 6(6) of the Human Rights Act 1998. While it is not the Ombudsman’s role to make a finding there was a breach of a convention right, we must consider if the landlord had due regard to their obligations under the convention. It appears from reviewing all the evidence the landlord failed to have due regard to its obligations to take positive steps to ensure that the resident’s home life and property were not interfered with. That was a failure by the landlord. Regard would have included providing safe and alternative accommodation for the resident and her young family to live in where it could not complete the repairs promptly.
It cannot be disregarded that the resident remained in a property where water was ingressing during the winter months. This, the resident explained, had a significant impact on the mental wellbeing of her and her family. While the Ombudsman is not able to determine that the landlord caused injury to the resident – we can say that the impact on the resident over this period was likely severe.
The landlord has not provided a clear breakdown of the compensation it has offered to the resident across its complaint responses. It appears the landlord has offered the resident a total of £575 but £150 of this was from its welfare fund. From the evidence provided, the landlord offered some of the compensation in the form of supermarket vouchers. The compensation offered by the landlord is not proportionate to the severe failings identified in this investigation.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property

The cause of the damp and mould is not clear, but from the evidence provided there was an issue with the windows in the property as well as a hole in the roof. It is not clear whether it was one of these issues that caused the damp and mould or whether both were equal contributing factors.
The landlord has since implemented a damp and mould policy in December 2022. This policy was not in effect at the time of the resident’s complaint. Regardless of this, the landlord should have taken appropriate steps to avoid or minimise damp and mould which are potential health hazards in line with the HHSRS. 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.
There was a significant delay in the landlord treating the damp and mould once the resident had reported it. While the landlord did attend the property in August 2021 to carry out an inspection, this was several months after the resident first reported issues of damp and mould. The landlord should also ensure it records details of any attendances at the property such as an attendance note detailing any issues discussed or resolved with the resident. The landlord should ensure it appropriately records any agreed actions or concerns so that these can be actioned promptly.
The was a significant and unreasonable delay from the landlord in completing a mould wash at the property. The landlord identified it needed to carry out a mould wash in the property on 16 August 2021. A mould wash did not take place until December 2022 and the resident informed the Service that the mould wash only took place in 1 bedroom.
The landlord failed to action the repair works detailed in its report in August 2021 within a reasonable time. The landlord should have arranged for a mould wash of the property and completion of the other related works as soon as it was aware it was required. The law does not specifically define what is considered a reasonable time, but this should depend how serious or urgent the problem is and how vulnerable the people living in the property are. In this case, the landlord was aware that 2 young children were residing in the property and the resident had repeatedly shown concerns about the impact the damp and mould was having on the health of her family.
The resident also raised issues with condensation mould around the windows. The landlord noted that condensation was an issue on the windows in its stage 2 response. However, the landlord did not provide any solution to the resident, despite her concerns she could not properly wipe the windows due to the height. The landlord failed to consider alternative solutions for the resident where there was a non-standard feature such as the tall windows. For example, the landlord did not provide a pole for wiping condensation off the high windows or discuss alternative options with the resident to minimise the condensation mould or the issues she had raised regarding cold in the property.
From the evidence provided, the landlord said while secondary glazing was an option, it did not want to replace the glazing as it said this would set a precedence for other properties in the building. There is evidence that the landlord was aware of an option to insulate the window reveals as the condensation was forming on the junction between the wall and the metal of the window which it said could remove cold bridging. It is not clear if landlord carried out these works as part of the external works referenced in its stage 2 response.
The council requested the landlord to install secondary glazing as per the warning issued on 22 September 2021. Despite this, the landlord has failed to install secondary glazing. The council’s website advises that secondary glazing systems “can be installed behind single glazed windows to improve thermal performance, which can be obtained as tailor-made units for historic windows. These can be equally efficient as double-glazed units and, if fitted discretely, need not affect the character of the building. Secondary glazing can usually be installed without the requirement for listed building consent.”
The Service notes the comment that if the landlord replaced the resident’s windows, it could prompt other residents in the building to request the same. Each case requires an independent view of the resident’s and property’s needs. It is good practice for landlords to schedule major works such as window replacements in advance and to have a programme of such works so that multiple properties can be renovated at the same time. However, landlords are expected to carry out window replacements outside such major works programmes if it is necessary to do so based on the condition of that particular property. While it is understandable the landlord may be concerned about other residents wanting their windows replaced, this is not a valid reason for deciding not to replace windows which should otherwise be replaced. The landlord’s rationale was unreasonable, and this caused the resident and her young family further detriment as they had to continue living in a property with damp and mould present.
The landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint that she could not use one of the bedrooms in the property due to the level of condensation, damp, and mould, as well as water running down the walls. This was a complaint handling failure. The resident has informed the Service that her children were born shortly after she moved into the property. Therefore, while the resident’s 2 children stayed with her in the same bedroom for the first 6 months, it was not possible to move them into the second bedroom due to the issues raised by the resident and the concern she had for her children’s health.
The landlord has not provided a clear breakdown of the compensation offered to the resident across its complaint responses. While the landlord offered some compensation to the resident, the compensation was not appropriate for the severe failings identified.
The resident has informed the Service that the complaint had a significant and detrimental impact on her ability to enjoy her home and she spent a considerable time chasing the landlord for responses to repair works.

The landlord’s communication and complaint handling

The landlord failed to fully consider the impact of the complaint on the resident and her family. The landlord also failed to acknowledge the health concerns raised by the resident in its complaint responses. The resident had to repeatedly chase for updates and responses. The resident had an unnecessary level of involvement in the repairs process, which would have left her feeling unsupported and distressed. As such, this was a failing in the landlord’s service to the resident.
The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge the resident’s complaint that it failed to attend the property following the burst water pipe in any of its complaint responses, despite the resident raising this as part of her complaint. This is a complaint handling failure in accordance with the Complaint Handling Code. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate.
The landlord did not consider the resident’s complaint that the burst water pipe significantly impacted the resident and her family. The landlord incorrectly said the roof leak had damaged the carpets and flooring, when the resident had made it clear that the burst water pipe had damaged the flooring. The resident also informed the landlord that she did not have water, electricity, or use of a toilet for 24 hours after the burst water pipe. The landlord failed to acknowledge this or provide any compensation to the resident. The landlord was aware that there were children residing in the property and should have ensured the resident had access to water, electricity, and use of a toilet. If the landlord had evidence to support that it ensured there was water, electricity and use of a toilet in the property, then it should have provided this information to the resident in its response.
On several occasions, the landlord said it would reply to the resident but did not provide responses in the timescales it had given. The landlord did not meaningfully engage with the resident’s complaint and did not provide detailed responses to the issues raised. The landlord did not appropriately address the concerns the resident raised such as its response to the burst water pipe. The incomplete responses from the landlord would have inevitably caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The resident made a complaint on 2 September 2021, but the landlord did not consider this as a formal complaint. The landlord instead considered the resident’s complaint under its ‘Quick Resolution’ policy. The landlord failed to provide a response to the resident within its 2 working day timescale. In her complaint, which the resident titled as such, she chased up repairs and expressed her dissatisfaction of the handling of the repairs. This was not the first time she had reported the repair issues. The landlord should have considered the resident’s complaint as a formal complaint as it was unable to resolve her complaint within 2 working days, and further works were outstanding. The landlord’s failure to action this appropriately is a complaint handling failure.
There were inappropriate and unacceptable delays in the landlord’s complaint handling. While the landlord responded to the resident’s complaint in January 2022 within 10 working days, it did not respond to the resident’s escalation request until 86 working days later. This is significantly beyond the 20-working day response time outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident’s complaint in line with its complaint’s procedure, meant it missed an opportunity to address her concerns sooner and left the resident waiting for a resolution to her concerns. The landlord should have conducted a timely and appropriate investigation and response to the resident’s concerns. The delay in responding to the resident’s complaint would have delayed the resident in progressing the complaint through the landlord’s process. It would have also made her feel frustrated and that she was not being taken seriously and would have prevented her from exhausting the landlord’s internal complaints procedure so that she could bring the matter to the Ombudsman for an independent investigation.
Overall, there were severe failings in the landlord’s management of the resident’s complaint. It failed to effectively communicate with the resident at the earliest opportunity and failed to keep appropriate repair records, hindering its ability to consider the full history of the case. There were significant delays in responding to the resident which contributed to her distress over a considerable amount of time. The landlord failed to put matters right by offering firm reassurances that it had resolved the leak and failed to offer fair compensation when it had the opportunity to do so.
Landlords are expected to resolve complaints by addressing the substantive issue and any inconvenience that has occurred in the meantime. This is part of providing a fair response. The landlord is expected to offer redress, which can include compensation, when it agrees that it has failed to provide a required service. The Service has found the landlord’s offer of compensation not appropriate to the identified failings. For failing to provide an adequate response to the resident at stage 1 and stage 2 of its complaint process and the associated complaint handling failures, the landlord should pay compensation of £250 to the resident.
The Ombudsman may share a member’s complaint handling failure with any appropriate regulatory agency, along with any related details as the Ombudsman sees fit under paragraph 14 of the Scheme. If the complaint handling failure indicates a systemic issue this may be formally referred. The Ombudsman will notify the regulator where a finding of severe maladministration has been made, or where an investigation raises a potential breach of a regulatory standard and will provide appropriately anonymised information.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of leaks to the property and the handling of repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s communication with the resident and its complaints handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to, within 28 days of the date of this determination:
1. Provide a full apology for the errors identified in this report. The apology must come from the Chief Executive and must be made in person.
2. Pay compensation to the resident of £7,500, broken down as follows:
  1. £6,000 compensation to recognise the distress and inconvenience caused, as well as the loss of enjoyment of the resident’s home in handling the repairs to the roof.
  2. £1,250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident and the impact to her property following the roof leak, burst water pipe and damp and mould in the property.
  3. £250 for the landlord’s communication and complaint handling failures.

The total compensation is in addition to the compensation offered by the landlord during the complaint procedure.

Within 56 calendar days of the date of this report, the Ombudsman orders the landlord to carry out a full senior management review of this case to identify learning and improve its working practices. A senior officer must conduct the review and must be outside of the service areas involved. The landlord must share the review with the Service and the review must include:
1. a review of its repair procedures to ensure there is an effective mechanism in place to record all repair records and store surveyor and other specialist reports.
2. an explanation of how the landlord will ensure the works of its contractors are completed within a reasonable time, and how it intends to identify and respond to repeat repairs in the future.
3. a review of its procedures for recording repairs, complaints, and all communication with residents. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management.
4. a review of its procedures for damp and mould. In doing so, the landlord should have regard to the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould.

Recommendations

The landlord considers re-training its staff on complaint handling, giving regard to the Complaint Handling Code.
That the landlord report back on its intentions regarding the recommendation above, within 28 days of the date of this report.