Victory Housing Trust (202228934)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202228934

Victory Housing Trust

19 March 2024

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. The resident’s reports of repairs to address drainage concerns in the property.
2. The resident’s reports of repairs to address damp and mould in the property.
3. The resident’s reports of repairs to the skirting boards and decorating works in the property.
4. The resident’s request for compensation for veterinary bills due to the condition of the garden.
5. The resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to the fridge.
The report also looks at the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Background

The resident lives in a 2-bedroom detached bungalow that is owned and managed by a housing association. The resident took up occupation at the property under an undisclosed tenancy granted by a previous landlord shortly after the property was built in 2015/16. The previous landlord merged with the current landlord in 2020. The resident signed a new assured tenancy agreement in 2022.
The landlord records that the resident has neurological issues, poor mobility, bloods clots and weakness down the right side.
In 2017 the resident had been informed by her vet that her dog had high levels of a chemical in its body. A repair was subsequently raised to address a blocked toilet and the water authority reportedly stated that the drains may have been incorrectly installed. Sewage flooded the property in July 2017 and CCTV investigations took place thereafter to establish the cause. The social services also engaged with the former landlord at this time because the resident had been hospitalised due to a possible carbon monoxide leak.
During a conversation this Service held with the resident on 7 March 2024 she reported that her health and the health of her family had been impacted by the condition of the property. It is beyond the expertise of this Service to make a determination on whether there was a direct link between the condition of the property and the resident’s and her family’s medical condition. The resident therefore may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim if she considers that their health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
The former landlord received further reports of sewage and flooding between July and October 2017 and temporarily rehoused the resident. It also reported that a claim was made to the landlord’s insurers. The resident returned home following the completion of remedial works in November 2017. It is not clear from the records held by the current landlord to what extent works were carried out or whether they were properly signed off. No records were made available to it in relation to the outcome of the insurance investigation.
The former landlord consulted with the property developer during 2018 and in early 2019 with a view to it assuming liability for the issue due to a design flaw with the drains during the development of the property in 2016. The property developer disputed this and attributed the issues to the usage of the drains, rather than a design fault.
The current landlord first received reports of continuing issues from the resident in April 2022, when she reported an issue with the toilet. Unsuccessful attempts to rectify the issue were made over the subsequent 6 months. The resident then raised a stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2022. The landlord’s complaint investigation addressed repairs that had been completed during the preceding 6 months., due to the time that had elapsed between the issues that had been addressed by the previous landlord and the newly received complaint. This was in keeping with its policy not to investigate issues that were more than 6 months old. The landlord’s complaint investigation therefore did not address the carbon monoxide issues that were stated to have incurred in 2017. The landlord does not have any records of these being complained about at that time.
The landlord provided a compensation payment of £15,000 to the resident on an undisclosed date in December 2022. The landlord’s records show the compensation to have been issued for “drainage issues over a sustained period of 6 years and for stress and inconvenience and towards white goods as agreed”. During a conversation held with this Service on 7 March 2024 the resident confirmed that this payment appeared in her bank account in December 2022 without further advice or an accompanying letter. She also confirmed that she had initially proposed a compensation award of £12,000 to the landlord which she had calculated with the help of a member of the landlord’s staff.
Since the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 6 March 2023 the resident has made subsequent complaints to it about blockages and the condition of the drainage system.

Relevant policies and procedures

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985), the landlord is obliged to keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for the supply of sanitation. It is also obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
The tenancy agreement says that the landlord will keep water pipes inside the home in good and safe condition, it will insure the home and any fixtures and fittings that belong to it and the resident is responsible for insuring their own contents, including personal belongings. It also says that if the home needs major work, it may ask the resident to move temporarily to suitable alternative accommodation.
The landlord’s ‘Responsibilities: maintaining your home’ guide says that it is responsible for repairs to bathrooms, toilets, kitchen, and bathroom flooring. It will provide specialist technical advice in complex condensation, damp, and mould cases, it will take care of drain and sewer blockages. It will bring any surface back to a decorated standard after a repair.
The published information about repairs and maintenance on the landlord’s website says that it will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and all other repairs within 28 working days.
The landlord’s complaint policy says that it will acknowledge a complaint within 5 working days and provide a written response to a stage 1 complaint within 10 working days. It will provide a response to a stage 2 review complaint within 20 working days. It also says that there are some things that it does not consider to be a complaint which includes complaints where the issue occurred more than 6 months previously.
The landlord’s discretionary payment procedure says it may be necessary to make either an obligatory payment of compensation or a discretionary payment or goodwill gesture. It may agree a form of redress to minimise the level of dissatisfaction as a result which may include financial payments, goodwill gestures, or an apology/explanation. Compensation should take into account and be calculated for costs that include damage caused by the landlord, stress, or inconvenience, out of pocket expenses or loss. It will award fair and reasonable settlements if necessary. It will use discretion and refer to this Service’s guidance when determining the value of a payment. Decisions on the amount of a goodwill gesture should be quantifiable, with a breakdown and reasons recorded.
Paragraph 5.6 of the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the ‘Code’) says that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practise where appropriate. Paragraph 5.7 says where resident’s raise additional complaints during the investigation, these should be incorporated in the stage 1 response if they are relevant, and the stage 1 response has not been issued. Where the stage 1 response has been issued, or if it would unreasonably delay the response, the complaint should be logged as a new complaint. Paragraphs 5.8 and 5.16 of the Code say that landlords must confirm the decision on the complaint and the reasons for the decision.

Summary of events

During 2021 the landlord attended the property 13 times in response to reports from the resident to repair blocked drains, a blocked toilet, and/or leaks caused by drainage matters.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 February 2021 and said that no one seemed to be able to get to the route of the problem which affected the whole of the estate and that the costs of sorting out all the blockages must be phenomenal.
The resident contacted the landlord on 9 April 2021 during which they discussed the weekly drainage issues that had affected the whole street. The landlord recorded that the plumbing was at fault as some pipes went uphill and other pipes were at 90-degree angle bends. The resident said that there was no point in sending a plumber out and the landlord need to inspect the sewers.
The resident contacted the landlord on 12 April 2021 to report flooding caused by the wastepipe beneath the bath. The resident reported that the property was very damp and that the flooring that had been re-laid previously had been ruined. She reported that her son had medical issues and that the damp was causing him problems.
The landlord visited the property on 28 April 2021 to remove and reinstate the toilet following the removal of the flooring. The landlord recorded that further investigation was required.
The landlord attended the property on 4 May 2021 to complete flooring replacement works in the kitchen, bedroom, and hallway.
The landlord commissioned a CCTV drain survey which was completed on 18 May 2021 and recommended follow-on repair works to the toilet and pipework.
The drain specialist completed toilet repairs in the property on 17 June 2021 during which it redirected the basin waste into the pan connector to increase the water flow into the downpipe.
The landlord visited the property on 26 January 2022 to inspect black mould in the bathroom. The landlord was unable to find any water marks or wet areas and suggested a further roof inspection to assess the soil vent area.
The landlord sent an email to the drain specialist on 31 January 2022 to request a drain repair within 24 hours.
The resident’s carer reported ongoing issues with blocked toilet and drains to the landlord on 1 February 2022. The landlord sent an internal email on the same day to say that it was dealing with large scale works at this address.
The drain specialist unblocked a drain outside the property on 1 February 2022 and checked that it was clear and flowing freely with CCTV cameras.
The landlord raised a repair on 14 February 2022 to address a blocked toilet at the property. The landlord noted that the water authority had not yet adopted the drains.
The landlord rearranged the insulation in the loft of the property on 28 February 2022 so that it covered areas where cold spots had caused mould in the bathroom.
The landlord sent an internal email on 1 March 2022 to ask for an emergency repair at the property to address a blocked drain and for the resident to be called back about the recurring issue. The drain specialist attended the property to unblock a drain and restore flow to the property 2 days later.
The landlord’s accountant sent an internal email on 3 March 2022 to report that it had spent £1,665.06 on 10 separate callouts for a drain specialist. The email asked for the matter to be looked at because it had spent a lot of money in the preceding 11 months.
A drain specialist unblocked a drain and restored flow to the property on 11 March 2022.
The landlord sent an email on 23 March 2022 asking for an engineer to be sent to the property to unblock the drains. The drain specialist unblocked a drain and restored flow to the property the next day.
The landlord attended the property on 6 April 2022 to address a bathroom leak that was coming through skirting boards into the kitchen. The landlord repaired the plug trap beneath the bath. It reattended the property on 11 April 2022 to install new skirting boards in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway.
The drain specialist unblocked a drain and checked that it was clear and flowing freely with CCTV cameras on 11 April 2022. The contractor noted that the ‘Y’ piece was set up a slightly the wrong angle which was the reason for recurring blockages. The landlord sent an internal email later the same day that said it was having to get the drain specialist out nearly every week due to a faulty drainage system that had been left by the property developer.
The landlord sent an internal email on 12 April 2022 to report that the resident had called to chase up ongoing issues with blockages at the property and had said that she had been ringing since October 2021. She requested a callback the next day.
The drain specialist unblocked a drain and restored flow to the property on 25 April 2022.
The drain specialist rodded the toilet, removed a foreign object from the manhole and tightened a kitchen wastepipe on 6 May 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 18 May 2022 to report a long history of drainage issues which had resulted in frequent flooding and damage.
The landlord re-laid flooring and skirting in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway between 6 and 9 June 2022. The landlord noted that there was mould and damp in the bathroom that required treatment.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 August 2022 to ask for an update as she was having trouble with drains in the area. The landlord sent an internal email later the same day to say that it had been trying to contact the resident to discuss the drain issues because the property developer had advised it that the matter had been resolved some time ago.
The contractor sent an email on 19 August 2022 to report that it had unblocked the drainage system on multiple occasions and that it required a more permanent adaption to the pipework as soon as possible.
The drain specialist unblocked a drain with rods and restored flow to the property on 9 September 2022.
The landlord arranged for a drainage survey to be completed on 5 October 2022. The survey said:
1. It was not obvious what was causing the issues within the foul water network.
2. The construction, gradient and levels of the external gradient met the relevant standards, apart from the very last pipe falling to the yet-to-be adopted sewer.
3. The sewer had been laid at a steeper gradient that is outlined in building regulations and the water authorities’ requirements for a connection into an adoptable sewer.
4. A new drainage run should be constructed around the back of the building to pick up the soil vent pipe located in the rear of the building and conveyed to the existing private drainage network. It should connect into the existing network by a new inspection chamber to be constructed on the existing run.
The resident contacted the landlord on 14 October 2022 to make a stage 1 complaint. The resident said that there had been ongoing issues with the property since she had moved in and that the waste water had caused damage to fixtures and fittings, personal possessions, and had caused health concerns for the resident, her family, and her pets.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 26 October 2022 about her complaint. The landlord listed the resident’s requirements to resolve the complaint as the replacement of the bathroom, the kitchen, a cooker, a fridge freezer, a washing machine, flooring, the redecoration of walls and skirting boards and monetary compensation.
The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 26 October 2022. The landlord said:
1. When the home was built in 2015 there had been questions asked about efficiency of the drains.
2. There had been previous attempts to mitigate wastewater drainage problems that had not provided a permanent fix.
3. It had recently commissioned a drainage expert to design a permanent fix to the issues with minimal disruption to the family.
4. It had held a property next door vacant for the resident to use when the works commenced.
5. It apologised for the effect the drains had on the resident.
6. It would consider replacing carpets, flooring, the kitchen and bathroom, a washing machine, a cooker, and a fridge freezer.
7. It had discussed redecorating the walls and skirting boards in the property.
8. The resident should consider how much compensation she would like to reflect the replacement of personal possessions that had been damaged by wastewater and the stress and inconvenience she had experienced.
9. The resident could contact this Service about the complaint, but it did not say if it upheld the complaint.
The landlord sent an internal email on 31 October 2022 that said it had spoken to the resident and that she had requested financial compensation of £12,000.
The drain specialist rodded the drain and restored flow to the property on 4 November 2022.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 10 November 2022 about the stage 1 complaint. The landlord said:
1. It was aware that the property developer had signed off on the drains and that the landlord was having to have them redesigned to resolve the issues which it hoped to resolve before Christmas.
2. It had agreed to replace the flooring/carpets throughout the property, redecorate walls and skirting boards, and replace the washing machine, fridge freezer, cooker and complete a hygienic clean to resolve the complaint.
3. It might be able to recover some of the £12,000 compensation costs requested by the resident from the developer.
4. It would not replace the bathroom and kitchen.
5. It wanted to know how the resident had calculated £12,000 as a compensation figure and whether any other offers had been made and/or rejected in the past by the resident or the landlord.
The landlord sent an internal email on 22 November 2022 to confirm that it would install a new drain from the property to the manhole in the road. The work would start on 12th December 2022, and it would take 7 to 9 days. The landlord said that the date remained provisional while it sought the acceptance of the works by the property developer and the water company.
The landlord sent an internal email on 24 November 2022 that said the drainage works would be completed before Christmas.
The landlord sent an internal email on 30 November 2022 that said it had most of the complaint resolution in place, but that the resident wished to delay the works until after Christmas due to her son’s medical procedures. It also said that the sticking point was the £12,000 compensation and that the resident had asked it to provide her with an answer on her compensation request before 2 December 2022.
The resident contacted the landlord on 5 December 2022 and asked to speak to a senior member of staff about the response she had received from customer services staff during a conversation that she said had not been successful. The resident called back later the same day regarding a number of issues related to her complaint, but the phone call cut off before any further information was provided.
The landlord sent an internal email on 6 December 2022 to say that the resident had advised that work could not go ahead on 12 December 2022 as her son was having an operation 2 days later. She also said that she had been advised by a solicitor not to have the work done until compensation had been sorted out. The resident requested that the works be completed mid-January 2022. The landlord said that the resident was a victim with genuine health difficulties and under a lot of pressure and her request to move the works away from her son’s operation was not unreasonable.
The resident called the landlord on 12 December 2022 and requested a callback about her complaint and the major works.
The drain specialist unblocked a drain and restored flow to the toilet in the property on 24 December 2022.
Sometime during December 2022 the landlord paid the resident £15,000.
The resident reported a leak from the base of the toilet and dirty water to the landlord on 30 December 2022. The landlord visited the property, located a leak from the toilet and noted that there was mould in the property that required treatment. It also noted that the resident would be decanted soon and said that it would be good to get the work done then. The resident contacted the landlord later the same day to say that she did not require the landlord to repair the toilet leak as the plumber had told her that she required a new toilet.
The resident signed a variation tenancy agreement on 3 January 2023 that provided her with access to the neighbouring property whilst works were completed in the property until it was in a suitable condition for her to return to.
The drain specialist unblocked the toilet on 11 January 2023.
The landlord confirmed that the drainage works were still in progress in an internal email it sent on 19 January 2023.
The landlord installed a new toilet in the property on 20 January 2023.
The landlord sent an internal email on 23 January 2023 that said it would attend the property the next day to complete a clean and take photographs of the finished outcome and that was confident it had gone “above and beyond”. It also said that it had spoken to the resident the same day who had said:
1. She was happy with the drain works but that the painters had not completed an adequate job.
2. She had spoken to solicitors, Citizen’s Advice, and the press but did not want to go down the route of the press because she didn’t want people knowing her business.
3. She did not agree with the order in which the works had been completed and that her food had been frozen due to the fridge freezer settings being changed.
4. She wanted compensation for the electricity used by the contractors and that there was dust and grime that needed to be cleaned as soon as possible.
The landlord sent an internal email on 24 January 2023 following a visit it had completed at the property the same day. The landlord said:
1. It had identified 2 areas of mould which had not been treated because the decorators had painted over them.
2. There was an issue with the sequencing of skirting board painting and carpet fitting in one room.
3. The fridge freezer was tampered with leading to the loss of food totalling £75.
4. The cooker needed to be disconnected to allow for flooring, but the flooring company could not do this.
5. The painters were not taking enough care to avoid getting paint on items left in the house.
The landlord held an internal email conversation on 24 January 2023 which said:
1. It was unfortunate it had not been aware that all the mould had not been removed prior to painting the walls.
2. It had arranged for the cooker disconnection to be completed.
3. It had resolved the matter at stage 1 with a significant payment but that it could process an additional payment of £75 for frozen food.
4. It understood that the resident had been told to escalate the matter to a stage 2 complaint.
5. The resident could move back into the property the by the middle of the approaching week.
6. It noted that the resident had referred to the cost of electricity during the works.
7. It had worked tirelessly over the preceding few months to deescalate a situation that represented historical failures and would continue to do so.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 25 January 2023 during which she reported that the painters had used her vacuum cleaner and not their own, had left paint marks on her sofa, had been smoking in the property and asking her for cigarettes, and that the paintwork had started to bubble and blister.
The landlord emailed the resident on 26 January 2023 to confirm it had taken over her complaint and requested photographs of any damage that had been caused to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord sent an internal email on 2 February 2023 that confirmed it had sent a builder to the property to rectify all the issues and “push it over the finishing line.”
The drain specialist cleared the stack and vented the drainage system as an emergency on 9 and 10 February 2023.
The drain specialist cleared a blockage and restored the flow to the property on 14 February 2023.
The resident spoke to the landlord on 15 February 2023 to escalate her complaint to stage 2. She said:
1. The landlord had put grass seeds without her permission which had resulted in her incurring £800 in veterinary fees to treat an injury to her dog.
2. The property had not been left in an acceptable condition.
3. There were still drainage issues.
4. Her fridge freezer had been broken.
5. She had received conflicting opinions about damp and mould which had been painted over.
The landlord sent an internal email on 15 February 2023 to confirm that it was dealing with her stage 2 complaint. The landlord said that the resident was extremely vulnerable and had a carer to help her with correspondence. The email asked for information to be provided about the matters the resident had raised in her complaint so that it could issue her with a complaint response.
The landlord installed a new toilet in the property on 16 February 2023 to address a fault with the pan connector and the syphon.
The landlord sent an email to the resident on 20 February 2023 to confirm that it was dealing with her stage 2 escalation request. The landlord said that the drainage work was complete, and a replacement toilet had been installed. The landlord asked the resident to advise what type of compensation she was looking for. The landlord confirmed that it would replace the fridge and requested evidence of the fault. It also said that it would compensate her for the vet bill and for her to send the receipts which showed that the costs were incurred because of the grass seed that had been laid in the garden.
The landlord’s contractor visited the property on 24 February 2023 to post-inspect the newly installed drainage system. The contractor noted:
1. The toilet connector had been replaced and was suitable for the waste pipe arrangement, but that the aperture was quite small.
2. The fridge freezer appeared to be working but might benefit from being defrosted.
3. The turf was sourced from a garden centre and laid as requested.
4. The resident had been advised to contact the landlord when it was appropriate due to the shielding arrangements so that it could arrange to ‘make-good’ the repairs in the bathroom.
The landlord completed a CCTV drain survey on 1 March 2023 following the completion of the new drainage installation works.
The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 6 March 2023. The landlord said:
1. It had returned to check the newly installed drainage system on 24 February 2023, had replaced a toilet connector and it apologised for the additional distress this had caused to the resident.
2. It had not received any further reports of blockages.
3. It had investigated damp and mould in the property and was aware that decorators had painted over the damp but that it would get the area sorted as soon as the resident could allow access.
4. It had reviewed photographs of the garden that had been taken by the contractor and deemed it to have been left in an acceptable condition, but these photographs differed to photographs the resident had provided.
5. It had laid turf that it had sourced from a garden centre in the rear garden as a gesture of goodwill.
6. It had noted that resident’s request for compensation for the veterinary fees she had incurred due to grass seed injuries that had been caused to her dog. It asked the resident to provide the vet bills showing that the treatment had been required for grass seed removal.
7. It had investigated her request for a replacement fridge freezer and had found the freezer had iced up and required defrosting. It asked the resident to send an experienced technician’s report about any damage caused for the matter to be considered further.
8. The resident should contact the landlord for it to arrange decorations in the bathroom when she was available and no longer isolating .
9. It recognised that there had been delay in diagnosing and resolving the issues which had caused significant distress.
10. It considered that painting over the damp and mould was a further failing and offered the resident compensation of £900 as a final settlement.
11. It did not say if the complaint had been upheld but it signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.

Events that occurred after the landlord issued its final response and the completion of the landlord’s internal complaint procedure.

The resident reported further toilet blockages from May 2023 onwards which the landlord sought to address via a drain specialist. The landlord replaced the toilet in June 2023 and completed a CCTV drain survey in September 2023. It commissioned further drain works to take place in December 2023.
A contractor completed repairs to address mould in the bathroom in June 2023.
During the course of this investigation the resident has informed us that there are still issues with the drains at the property and that she has made a further complaint to the landlord about this.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to address drainage concerns in the property.

The landlord undertook a significant number of drainage and bathroom flooding repairs between 2021 and the receipt of the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 14 October 2022. It was appropriate for the landlord to attend to the resident’s reports of blockages and to complete remedial works that provided resolution to the matters. However, the landlord did not identify that there was a recurring issue that was causing significant detriment to the resident. Nor did it consider taking a holistic approach to address the recurring matters which it addressed in an ad hoc way. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord commissioned a CCTV survey of the drains on 11 April 2022 to ascertain the cause of the ongoing blockages. It was appropriate for the landlord to refer to a drain specialist and for it to rely on its expertise to understand the cause of the repeated blockages. However, there is no evidence that the landlord changed its ad hoc approach to the drainage repairs the resident continued to report following the outcome of the CCTV survey, despite identifying an incorrectly placed ‘Y’ piece in the pipework.
The landlord commissioned a further detailed drainage survey which it completed on 5 October 2022, and which resulted in clearer information about the faults and the remedy required. It was reasonable for the landlord to have sought the opinion and expertise of a further specialist to assist it with identifying a solution to the matters. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have commissioned the survey sooner so as to limit the detriment the matters caused to the resident.
The landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2023 in which it set out that it had established a plan to complete major works based upon the recommendations of its drainage expert. The landlord also apologised for the impact the matters had had on the resident and agreed to consider issuing her with an award of compensation. The £15,000 compensation payment it made in December 2022 was not itemised, but its internal records show it to have included compensation for the drainage issues.
The landlord moved its intended start date for the major works to accommodate the resident’s son’s medical needs in December 2022. It subsequently arranged for the household to be provided with access to alternative accommodation during January 2023 while it undertook the works to address the major works to the drainage system. It was reasonable for the landlord to have considered the impact the ongoing matters had on the household and for it to have rearranged the start date of the works and seek alternative accommodation to minimise any disruption to the household.
The landlord completed the renovation of the drainage system in January 2023 and the resident then moved back into the property and reported that she was happy with the drainage repairs that had been completed. The landlord post-inspected the works in February 2023 and completed a further CCTV survey in March 2023 to ensure that the lasting repairs were completed to the required standard.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response in March 2023 the landlord reported that it had addressed the drainage repairs and that it was confident that it had found a lasting resolution to the matter. The landlord offered the resident a further compensation payment of £900 in recognition of its delay in diagnosing and resolving the issues which had caused significant distress.
When there are failings by a landlord, as is the case here, the Ombudsman’s will consider whether the redress offered by the landlord (apology, compensation, completing works at the property) 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.
The impact of the landlord’s failures to address the drainage matters caused distress and inconvenience to the resident over a significant period of time. In such cases where there here have been serious failings by the landlord which have had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident the Ombudsman considers compensation awards of over £1000 to be appropriate. . The landlord provided a total compensation payment of £15,900 that included compensation for its delays in addressing the drainage matters. The landlord has therefore provided compensation that was proportionate to the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident.
However, the landlord did not put things right as the repairs to the drainage did not provide a lasting remedy and the resident has since raised further complaints about the matters with the landlord. There is also no evidence that the landlord learnt from the outcome of the complaint.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to address drainage concerns in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to address damp and mould in the property.

The resident first reported concerns about damp in the property to the landlord on 12 April 2021 when she reported a flood in the property due to the wastepipe beneath the bath. The resident said that the damp was causing her son problems due to his medical needs. There is no evidence to confirm if the landlord took any action to address the damp during 2021, despite completing subsequent repairs to the drainage system and bathroom. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have treated damp in the property, especially given the resident had reported the detriment the matter caused to her son.
The landlord inspected black mould in the bathroom on 26 January 2022 but was unable to locate any water marks and damp areas and so considered a roof inspection was required. It was reasonable for the landlord to consider inspecting other areas of the property to establish the cause of the damp. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to have waited 8 months before attempting to diagnose the reports of damp and mould in the property.
The landlord identified the cause of the mould on 28 February 2022 and rearranged insulation in the loft so that it covered cool spots which would prevent mould. It was appropriate for the landlord to complete the repair which it completed within its 28-day policy timescale.
The landlord noted the presence of damp and mould in the bathroom on 9 June 2022 when it completed flooring works in the property, and it recommended that a treatment was completed. There is no evidence to confirm if it treated the damp. The landlord again noted the presence of mould and damp in the property on 30 December 2022 which it said required treatment. It was inappropriate for the landlord not to have treated the property for damp and mould when it had been identified, or for a treatment plan to have been established given the damp appeared to be a recurring problem. This caused continued distress and inconvenience to the resident and her household.
The landlord arranged for the decoration of the property following repairs it had completed in January 2023 during which it painted over areas of damp and mould. It was unreasonable for the landlord to have painted the areas of damp without first completing a mould treatment. The landlord indicated that this was unfortunate in an internal email it sent on 24 January 2023, but it did not make arrangements to rectify the matter within a reasonable time. This caused the resident to incur further distress and inconvenience and resulted in her raising the matter in her stage 2 complaint of 15 February 2023 which could have been avoided.
Although the landlord agreed to address the damp and mould when the resident could provide access, which it communicated in its stage 2 response, it was unreasonable that, despite being aware of damp and mould in the property for the preceding 2 years it had not found a lasting solution that remedied the issues earlier. This caused distress and inconvenience and time and trouble to the resident in pursuing a resolution to the matters.
The landlord recognised some failings in its handling of the damp and mould in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord considered the detriment that painting over the damp and mould had caused to the resident, along with delays and significant distress in diagnosing additional bathroom repairs. However the landlord focussed on the decoration of the area, rather than its longer-term handling of the damp and mould and did not offer an apology to the resident.
The resident has informed this service that there is an ongoing issue with damp and mould at the property.
The landlord awarded the resident an un-itemised compensation payment of £900 which it confirmed included compensation for its failings in the decoration of the damp and mould in the bathroom. It also agreed to re-attend the property to complete further bathroom repairs when the resident was available. However, as set out above the landlord did not consider its long-term handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould, did not put matters right and did not demonstrate learning from outcomes.
Taking all matters into account this Service finds maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to address damp and mould in the property.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the skirting boards and decorating works in the property.

The landlord installed new skirting boards in the property on 11 April 2022, following a leak that had affected the kitchen, bathroom, and hallway 5 days previously. The landlord re-laid flooring and skirting board in the bathroom, kitchen, and hallway again in June 2022 in response to further damage that had been caused in the property by flooding. It was appropriate for the landlord to have completed the skirting board repairs to make good the property, given it had identified the bathroom leak was its own responsibility to repair.
During conversations the resident held with the landlord on 26 October 2022 the resident listed the redecoration of walls and skirting boards as a resolution point to her stage 1 complaint. The landlord agreed to consider the resident’s request in its stage 1 complaint response which it issued later the same day. It confirmed that it had agreed to complete the repairs on 10 November 2022.
The resident reported concerns about the decorating process to the landlord on 3 occasions between 23 and 25 January 2023. The resident was concerned about the quality of the paintwork, the care taken to avoid paint damaging items in the property, and the order the works had been completed in. She further reported that the painters had used her vacuum cleaner and not their own, had left paint marks on her sofa, and had been smoking in the property and asking her for cigarettes. The landlord was entitled to arrange the completion of works in an order it considered to be appropriate and it was qualified to do so. However, it was unreasonable for the contractor to have behaved in the way that the resident reported. It was also unreasonable for the landlord not to have provided equipment for the contractor to have cleaned the property after completing works and for the works to have been completed so as to cause damage to the resident’s belongings.
The landlord asked the resident to provide photographs of the damage that had been caused 2 days after she had reported the matter which was a reasonable response for it to have taken. It subsequently sent a further contractor to rectify the issues.
Although the landlord said that this issue was part of the resident’s complaint in its stage 2 response it did not investigate it as part of the complaint. This is considered further below in the assessment of the landlord’s complaint handling. Whilst the landlord went some way to putting matters right it would have been appropriate to offer an apology to the resident for the distress and inconvenience and time and trouble she incurred as a result of the contractor’s behaviour for the contractor’s behaviour and this amounts to a service failure.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for veterinary bills due to the condition of the garden.

In her stage 2 escalation request of 15 February 2023 the resident referred to an injury that her dog had sustained as a result of access he had been given the garden in which the landlord had laid garden seed. The resident reported that she had not been informed that the seed had been laid and that she had incurred £800 in veterinary fees to treat the dog. It was unreasonable for the landlord not to have informed the resident that it had laid seed in the garden prior to doing so.
The landlord confirmed that it would compensate the resident for the veterinary fees she had incurred in an email it sent to her on 20 February 2023. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy allowed it to reimburse out of pocket expenses on a case-by-case basis. It was therefore appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge the financial detriment that had been caused to the resident.
The landlord asked the resident to provide it with copies of the veterinary receipts which showed that the costs had been incurred because of the grass seed that had been laid in the garden. It was appropriate and in keeping with the landlord’s compensation policy for it to request this information for it to appropriately assess the compensation award it offered.
The landlord restated in its stage 2 complaint response that it would consider the compensation request and asked the resident to provide the veterinary bills again to show that the treatment was required as a result of the grass seeds.
It is not clear to this Service if the landlord received the required veterinary bills for the compensation award to be provided after it had issued its stage 2 complaint response. A recommendation is therefore made below. Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for veterinary bills due to the condition of the garden.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to the fridge.

The resident requested a replacement of her fridge freezer in a conversation she held with the landlord about her stage 1 complaint on 26 October 2022. The resident listed the replacement of this item along with other white goods as a requirement to resolve the complaint. It is not clear why the resident requested a replacement fridge freezer as we have not seen evidence that she had reported that any damage had been caused to it.
The landlord considered the resident’s request for £12,000 compensation and in December 2022 issued her with a £15,000 payment. The landlord’s discretionary compensation policy allowed it to issue financial awards as goodwill gestures on a case-by-case basis. The landlord confirmed in an email it sent on 10 November 2022 that it would replace the fridge freezer. It also recorded that the compensation award it provided was issued for matters that included white goods. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to have decided to provide compensation for white goods, using its discretion under its own policy.
The resident reported that the fridge freezer settings had been changed during a conversation she held with the landlord on 23 January 2023. Furthermore she said that this had caused £75 worth of damage to food. The landlord agreed to reimburse the resident for the costs of the food during an internal email conversation it held the next day. The landlord was entitled to award the compensation to the resident in line with its discretionary payment procedure and it therefore acted appropriately.
In her stage 2 complaint of 15 February 2023 the resident said that the fridge freezer has been broken. The landlord sent an operative to assess the damage on 24 February 2023 and concluded that the fridge freezer required defrosting before it could be certain that it was broken. In its stage 2 response the landlord asked the resident to provide an engineer’s report about the damage to the fridge for it to consider whether any further compensation would be provided.
It is not clear to this Service if the landlord received the required engineer’s report for the compensation award to be considered after it had issued its stage 2 complaint response. A recommendation is therefore made below. Taking all matters into account this Service finds no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to the fridge.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

There was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints as the landlord:
1. Did not create a new stage 1 complaint for the resident’s complaints about veterinary fees, damp, and mould, and decorating that she raised in her stage 2 escalation request and which she had not raised in her stage 1 complaint.
2. Did not fully respond to the matters the resident had raised in her stage 1 complaint.
3. Did not indicate whether it had upheld the resident’s stage 1 complaint.
4. Used different complaint reference numbers for the stage 1 and stage 2 complaint responses.
5. Did not address the resident’s complaint about repairs to the skirting boards and decorating works in its stage 2 response.
6. Incorrectly dated the stage 2 response as 10 January 2023 instead of 6 March 2023.
7. Did not indicate whether it had upheld the resident’s stage 2 complaint.
8. Said that it wanted to know how the resident had calculated £12,000 as a compensation figure, despite the resident confirming that she had reached the figure with the help and guidance of a member if its staff. There is no evidence to confirm why or when the landlord agreed the resident’s compensation calculations, or that the landlord was aware that it had provided guidance itself in the calculation of the settlement prior to issuing the award in December 2022.
9. Did not indicate why it had increased the compensation award to £15,000.
10. Did not write to the resident to set out that it had agreed to issue a £15,000 compensation award and what this was for. Instead it transferred the money into her bank account without giving her any prior notice.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to address drainage concerns in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to address damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of repairs to the skirting boards and decorating works in the property.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for vet bills due to the condition of the garden..
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for compensation for damage caused to the fridge.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete effective repairs to the drainage system in the property within reasonable timescales. The landlord considered that it had found a resolution to the drainage issues. However information provided to this Service indicates that the matter had not been fully resolved.
The landlord failed to complete effective damp and mould repairs in the property within a reasonable timescale. Nor did it establish a treatment plan to address the damp and mould issues it had itself identified. The landlord painted over an area of damp when completing decorative repairs in the bathroom without first completing mould treatment works.
The landlord recognised that it was appropriate to complete repairs to the skirting board and decoration in the property. However its contractors did not complete works to an acceptable standard, and it did not offer an apology for the detriment the matters caused to the resident.
The landlord agreed to consider the resident’s request for reimbursement of the veterinary fees she had incurred due to the laid grass seed and her dog’s injury. The resident asked the resident to provide a copy of the bills to confirm that it was liable for the veterinary fees.
The landlord provided a compensation payment for the replacement of a fridge freezer in a bank transfer in made into her bank account in December 2022. It agreed to consider the compensation request when the resident had defrosted the fridge and produced an engineer’s report to confirm the damage.
There were a series of administration errors in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints. The landlord failed to record or understand the reasons for the resident’s compensation request, prior to awarding the payment which it did without notice or written confirmation.

Orders and recommendations

The landlord is ordered to apologise to the resident for its failings in identifying and completing repairs to the drainage system, its response to the reports of damp and mould, the behaviour of its contractor and the quality of its decoration works, and for its complaint handling failures. This is to be provided in writing within 4 weeks of the date of this report.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord is ordered to inspect the property to assess if any outstanding repairs to the drainage system, internal damage caused as a result of the drainage system are required or treatment required for damp and mould. If works are required the landlord should send the resident and this Service details of the works, together with a timetable for the works to be carried out within 2 weeks of inspecting the property.
In accordance with paragraph 54(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is ordered to carry out a comprehensive review of its practices in relation to its management of damp and mould at the property. The review must be carried out within 12 weeks and be conducted by a senior figure within a team independent of the service areas responsible for the failings identified by this investigation. The review must include how the failings identified can be avoided in future and as a minimum (but is not limited to) the following:
1. The completion of a self-assessment based upon the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight report on damp and mould.
2. The use of specialist equipment and/or advice to ensure the accurate diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of damp and mould.
3. Communication with the residents about the diagnosis, treatment, and assessment of damp and mould in the property.
4. The landlord should make sure the review and recommendations are reported to the appropriate governing body.
5. The landlord should also make sure its staff are aware of the existence and content of the report.
The landlord is recommended to review whether it has reached agreement with the resident about her compensation request for veterinary bills and damage to the fridge. The landlord is recommended to contact the resident to request copies of the veterinary bills and the engineer’s report as stated in its stage 2 complaint response.