Southern Housing Group Limited (202115880)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202115880

Southern Housing Group Limited

27 June 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould;
2. Handling of the residents’ vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
3. Response to the resident’s request for a management move;
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident and her husband are joint tenants and their assured shorthold tenancy began on 24 February 2020. The information seen suggests they became assured tenants after 12 months. The property is a one-bedroom flat in a converted building (the building). The residents have a number of vulnerabilities relating to their physical and mental health. They include: Bipolar Affective Disorder, asthma, eczema, autism, anxiety and depression. This report largely refers to the resident because she was the lead complainant.
The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and outside of the property in good repair. This includes the roof, windows and plasterwork. The landlord is also obliged to make good following any works. The resident is responsible for minor repairs and internal decoration. The rent is £75.34 per week. The landlord’s repairs policy, effective March 2021, shows the landlord aims to complete routine repairs as soon as possible. The Ombudsman was unable to find a more relevant document online.
The landlord’s Priority Moves Policy, effective October 2020, shows how it responds to urgent rehousing requests. Temporary and permanent moves are within scope. The policy shows decants will be considered where major works cannot be completed whilst a property is occupied, or where the property has been declared unfit by Environmental Health. The landlord will consider a Priority Move when a resident is unable to enter/leave a property due to a medical condition, and it is not possible to adopt the property for their needs. The landlord may approve priority moves in other exceptional circumstances.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure. Its relevant policy documents, effective December 2020 and December 2021, show the landlord aims to respond to complaints within ten working days at stage one. At stage two, it aims to respond within 20 working days. If additional investigation time is needed, a further ten working days is available at both stages providing the resident is kept updated. The landlord’s related compensation policy suggest its compensation awards are based on the landlord’s internal compensation framework.

Summary of events

The resident first reported mould in April 2020. The landlord’s contact records show the kitchen and bathroom were affected. They also show the resident was concerned about the mould’s impact on her asthma. Further, she reported an engineer recently advised there may be a leak from the flat above. Within days, the landlord replied it could only attend emergency repairs due to the pandemic. The records indicate the resident was advised how to manage damp during a phone call around this time.
The landlord emailed the resident in July 2020. It said, following a recent inspection, a surveyor confirmed there was “minimal damp”. Further, the surveyor attributed the damp to a leaking stack pipe that was now repaired.
On 18 November 2020, the resident again reported mould in the kitchen and bathroom. Contact notes show she wanted a surveyor to inspect the damage. She also reported the bathroom window could not be opened. The property’s repair history shows a works order was raised the same day. Repair notes said water was leaking through the kitchen ceiling, which was damp and stained. The history shows several rooms were affected by damp and mould from 2009 onwards.
Both parties agree the landlord attended the leak on 9 December 2020. The timeline shows this was 15 working days after the resident’s second report. In its stage one response, the landlord later said it confirmed water was leaking from the upstairs flat. In contrast, the resident subsequently said she was incorrectly advised that the leak was resolved during this visit.
The resident updated the landlord on 11 January 2021. She said it failed to attend a scheduled appointment on 30 December 2020. Further, this was its third missed appointment. She also said, around one month earlier, a surveyor had inspected the property because a leak left brown marks in: the kitchen, bathroom, bedroom and a living room cupboard. Her main points were:
1. The surveyor agreed the landlord would redecorate once the leak was resolved. However, the resident had not been updated since then.
2. The following previously reported repair issues were unresolved: leaking kitchen window, stuck bathroom window, cracks and damp on the bedroom ceiling and “disgusting toilet”.
On 24 June 2021 the residents raised a formal complaint. They said the property’s multiple ongoing issues warranted a serious approach. However, despite many calls and emails, the landlord often failed to respond to issues. Further, their decorations were ruined and the money they spent had been wasted. In addition, the property was unsafe and unsuitable given their vulnerabilities, so the residents wanted to move as soon as possible. Their correspondence included the following repair issues:
1. Low water pressure following installation of new toilet pan
2. Leaking, draughty and inoperable windows
3. Damp, mould and water marks on walls and ceilings
4. Hole in an external wall under the kitchen sink
5. Uneven ceilings, walls and flooring
6. Insects attracted to mouldy wallpaper
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint the following day. It said it would update her by 9 July 2021. The timeline shows this deadline was broadly consistent with the landlord’s policy timescales.
On 9 July 2021 the landlord issued a stage one response. It focussed on events from 18 November 2020. The landlord said it responded accordingly to the resident’s reported repairs. It acknowledged delays, but attributed them to difficulties accessing the property. The landlord said it would inspect the property on 13 July 2021. Further, it would leave the complaint open with an “action plan”. This would allow any repairs to be completed before the complaint was closed. The main points were:
1. The landlord’s contractor attended the property on 9 December 2020. It found the leak was coming from the upstairs flat. It was unable to rectify the problem because the resident’s neighbour was not in. At this point, the repair order was marked complete.
2. On 21 June 2021 the landlord replaced the property’s low level pan and toilet seat. The same day, the resident reported stain block was needed in several rooms. The landlord attended on 8 July 2021 but it was unable to access the property.
3. On 23 June 2021 the resident reported low pressure to the new toilet. Though an appointment was booked for 28 June 2021, the landlord was unable to access the property.
From the landlord’s later internal correspondence, stain block was applied to the property’s ceilings on 10 July 2021. The correspondence said the landlord’s operative reported water marks could reoccur because external repairs were outstanding.
On 15 July 2021 the resident told the landlord she was unhappy with its stage one response. She copied a local councillor into her correspondence. She said, since moving to the property, she had been prescribed stronger inhalers and her bipolar disorder had got worse. Further, she felt unable to get out of bed and her marriage was suffering. She also said she was unable to host guests because the property’s condition was embarrassing. Her key points were:
1. On 13 July 2021 the inspecting surveyor said the property was “not liveable” due to its various issues.
2. A roof inspection was outstanding but scaffolding erected outside the property had not been used. The resident was unclear who was responsible for the scaffolding.
3. The bathroom window could not be opened.
4. The resident was unhappy with the level of engagement required to progress her concerns. Calls were not being returned and contacting the landlord was expensive. The resident wanted to communicate by email going forward.
During internal correspondence on 23 July 2021, the landlord said it had spoken to the resident that day. It said she asked to be decanted and reported the scaffolding was not tall enough to reach the property’s highest window. The landlord said someone should contact the resident to discuss her concerns.
The resident updated the landlord on 26 July 2021. She said a contractor attending that day advised the property needed extensive internal and external works. Further, these works should have been completed prior to the tenancy. She also questioned whether a roofing appointment scheduled for 5 August 2021 would resolve matters. This was based on the height of the current scaffolding.
On 27 July 2021 the resident asked to escalate her complaint. Her correspondence shows she spoke to the landlord earlier that day. She said repairs were outstanding and the landlord’s communication was poor. For example, the landlord had not shared the details of its action plan. Further, the leak repair order was marked complete when the landlord was unable to access the neighbour’s flat. Two medical letters were attached to the email. The key points were:
1. The resident said repair issues were ongoing from the beginning of the tenancy. Further, the landlord was failing in its duty of care to provide a safe and comfortable environment. Compensation was therefore needed given: the impact on the residents’ health, the length of the delays and their damaged decorations.
2. A doctor felt the damp and mould in the property was exacerbating the resident’s asthma. Separately, a Practice Administrator said her husband suffered from depression and anxiety. They said he was stable due to medication and ongoing support. However, they were concerned about additional stress resulting from conditions in the property.
The landlord confirmed the escalation the same day. It agreed to contact the resident the following day to discuss the complaint. It said it would respond to her concerns by 24 August 2021.
The resident sent the landlord a number of emails the following day. One email included several images, which appeared to show: water stained floors and ceilings, peeling paint and cracks, along with black mould on pipework. There was also an image of an “erection and inspection record” which was last completed in 2010. From the information seen, it is not clear what item the inspection record related to. The resident’s key points were:
1. Damp could be smelled throughout the property. In the bathroom, wallpaper was coming away from the walls revealing water marks. There were bugs behind the paper and on the floor. The residents’ flooring was damaged because it was unable to dry.
2. Other flooring was uneven because the building was sinking. The building was old and the property creaked when the residents moved around.
3. The residents were reluctant to use the property’s heating due to the hole under the kitchen sink. This hole allowed draught into the property. They were also concerned water would leak through the kitchen window onto wires under the sink.
4. Debris on the floor outside the property suggested tiles were falling from the roof. This was alarming and a surveyor should assess the roofing and external brickwork. Inside the property, debris from the walls was falling onto the TV.
5. Although conditions were causing “daily disruption” to their lives, the landlord failed to acknowledge the residents’ vulnerabilities. There had “been some suicide attempts regarding this…”. The resident was concerned for her husband’s welfare if the situation continued.
6. If the residents were unable to move, the landlord should: complete the repairs urgently, redecorate, install a new bathroom, kitchen and flooring and update the property.
The landlord’s activity records suggest it called and emailed the resident the same day. The email acknowledged the resident’s medical information. It also set out the next steps for her complaint. Its wording suggests the landlord was concerned for the residents’ welfare. However, beyond advising the resident to get in touch if she needed any further assistance, no information was seen to show the landlord took any specific safeguarding actions.
The parties exchanged emails on 5 August 2021. The resident said her husband went to A&E because he had suicidal thoughts and intended to act. She also said her medication had increased and she kept getting fungal infections due to conditions in the property. The landlord acknowledged the situation had escalated and it provided additional information about its complaints process. No information was seen to show it took any safeguarding steps.
During internal correspondence between 16 and 18 August 2021, the landlord said the property had multiple different problems and a holistic approach was required. Further, the residents’ images suggested it appeared “to be in very poor condition”. Given their medical evidence, there was also “a real onus (for the landlord) on getting this property in a proper liveable state”. In addition, there was a strong case to undertake a full redecoration once the repairs were complete. The key points were:
1. The landlord completed repairs to the kitchen and bathroom windows on 5 August 2021. However, its job notes suggested the windows were only released, so they could still be leaking.
2. Soon afterwards, a roofing contractor found there were no issues with the building’s chimney stack. The landlord was concerned it had not identified the cause of the leak.
3. Around the same time, an operative investigating low water pressure found the property’s stop tap was partially closed. Though the valve was now open, the resident was still reporting low pressure to a toilet. The relevant repair order should be kept open.
The landlord’s surveyor made several important observations over a number of emails on 18 August 2021. They said the residents had reported “a plethora” of damp related issues at different times. Further, a change of roofing contractor had contributed to the landlord’s “fragmented” service. However, an action plan was now in place to address the repairs. The surveyor said:
1. To address damp in the lounge, flashing and tiling around the chimney stack would be inspected. Applicable remedial works would then be undertaken to the internal chimney breast.
2. A plumbing check found there were no leaks within the upstairs flat. All areas were confirmed dry and there were no issues to report. The landlord received this information on 9 August 2021.
3. Scaffolding would be extended to inspect the render and downpipe adjacent to the bathroom. Any damage would be repaired and pipe would be replaced if necessary. An external inspection of the window would also be completed.
4. Having completed the above, internal works to the bathroom could begin. This would include any plastering and redecoration The landlord could issue re-decoration vouchers to the resident.
5. There was no issue with the shower pressure during the surveyor’s July 2021 inspection. The surveyor could re-assess the pressure if necessary.
6. Owing to the “build and geology” of the local area, a number of the landlord’s properties were subject to “slight angulation inside”. However, there was no indication of structural damage and the level of the flooring was not dangerous.
During internal correspondence on 20 August 2021, the landlord said a recent inspection confirmed the building’s soil stacks did not need replacing. However, a downpipe joint needed taking apart and refitting to allow minor repointing works to take place. The correspondence suggests the landlord was in the process of obtaining a rendering quote. Further, a new appointment had been raised to check the shower pressure and a leaking kitchen window.
The following events occurred between 24 and 26 August 2021:
1. The landlord advised the resident it needed more time to complete its stage two investigation. It said the resident would receive a response and any proposed action plan by 7 September 2021. This was around 20 working days after the resident’s formal escalation request.
2. The landlord’s internal correspondence said mould was a health and safety issue that should be investigated. Further, any mould should be removed with an antifungal wash and inhibitor should be used when painting the bathroom.
3. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord an order had been raised to carry-out internal damp and mould treatment to the property. It said the works were not scheduled on the resident’s instructions. This was on the basis the landlord’s surveyor previously advised that internal treatment would be “disadvantageous” until external repairs were complete.
4. The landlord’s contractor told the landlord works were complete. It said the resident advised there were “still a few” issues including mould and water marks in the bathroom. Further, though she acknowledged repairs to the windows were recently completed, the resident reported being advised replacements could be an option. This was on the basis the windows were “very old and worn”.
5. The landlord wrote to the resident about her request for a priority move. It said a panel hearing found she did not meet the relevant medical criteria to join the landlord’s Priority Moves List. It also said the landlord’s maintenance team had advised a decant was not required to complete the repairs. The letter’s wording suggests a copy of the landlord’s Priority Moves Policy was enclosed. The resident was “encouraged” to consider alternative housing options detailed in a leaflet provided.
The landlord’s internal correspondence suggests it issued a stage two response on 1 September 2021. This was around six working days after the landlord’s holding correspondence. The response addressed the resident’s complaint points in turn. It said the water ingress into the property’s kitchen remained unresolved nine months after the resident reported it. Further, although complex repairs to the building’s chimney stack were needed, this timescale was unacceptable. The main points were:
1. On 12 August 2021 the resident advised there were still issues with the property’s water pressure. The landlord’s contractor attended the property again on 23 August 2021. The resident advised the repair was complete on 26 August 2021.
2. Previous window repair orders only related to the bathroom window. The landlord was unsure why a kitchen window order was not raised before. Its stage two complaint handler ultimately raised an order, and a contractor attended on 21 August 2021. The resident advised the repair was complete on 26 August 2021.
3. A repair order was raised on 18 November 2020 to address water ingress into the kitchen. The landlord suspected the leak related to the chimney stack and no leaks were identified from the upstairs flat. Any required works would be instructed and the landlord would redecorate the lounge. Any other areas affected by damp, mould or water ingress would also be redecorated.
4. In relation to the bathroom, the landlord would inspect the exterior of the property with scaffolding. Any identified repairs would be rectified. The landlord would redecorate the property’s bathroom once external works were complete. This would include treating mould on the bathroom pipes. The landlord understood the resident could now open the bathroom window.
5. The landlord’s surveyor was satisfied the property’s internal angulation was due to local factors rather than structural damage. The surveyor confirmed level of the flooring was not dangerous and there were no health and safety implications.
6. The landlord was sorry the resident was unhappy with its communication. Multiple repairs involved different subcontractors, which complicated the situation. When all the scheduled works were complete, the landlord’s surveyor would check the resident was satisfied. The surveyor’s contact details were provided in the letter.
7. Due to its agreement with the local authority, the landlord was unable to consider moving the resident to a new home in the area. The resident should contact the local authority if she wanted to stay in the borough. It could consider moving the resident to another borough where the restrictions did not apply. However, the resident’s request to move elsewhere was rejected based on the landlord’s Priority Moves Policy. The landlord explained its decision in a letter on 26 August 2021. The letter included details of the relevant appeal process.
8. In a WhatsApp message on 20 August 2021, the resident explained she wanted compensation for: her ruined decorations, a TV with faulty speakers and towels used to mop up the water ingress. There was insufficient evidence to link the damaged TV to the water ingress, but the resident could contact her home insurance provider. The landlord would compensate the resident £50 for the damaged towels.
9. Given the overall repair timeline, the landlord would award the resident its maximum possible compensation award of £50 in relation to the kitchen leak. A further £25 was awarded for delays in addressing damp in the lounge.
On 7 September 2021 the resident said she would accept the landlord’s compensation offer. Her email shows she felt the award was inadequate given what happened. Within days the landlord approved a contractor’s quotation for external rendering works.
Internal correspondence from 4 October 2021 shows the resident reported the kitchen window was leaking again. The correspondence suggests she requested new windows. The landlord said the repair order should be reopened so an inspection could be arranged. Further correspondence shows the landlord’s contractor attended the following day. It recommended extensive works to overhaul the window.
On 11 October 2021 a leak repair order was raised. The landlord’s related internal correspondence said the resident reported there was water damage on the walls and ceiling whenever the shower or bath were used. It also said the bathroom leak was now affecting the bedroom wall. It suggests the landlord’s contractor attended the following day and advised the leak was likely to be an external issue.
On 19 October 2021 the landlord’s contractor notified the landlord that scaffolding was installed. It said rendering works would require suitable weather conditions. This was around 9 weeks after the landlord’s surveyor set its action plan for the repairs.
The resident approached the Ombudsman in mid-October 2021. She said the issues were ongoing and there was water damage throughout the property. She also said the property was “really cold”. We asked the resident to provide a copy of the landlord’s final response. The Ombudsman did not contact the landlord at this stage.
On 1 November 2021 the landlord issued the resident a stage one complaint acknowledgement. It said the landlord would investigate the following issues: fire alarms repeatedly sounding in the early hours, insufficient ventilation in the property, a “filthy” toilet that needed replacing and the landlord’s communications. This was on the basis the resident was advised there were bound to be issues given the age of the building. The main points were:
1. The landlord would not address the resident’s concerns about, a leak from the flat above, her request to move to the flat below or her request for replacement windows. These issues were addressed by the landlord’s stage two response.
On 1 December 2021 the landlord issued an appeal outcome. It said the panel’s decision, not to award the resident a priority move, was upheld. This was on the basis her medical information showed a connection between the residents’ mental health and the outstanding repairs. The landlord said it would inform its repairs team that the repairs should be carried out promptly.
During internal correspondence on 8 December 2021, the landlord’s surveyor said they visited the property a few days ago. Further, a post-inspection confirmed the external works had been satisfactorily completed. They said the resident was contacting them every day about the repairs but the case was almost resolved.
The landlord submitted its case evidence to the Ombudsman around February 2022. It told us, from its records, there was no indication that the residents were vulnerable. Little information has been seen concerning events between February 2022 and January 2023.
The resident updated the Ombudsman during a phone call on 25 January 2023. She said the leak was ongoing along with the damp and mould. Further, she was now taking antibiotics because conditions in the property were worse. Her main points were:
1. The landlord had not attempted to repair the leak and it kept telling the resident that scaffolding was needed. Scaffolding had been erected on two occasions and was still in place outside the property. The scaffolding currently installed was not tall enough to progress the repairs.
2. Around two weeks ago, the resident was told additional surveys were needed because the landlord sent previous survey information to the wrong department. Facilitating inspections was inconvenient and the landlord previously failed to attend scheduled appointments.
3. The resident’s personal belongings were being damaged. She was worried about her furniture and she could not afford to keep replacing towels.
On 27 January 2021 the Ombudsman asked the landlord for more information. Our request included its repair and contact records to date, a recent survey report and an explanation of the landlord’s current position on the complaint. The landlord replied on 3 February 2022. The response included an update from the landlord’s surveyor. Their main points were:
1. There were ongoing issues with the entire roof and “almost every flat” in the building was experiencing water ingress, damp and mould. The landlord was recalling a contractor that completed repairs in 2022. This was because a repaired section of the roof was “still failing” causing water ingress into the property. The roof needed to be repaired before the landlord could establish whether water ingress was occurring in other areas (for example, through the windows).
2. The resident had raised “numerous” other issues such as chips in wallpaper and dust in the meter cupboard. The surveyor had addressed these issues individually and “all parties (were) happy” no further action was required. The resident was “dead set” on getting a new property and frequently asked the surveyor to influence the process. This was not possible and the property “(was not) even the most affected property in the building”.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident and her husband. The timeline confirms it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. Further, the resident has multiple concerns about the property and the landlord’s actions. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, but it will be taken into account when considering the residents’ circumstances.

Response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould

In its stage two response, the landlord accepted responsibility for an “unacceptable” delay of around nine months from November 2020. It awarded the resident £75 in compensation to recognise what went wrong. It also offered £50 for the resident’s damaged towels.
The timeline suggests leaks, damp and mould have been ongoing in the property since April 2020. It shows, over time, the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and living room were affected. It confirms, in August 2021, the landlord acknowledged the property needed a range of works to be made “liveable” because it was in “very poor” condition. It also indicates extensive works were likely required to resolve these problems. Overall, , it points to a delay of around 33 months between April 2020 and February 2023. This is based on the premise that one month represents a reasonable timescale to complete routine repairs.
Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The above identified 33 month delay was both inappropriate and contrary to the landlord’s legal obligations. Damp and mould are potential health hazards to be either avoided or minimised in line with the Government’s Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS, and they are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
Nevertheless, the timeline points to questionable practice and a lack of resolution focus on the landlord’s part. It suggests the resident was offered mould treatment works in August 2021. However, contrary to HHSRS, no information was seen to show the landlord conducted any additional monitoring when it identified “minimal damp” in July 2020. The timeline indicates the landlord subsequently investigated the soil stack again in August 2021. Further, the landlord’s stage one response said a leak repair order was marked complete even though the landlord was unable to access the neighbour’s flat.
The above were inappropriate actions from the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude the overall delay timescale could have been reduced if the landlord had promptly ruled out potential sources of water ingress, damp and mould. The timeline points to similar issues in respect of the scaffolding, which the resident said was erected on more than one occasion, having been previously installed at the wrong height.
In relation to the failures identified the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The timeline suggests living with a long-term roof leak, along with the associated damp and mould, caused considerable anxiety for the resident and her husband; particularly given their vulnerabilities. Further, it is reasonable to conclude that facilitating failed repair attempts and inspections was inconvenient for them. Internal correspondence from December 2021 shows the resident was contacting the landlord’s surveyor every day for updates. This suggests she made significant efforts to progress the repairs. These efforts should not have been necessary given the landlord’s obligations.
The evidence suggests most of the property’s rooms were ultimately impacted by some combination of leaks, damp or mould, whilst it is noted that different leaks were reported in different rooms throughout this period. It is reasonable to conclude the residents’ enjoyment of these rooms was considerably reduced. Further, given the number of rooms affected, the residents had little respite from these issues. This suggests the landlord’s offer of £75 compensation was disproportionate given what happened. The Ombudsman will therefore order increased compensation to put things right for the resident based on the information seen. The calculation will reflect the circumstances of the complaint, the resident’s rent liability and the Ombudsman’s Remedies Guidance.
The tenancy agreement suggests the residents’ monthly rent is £301.36. The Ombudsman’s redress calculation will be based on 25% of her total rent over 33 months based on the ability to use the different rooms in her property throughout the period. The timeline suggests the landlord was impacted by the pandemic during the timeline. Nevertheless, the residents cannot fairly be expected to pay their full rent for this period given the circumstances. The remainder of the compensation ordered will reflect the resident’s distress and inconvenience.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould. The evidence suggests, contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the leaks, damp and mould over a period of around 33 months. Further, contrary to HHSRS, the landlord failed to conduct additional monitoring of damp it identified around July 2020. This monitoring could have helped to eliminate likely causes in addition to reducing the overall timeline.
Following on from the complaint, the resident has raised concerns that despite contractors coming out to do works, the leaks have returned and she feels the root cause has not been addressed. She has also raised concerns regarding a woodlice and mice problem due to holes that were left in the property following repairs. Whilst these issues have not been investigated, they have been considered with regards to what is expected from the landlord going forward within the orders.

The landlord’s handling of the residents’ vulnerabilities, along with their health and welfare concerns

The evidence suggests the residents have been dealing with some difficult personal circumstances. The landlord should therefore have shown them due care. The below assessment will consider whether it acted with appropriate sensitivity given the residents’ vulnerabilities.
The timeline shows the residents signposted the landlord to their vulnerabilities on at least four occasions from 24 June 2021. Further, it should have been aware of their vulnerabilities from the beginning of the residents’ formal complaint. In July 2021 this signposting involved a reported risk to life. Though the timeline suggests the landlord quickly contacted the resident, which was appropriate given the circumstances, no information was seen to show how it responded to the reported risk of serious self-harm.
It is reasonable to conclude the landlord could have offered the resident additional support, or referred her to any relevant safeguarding agencies. Further, its records should have captured the specifics of its response, including the details of any referrals made. The evidence suggests the landlord may have missed two opportunities to provide the resident additional support. This is because its response to the resident’s subsequent update, on 5 August 2021, appears broadly similar to its initial response.
Despite the serious welfare concerns referenced above, the landlord subsequently told the Ombudsman the residents had no known vulnerabilities. Given their circumstances, this raises significant questions about the landlord’s record keeping, and its ability to handle future interactions with the residents, with appropriate sensitivity. It was noted the residents said the landlord failed to acknowledge they were vulnerable, or act accordingly. The above information supports this assessment.
Given the above, there was severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. The landlord was unable to demonstrate it responded appropriately to a reported risk to life. Despite several notifications from the residents, the evidence suggests it records failed to reflect their multiple vulnerabilities.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move

Rehousing requests on health and welfare grounds are typically outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction based on Part 6 of the Housing Act (1996). The Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO) is usually better placed to consider complaints that fall within Part 6. However, management transfers are within the Ombudsman’s remit because they fall outside of these rules. The Ombudsman can therefore consider the complaint defined above. It may help to explain that the Ombudsman cannot compel the landlord to move the resident.
We can consider whether the landlord followed its relevant policies, and acted reasonably given the circumstances. On 26 August 2021 the landlord told the resident her request for a priority move did not meet its medical or decant criteria. However, no information was seen to show the landlord’s decision making reflected the reported risk of self-harm. It is reasonable to conclude this information was relevant to the landlord’s decision. Further, the landlord could have sought additional information from the resident if necessary.
It was also noted that, according to the landlord’s relevant policy, the property needed to be declared unfit by Environmental Health before the resident would qualify for a decant. In this case, such third-party confirmation should not have been necessary. This is because, from its internal correspondence, the landlord knew the property was in “very poor” condition when the decision was taken. This information shows the policy’s wording could prove unreasonably restrictive in some circumstances.
In December 2021, the landlord upheld its original decision not to offer the resident a management transfer. It is acknowledged the landlord expected to complete the repairs around this time. However, the timeline confirms the resident’s situation has not improved around 33 months later. The landlord’s recent comments to the Ombudsman suggest it will likely need additional time to resolve the leak. Given their current circumstances, the landlord should reconsider the residents’ request as a matter of urgency.
Overall, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move. The information seen suggests the landlord’s decision failed to reflect key information about the residents’ welfare.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to several issues in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, its stage one response failed to address significant points from the residents’ formal complaint, including their request to move and their concerns about the suitability of the property given their vulnerabilities. This was contrary to section 3.14 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code), as published in July 2020, which said “Landlord’s shall address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions…”.
It is noted the landlord arranged an inspection in response to the complaint. However, given a move was the residents’ preferred outcome, its response should have reasonably signposted them to its relevant process/department. This should have allowed them to progress their move request promptly without making any additional enquiries. The information seen indicates they had to raise the matter again to prompt a response from the landlord. It is reasonable to conclude this caused them unnecessary inconvenience
Similarly, the response failed to reference the residents’ vulnerabilities. It is reasonable to conclude this lack of engagement prompted their subsequent comments, on 28 July 2021, about the landlord’s failure to acknowledge their circumstances. The response also said the landlord cancelled its initial leak repair order when it was unable to access the neighbour’s flat on 9 December 2020. The response should have reasonably addressed this questionable practice. For example, the landlord could have raised the matter internally with a view to improving its approach.
In summary, the landlord’s stage one complaint handling was characterised by insufficient engagement contrary to the relevant Code. It is reasonable to conclude this lack of engagement caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. The landlord appears to have missed an opportunity to improve its services by challenging a questionable practice.
In its stage two response, the landlord said it was unacceptable that the leak was ongoing after nine months. The response addressed multiple repairs, refenced complexity and explained the involvement of several subcontractors. In contrast, the total amount of compensation it awarded was £75. This award was clearly disproportionate given the duration of the leak and the impact to the resident. This disparity was contrary to section 5.6 of the Code, which said “Any remedy offered must reflect the extent of any service failures and the level of detriment caused to the resident as a result.”
Given the discrepancy between the failure identified and the overall level of redress, the landlord’s compensation award was both unfair and inappropriate. Her subsequent acceptance correspondence reflects the resident’s perception of this unfairness. It is reasonable to conclude that awarding proportionate redress increases a landlord’s chances of satisfactorily resolving complaints through its internal complaints procedure. The resident’s experience suggests the landlord’s internal compensation framework may be detrimental to its overall complaint handling objectives.
Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. The landlord’s stage one complaint handling was characterised by insufficient engagement contrary to the relevant Code. It is reasonable to conclude this caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. At stage two, the landlord’s disproportionate redress was both unfair and inappropriate.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
2. Severe maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the residents’ vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
3. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for a management move
4. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

Contrary to its legal obligations, the landlord failed to respond appropriately to the leaks, damp and mould over a period of around 33 months. Contrary to HHSRS, the landlord failed to conduct additional monitoring of damp it identified around July 2020. This monitoring could have helped to eliminate likely causes in addition to reducing the overall timeline.
The landlord was unable to demonstrate it responded appropriately to a reported risk to life. Despite several notifications from the residents, the evidence suggests its records failed to reflect their multiple vulnerabilities.
The evidence suggests the landlord’s management transfer decision-making failed to reflect key information about the reported risk of serious self-harm. Given their current circumstances, the landlord should reconsider the residents’ request as a matter of urgency.
The landlord’s stage one complaint handling was characterised by insufficient engagement contrary to the relevant Code. It is reasonable to conclude this caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience. At stage two, the landlord’s disproportionate redress was both unfair and inappropriate.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £3,536.55 in compensation within four weeks. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £2,486.55 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s response to the leaks, damp, and mould. This has been calculated based on 25% of the rent amount (excluding service charges) as per the tenancy agreement, for 33 months.
2. £750 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s handling of the residents’ vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
3. £250 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the landlord’s complaint handling.
4. £50 for damaged towels as agreed in the landlord’s stage two response.
The landlord to reconsider the resident’s request for a priority move. The landlord should ensure it considers all the relevant evidence when making its decision. This includes information concerning the residents’ health, vulnerabilities and the property’s condition. The timeline suggests the property remains in poor condition and the situation is unlikely to be resolved quickly. Within four weeks, the landlord should confirm its decision to the Ombudsman.
Within four weeks the landlord should amend its records to accurately reflect the residents’ vulnerabilities.
The landlord to write to the buildings other occupants within four weeks with an update on the repairs. The letter should include the landlord’s expected completion timescale. The landlord should share a copy of its letter with the Ombudsman. The letter should signpost its readers to the landlord’s formal complaints process.
The landlord to inspect the residents’ damaged items within four weeks. This is with a view to ensuring the resident is compensated accordingly for any damaged items, including decorating materials. The resident’s recent comments suggest additional towels and furniture may now be affected. The landlord should share its findings with the Ombudsman. If the resident agrees, the landlord could issue decorating vouchers.
The landlord is ordered to inspect the residents property with pest control within the property within the next two weeks to address the issue with the mice and woodlice infestation.
The landlord is to arrange an inspection of the resident’s property in order to review and arrange the necessary repairs to the leaks that have reoccurred following on from the previous repairs.
The landlord’s senior leadership to review the issues highlighted in this report. Within four weeks the landlord should provide the Ombudsman a report summarising the identified improvements, which should also be cascaded to its relevant staff. Topics for inclusion include the landlord’s: failure to comply with its obligations in this case, safeguarding procedure, process for following up repairs involving access issues, Priority Moves Policy (with reference to the potentially restrictive wording), compensation framework and record keeping around vulnerabilities.
The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within four weeks.