Sovereign Network Homes (202220635)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202220635

Sovereign Network Homes

28 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 handling of the resident’s:
1. reports of damp and mould in the basement of the property;
2. reports of ventilation issues and that vents had not been changed;
3. reports of a leak in the bathroom causing water to leak into the kitchen;
4. reports of cracks on the walls and ceilings;
5. concerns about the structural stability of the property;
6. associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds an assured tenancy with the landlord which commenced in January 2017 via a succession. The resident’s family has lived in the property for over 40 years. The property is a 5-bedroom, 3-storey terraced house. It has a disused basement that was sealed before the resident moved in.
The landlord has informed this Service that it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident’s household, although numerous references to health conditions are made within the records provided. The resident’s adult stepson, who lives with him in the property, was diagnosed with cancer in February 2022.
Throughout the events of this investigation, the resident has been represented by his stepson in his dealings with the landlord and this Service. For the purposes of this report, both are referred to as ‘the resident’.
Day-to-day housing services relating to the property are delivered by a housing management company (‘the management company’) for which the landlord is the parent company. While the landlord is responsible for the actions of the management company and its contractors as well as actions it takes directly, this report distinguishes between the landlord and management company where the distinction is relevant to the circumstances of the complaint.
The management company’s responsive repairs policy states that the management company is responsible for keeping in good repair the structure, interior and exterior of its properties, including fixtures and fittings. It is also responsible for keeping in good repair and proper working order all installations for the supply of water, gas and electricity. The tenant is responsible for certain repairs including internal painting and decorating and minor cracks to plaster, although the management company will make good any plasterwork or damaged decorations resulting from its error.
The responsive repairs policy divides repairs into 3 categories: emergency repairs, which are attended within 24 hours; urgent repairs, which are completed within 7 days; and routine repairs, which are completed within 28 days. In exceptional circumstances, if a routine repair will take longer than 28 days, this will be communicated to the resident including the expected timescale. Emergency repairs include lack of heating and/or hot water, serious water leaks that cannot be contained or affect electrics, and ceiling collapse. The landlord, rather than the management company, is responsible for making decisions relating to planned and cyclical works.
The management company’s damp, mould and condensation policy and procedure document states the management company’s aim to ensure that its residents are housed in dry, warm and safe homes, and that all reports of damp and mould are taken seriously and dealt with effectively. It further states that all cases of damp and mould will be investigated and resolved in a timely manner, with effective investigations and remedial repair solutions/improvements to be carried out to eradicate damp and third party specialists used where required. The document cites ‘blocked or broken ventilation’ as a contributory factor to damp and mould. When a resident reports damp and mould, the management company will document this and carry out an inspection within 48 hours. The management company’s responsibilities relating to damp and mould include signposting residents to organisations who can provide financial advice and assist with energy costs.
The management company’s pre- and post-inspection policy and procedure document states that the management company intends to minimise use of pre-inspections. However, a pre-inspection may be necessary where a work schedule is required to cover major or multiple repairs, or where a previous repair has not solved the problem. Post-inspections are carried out for all jobs costing over £1,000 (where access can be gained), and 10% of other jobs.
The landlord and management company operate a 2-stage complaints process. The management company will log and acknowledge complaints within 5 working days of receipt. It will then respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stage 2. Where it is unable to meet these timescales, it will send a holding letter to the complainant explaining the reasons for the delay and providing a new target response date.
The management company’s complaints policy states that it will only accept complaints from its named tenants, although other household members can act as advocates where signed authorisation is provided. The complaints policy does not apply when the complainant has not raised their concerns within 6 months of the issue(s) occurring, or has not previously made the management company aware of the issue. The management company may treat concerns raised as a service request rather than a complaint if it believes it can resolve them within 2 working days. Tenants may complain using its online form, by email, by phone, in person, or by letter.
The landlord’s compensation policy (also adopted by the management company) states that compensation may be awarded in cases where maladministration is identified – for example, taking too long to do something, not following policies or the law, breaking a promise, giving the wrong information, or treating someone unfairly. There must also have been an injustice or adverse consequence of its actions. In assessing compensation the landlord and management company will consider whether any quantifiable losses have occurred, as well as the time and trouble invested by a tenant and any distress and inconvenience caused.
Compensation is calculated according to the level of impact, with awards being made of £5 per week for low impact, £10 per week for medium impact, and £20 per week for major impact (with possible injury to health). This tariff may be used separately in relation to both delay and distress, whereas time and trouble is compensated at a rate of between £1 and £5 per week. In addition, the landlord and management company will pay £20 per week for loss of heating during the winter months (September to April). They will also usually reimburse a complainant for costs incurred solely as a result of a fault on its part.

Summary of events

The management company’s repair records show that the resident’s family reported damp in several rooms of the property in 2012, 2013 and 2014. They also reported cracks and a sloping ceiling in 2014, and leaks affecting various rooms in 2014, 2016, 2017, 2021 and 2022. Due to the length of time that has passed, limited information is available in relation to the nature of these issues and action taken by the management company in response.
In July 2022 the management company’s surveyor visited the property to assess the outstanding repair issues and produced a specification of works. However, the required works were not then passed on to relevant contractors.
On 17 November 2022 the resident made a complaint to the landlord via email. His email began with the words: “THIS IS A FORMAL COMPLAINT.” It stated that:
1. The resident had reported repairs to the landlord on 12 April 2013 (when his late father was the tenant of the property). Some of the issues were first reported over 10 years ago. However, the landlord had not yet confirmed when the repairs would be carried out and the issues fixed. The resident and his father had tried to complain previously but nothing had been done.
2. He was concerned because the outstanding repairs were causing damage to his home, making the property unsafe for his family, and affecting his health.
3. The ongoing repair issues were:
  1. Damp and mould throughout the property;
  2. Poor ventilation throughout the property, with air vents not having been replaced for over 40 years and becoming blocked;
  3. Damaged windows throughout the property and no insulation;
  4. A leak in the bathroom;
  5. Cracks on the internal and external walls and ceilings;
  6. Rats, mice and other pests in the property;
  7. Structural instability;
  8. Heating, hot water and plumbing issues, with the central heating not working in most rooms;
  9. A smell of gas;
  10. Concerns about carbon monoxide poisoning and structural damage associated with the coal cellar beneath the property.
4. He asked that the repairs were carried out within the next couple of weeks.
5. He had checked the tenancy agreement and noted that the landlord had a responsibility to carry out repairs within a reasonable timeframe.
6. He was seeking compensation for “negligence and lack of morals”.
7. He felt he had been ignored by his housing officer on numerous occasions when he had made complaints in person and over the phone. The housing officer had agreed that work had not been done in the property for over 10 years, but had taken no action to resolve the ongoing repair issues.
8. The situation was causing him “mental stress” and he believed it had contributed to his stepson being diagnosed with Hodgkin lymphoma. He also felt the landlord had disrespected and discriminated against his family.
9. His family was experiencing financial difficulties due to the cost of living crisis and rising fuel costs. The outstanding repairs, such as a lack of insulation in the property, were making this worse. He asked the landlord to intervene as “we can’t afford to go another winter without help”.
On 19 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord to provide more detail in relation to some aspects of his complaint and the impact on him. He asked it to provide a schedule of works and an anticipated completion date for the repairs within 20 working days. He also asked it to provide its proposals for compensation, to include reimbursement of costs he incurred as a result of the landlord’s inaction.
On 23 November 2022 the landlord confirmed receipt of the resident’s email and said it was sorry to hear about the issues he was experiencing in his property. It told him it had forwarded his emails to the management company, and asked him to contact the management company directly in future. It provided an email address for the management company, but this was incorrect.
On 30 November 2022, having received no further contact from the landlord or management company, the resident forwarded his complaint to the management company (using the correct email address which he had obtained from this Service). The management company responded the same day and confirmed that it would “look into this matter … as a matter of urgency”. The resident replied noting that the landlord had given him an incorrect email address. The management company apologised on behalf of the landlord that an incorrect email address had been provided.
On 2 December 2022 the resident re-sent his complaint to the management company. In addition to the outstanding repairs listed in his original complaint, he noted that there were “many more issues to be addressed once the property has been checked”. He said that the conditions of the property made him feel “sick, faint, confused and disoriented at times”. He also said they were causing him anxiety, lack of sleep, aches and pains, breathing difficulties, and depression. He told the management company he was worried about how he could pay his bills, as he was paying all of his Universal Credit into the electric meter just to keep warm.
On 5 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord about his stage 1 complaint. He said that he had not received a response to his complaint, and that information he had received was misleading (such as the incorrect email address). He copied his email to his MP and to this Service, and asked the landlord to escalate his complaint to stage 2.
On 6 December 2022 the landlord replied to the resident and apologised that he had not yet received a response to his complaint. It said it would pass the matter on to a manager, and confirmed that 2 email addresses quoted by the resident in his email were correct. It also stated that it was unable to liaise with the resident’s stepson regarding repairs and complaints, as he was not the tenancy holder. It advised that if the resident wanted someone to represent him, he needed to complete an authority form. The resident liaised further with the landlord regarding the authority form on 6 December 2022, and subsequently confirmed that he had completed the form the same day. The landlord told him the authority form would be processed in the next few days, and that its management company would visit him the following day.
The management company visited the resident as planned on 7 December 2022. The resident emailed the management company to follow up the visit, outlining the issues with the heating and windows and the impact on him, and the management company’s officer replied that “as promised, I will get the issues progressed immediately and keep you updated”.
On 13 December 2022 the resident emailed the landlord and management company with the subject line “stage 1 complaint follow up”. He repeated his concerns about disrepair in his property and the lack of action. He said the central heating was inadequate, and the contractor that installed the boiler – which had visited him the previous day – was “not interested”. The landlord replied on 15 December 2022 that it had forwarded the resident’s email to the relevant department. It said it could not accept the email as a complaint as the resident’s stepson still did not have authority to represent him. On 16 December 2022 the resident told the landlord he had already completed the authority form, and on 21 December 2022 the landlord confirmed that it had received the completed authority form and raised a stage 1 complaint. It said it would respond by 10 January 2023.
On 12 January 2023, having received no response to his complaint, the resident emailed the landlord again. He noted that repair work had started but he was unhappy with the way it was being carried out. He felt the contractor and surveyor were covering up structural damage and trying to save money. The resident said the contractor had cleared coal from the basement on 11 January 2023, but there was a hole beneath the property through which water entered each time it rained. He said the landlord needed to address the damp issue, and fully dry the walls before plastering them. He also said that an operative who came to fix his heating had damaged a radiator. Finally, he said that while a contractor had taken measurements for new windows, he was awaiting a date for the windows to be replaced. In the meantime a breeze was getting in and the property remained cold. He told the landlord he now considered this a stage 2 complaint.
The same day (12 January 2023), the landlord replied to the resident and attached a stage 1 response it had posted to him on 10 January 2023. This related to heating issues and the contractor that had installed his boiler. The landlord explained that the issues listed by the resident in his email of 12 January 2023 were not included in the stage 1 complaint it had responded to.
The resident replied that he found it “unacceptable and unfair” that the landlord was only looking at one aspect of his complaint. He agreed that the heating was the main issue as it was impacting him financially, but pointed out that he had included many other repair issues in his complaint. He also said that the landlord had disregarded previous complaints he had tried to make that were not in writing. He said the landlord’s proposal was unacceptable as it was “not looking at the bigger picture” and addressing issues such as leaks, cracks and damp. He asked it to send a stage 2 response within 20 working days.
On 16 January 2023 the landlord told the resident that any other repair issues would need to be addressed in a separate stage 1 complaint. It asked him to confirm why he was dissatisfied with its response to the heating issues in order to escalate that complaint to stage 2. The same day, the landlord’s contractor submitted a quote to the landlord for asphalting works relating to the resident’s front garden. The job stated that the work should be carried out in a way that allowed cross air ventilation.
On 18 January 2023 and 6 February 2023, the resident contacted the landlord again about the repair issues he had complained about and the outcome he sought. On 9 February 2023 the landlord repeated its position that the only stage 1 complaint it had raised was in relation to the heating. It said it had asked its management company to contact the resident to confirm what works were outstanding and its plan to resolve them. The resident took issue with an update from the management company quoted by the landlord, as he said there had been no workmen in his property for weeks. He again sent the landlord his original complaint.
On 10 February 2023 the Ombudsman wrote to the landlord and asked it to respond to the resident’s complaint made on 17 November 2022. The same day, the landlord confirmed to this Service and the resident that it had raised a further stage 1 complaint and would respond by 24 February 2023. It forwarded the complaint to the management company to respond.
On 12 February 2023 the management company’s stage 1 responder told the resident that, while they understood his frustration regarding the repair issues at his property, they were “somewhat disappointed by the content” of his recent email. They noted that the management company had been communicating with the resident by phone and he had previously said he was pleased things were moving. They also referred to an earlier conversation in which the management company had advised there was a lead time of up to 12 weeks for new windows, and the resident had said that was fine.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord told the resident that it would not escalate his recent complaint to stage 2 as it had not yet responded at stage 1. It confirmed that, as part of its stage 1 response, it would investigate why the multiple repairs complaint was not raised when the resident first requested this.
The management company formally acknowledged the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 21 February 2023, and sent a response dated 24 February 2023 on 25 February 2023 (with input by the landlord). The response stated that:
1. The landlord thanked the resident for contacting it on 17 November 2022. It was sorry to hear that he was unhappy with the services provided.
2. It had reviewed its records between 1 November 2021 and 17 November 2022 to check if any of the 12 repair issues raised by the resident had been reported to it previously, or if they were new issues. It only accepted complaints where the issues occurred within the last 6 months.
3. It understood the management company’s surveyor visited the resident’s property in July 2022 and captured a number of outstanding repairs. Following this visit, a specification of works was compiled. However, due to an oversight the necessary jobs were not raised with its contractor at the time.
4. In relation to the repairs raised by the resident in his complaint:
  1. The damp and mould in the property was treated by its contractor in January 2023.
  2. All ventilation issues had now been rectified by its contractor.
  3. Replacement windows had been approved but there was a lead time of up to 12 weeks. Its contractor would install 18 windows and 1 door between 2 and 10 March 2023.
  4. It understood there were further works to be completed in the bathroom.
  5. All the cracks in the walls and ceilings had been rectified by its contractor.
  6. It had no record of pest issues, and was more than happy to resolve this if the problem still existed.
  7. It was unable to establish whether there were any structural issues affecting the property, and would carry out further investigation of this.
  8. The resident had previously confirmed that heating, hot water and plumbing issues were resolved by its contractor in December 2023.
  9. The odour in the property appeared to have been linked to the coal in the basement. This had now been removed by its contractor.
  10. The issue with unstable or broken banisters had been rectified by its contractor.
  11. It could not see that a leaking roof or water damage to ceilings had been reported within the last 12 months. This would therefore be a new repair issue and not a complaint.
5. In relation to the complaint itself:
  1. The resident had used 2 different email addresses when corresponding with it about his complaint. It summarised the dates that each email address had been used.
  2. It noted that it was sometimes difficult for it to see how and when complaints were sent, as both email addresses were used or copied in, and at times responses to emails were sent from a different email address.
  3. It accepted that it had given the resident an incorrect email address for its management company on 23 November 2022. The management company had apologised for this error.
  4. It denied giving the resident an incorrect email address on a second occasion, and was not sure why the resident believed it had done so. It invited the resident to forward it bounce-backs he said he had received on 6 December 2022 so that it could look into this further.
  5. It had required the resident to complete an authority form before it was able to liaise with his stepson on his behalf. It confirmed which email address the authority applied to.
  6. On 21 December 2022 it had raised a stage 1 complaint relating to heating issues and its contractor. When the resident asked to escalate this on 12 January 2023, it was unable to do so as the repairs referred to in the escalation request were not included in the stage 1 complaint.
  7. It believed it should have raised the resident’s second stage 1 complaint on 16 January 2023.
  8. It could not locate a response to the resident’s email of 18 January 2023, in which he said he was unhappy with its responses so far. The landlord had forwarded this email to the management company for consideration.
  9. It agreed that on more than one occasion it missed opportunities to address the authority issue, and then to accept or refuse complaints. It awarded £60 compensation for this failure.
6. It noted that the resident’s stepson had been verbally abusive to its operatives who visited on 23 February 2023. As a result, the contractor would not be returning to complete the works. In future it would only complete works if the resident’s stepson was not in the property when works were being carried out. It was paramount that its staff and contractors were dealt with in a respectful manner.
7. It upheld the resident’s complaint “on the basis that we are able to complete the outstanding repairs with your [stepson] not present”. Should the resident’s stepson be present, it would instruct operatives to cease working.
8. Going forward it would ensure its systems were more robust to prevent recurrence of the delays that occurred. Follow-up action would be taken to obtain status updates of outstanding repairs from residents.
9. It would also invest more in seeking feedback from residents regarding the services it provided, and seek to improve where required.
10. It hoped its response reassured the resident that it had listened to his concerns. If he was dissatisfied with its findings, he could ask for his complaint to be escalated to stage 2 within 30 days.
The resident sent 3 emails in reply to the management company the same day (25 February 2023). He confirmed that the heating issue had been fixed, but said other repairs had not been finished. He referred to an incident on 23 February 2023 when he felt a contractor was using the wrong tools for the job; he told them to do the job properly and the contractor shouted at him, so he asked the contractor to leave. He said the management company had no right to say his stepson could not be there when work was carried out. He believed it was “lying and story-telling” and “trying to be difficult because I don’t stand for [its] rubbish way of working”. He asked for someone to check the standard of work, and said he would appoint his own surveyor and a disrepair solicitor.
On 3 April 2023 the resident requested to escalate his complaint to stage 2. He said that:
1. He was dissatisfied with the pace at which work was being carried out in his property. On many occasions housing officers and contractors had been in his property, but work had not started.
2. He felt the information provided regarding repairs was misleading. In particular:
  1. There was still damp and mould in his property, especially in the areas where coal was removed from the basement. Contrary to the update provided, the contractor did not treat this in January 2023. The contractor had recommended use of a dehumidifier, but he had not received one.
  2. The ventilation issues had not been rectified as requested by the surveyor. The vents had not been changed.
  3. The bath and floor were leaking, which was causing water to leak into the kitchen beneath.
  4. All the cracks in the walls and ceiling were still visible.
  5. There had still been no investigation into the structural instability of the property.
3. He believed there was still a lot that needed to be done. He requested a date for completion of the repairs outlined in his stage 1 complaint, and details of further actions that would be taken to rectify the outstanding issues.
The management company confirmed receipt of the escalation request on 4 April 2023 and said it had forwarded it to its central complaints team. The management company then told the resident his enquiry was being treated as a stage 2 complaint on 6 April 2023.
On 3 May 2023 the management company contacted the resident to say that it had been trying to arrange a suitable time for its surveyor to visit him with a contractor to assess the bathroom leak. The resident replied that he was available on 4 May 2023, and the management company confirmed that its surveyor would be in touch.
The management company issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint on 5 May 2023. This stated that:
1. It was sorry to hear that the resident was unhappy was the stage 1 outcome, and thanked him for his patience while it investigated. It could see that the resident’s stage 1 complaint did not seem to have been addressed and that he had not been updated.
2. In relation to the repair issues raised:
  1. Between 13 December 2022 and 23 February 2023, 8 ventilators were replaced in the property and a new fan was installed in the bathroom. It would investigate why these fixes had not improved the ventilation issue.
  2. Also between 13 December 2022 and 23 February 2023, its contractor had applied sealant to the walls and ceilings in the kitchen and toilet, decorated these rooms, removed wallpaper in the hallway, renewed defective plaster. It would assess whether the remaining cracks were in the newly decorated areas and arrange further redecoration.
  3. On 11 January 2023 its contractor removed rubble and cleared the basement. The contractor did not report any damp and mould in the basement.
  4. On 17 February 2023 its contractor drained a valve, tightened pipework, and fixed a leak to the radiator in the kitchen.
  5. Its contractor also removed damaged surfaces in the toilet and kitchen, redecorated, and renewed the flooring in the bathroom.
  6. It had left voicemail messages on the resident’s phone on 25 and 26 April 2023 to arrange for a surveyor to visit and check if there was adequate ventilation in the property.
  7. It had delivered a dehumidifier on 3 May 2023 to place in the basement. As there was no electric output in the basement, it would deliver an extension cable in order for the dehumidifier to work. Delivery of the cable had been delayed, but it expected to bring it the following week. It would then visit weekly to empty the dehumidifier.
  8. It did not have any records of a leak in the bathroom, and would like to arrange for its contractor to attend to fix this.
  9. It would carry out a structural stability assessment and keep the resident informed of its findings and timeframes.
3. Its new technical surveyor would like to make an appointment to address the outstanding issues, for which it would then raise the appropriate repairs. It had sometimes found it hard to contact the resident, and so asked him to let it know a convenient time to call and book in the appointment. It had been unable to speak to him during a pre-arranged call on 4 May 2023.
4. It upheld his complaint, and as well as endeavouring to complete the required repairs, it would use his experience to prevent similar issues from happening again.
5. It offered the resident compensation of £120. This amount had been calculated in accordance with its compensation policy, which awarded £10 per week (starting from the stage 1 complaint). It recognised that the issues had caused significant inconvenience and taken multiple attempts to resolve, involving considerable time and effort.

Post complaint

On 10 May 2023 the management company inspected the resident’s property. The resulting report stated that:
1. There were cracks along the junction of the wall and ceiling in the living room. These extended around the whole perimeter of the room. There was also some water damage near the radiator. The radiator issue had been resolved and repairs would be scoped once the area had dried out. The severity of the cracks did not indicate subsidence and could have resulted from settlement of the fabric of the building (vibration over time).
2. The dining room was suffering a similar issue and had more cracks along the junction of the ceiling in the same areas. The ceiling had cracks that may lead to a section of ceiling or the entire ceiling being taken down, reboarded and reskimmed.
3. The coal cellar was the source of damp smells that were emanating from the vents in all rooms. The management company had removed over 40 bags of damp mulch that had built up over time in the area. A dehumidifier had been used to draw excess moisture away from the walls over a 6-week period. Extensive works had also been undertaken to the front garden to prevent rainwater penetrating into the cellar. The immediate issue had been alleviated and as a longer-solution the wall may be tanked. This would be considered major works and would require senior management approval. Draught excluders would be applied to the cellar doors.
4. The stairwell was “riddled with cracks, chips and flaking plasterwork” to the walls and underside of the staircases. These extended from the ground floor to the top floor. Large sections of plaster had delaminated from the wall beneath the wallpaper. The worst affected area was the second floor landing, but the first floor landing was also affected. Defective plaster would be hacked away and reskimmed, but the management company would not redecorate or rehang wallpaper as this was the tenant’s responsibility.
5. There was clear evidence of a leak from the bath and the kitchen ceiling below was near to collapse. An operative had attended to trace the leak but no leak was found. During the inspection, it was observed that the bath leaked when weight was placed on it. The bathroom had exceeded its life expectancy and an application would be made for a complete upgrade. There were a number of issues with the bathroom that needed to be addressed, including relocation of the bath and upgrading of pipework, framing, bath panel and water damaged timber.
6. The kitchen ceiling showed signs of suffering a leak for a long time. The ceiling was bowing during a previous inspection and had now been taken down as a safety measure. Salt deposits from the bathroom leak were evident and 1-2 of the exposed rafters required repair. The kitchen ceiling would be reinstated when works to the bathroom had been completed. A window lock had been reported as defective and the handle would be renewed.
7. There was a large crack in the rear garden wall, which was “on its last legs”. The landlord would need to decide whether the wall should be demolished and rebuilt. In the meantime the management company would focus on a 12-foot section of the wall that was cracked. It would contact the owner of the neighbouring property to arrange a joint inspection.
8. The master bedroom was suffering water penetration from the other neighbouring property and/or the chimney stack needed checking. There was evidence of moisture which could be minor condensation due to lack of ventilation. There was an absence of airbricks, and some water damage beneath the bay windows. This would be monitored and addressed following further investigation. The master bedroom door and another bedroom door required replacement.
9. The report listed the repairs recommended for each room, comprising 25 items in total.
An internal email by the management company on 10 May 2023 noted that a dehumidifier had been provided to the resident, and that it would return to his property on 12 May 2023 to check the accumulated water.
The resident referred his complaint to this Service on 19 July 2023. In his referral he noted that:
1. The windows in the property had now been replaced, and a radiator leak affecting the kitchen wall and toilet had been fixed.
2. The dehumidifier in the basement had now been running continuously for 2 months and incurred significant running costs. Nobody had visited weekly to empty it as promised.
3. In assessing whether there was damp and mould in the basement, the management company relied on the conclusions of an unqualified contractor whose job was to remove the rubble.
4. No vents had been replaced other than the bathroom ventilation system. No other measures had been implemented to address the ventilation issue.
5. He disagreed that he had not previously reported the bathroom leak.
6. Besides the kitchen and toilet, no rectification of water damage had taken place by way of wallpapering, decorating and plastering. Holes and cracks had emerged in the ceiling, which caused a hazardous situation with risk of falling debris harming his family. These repairs had been left to him.
7. He was still awaiting a surveyor’s assessment to determine the presence of any structural instability.
8. He felt the landlord’s communications were “riddled with contradictions, evasive statements, and lack of transparency” and it had not given a clear account of its actions. He believed it was “selectively addressing certain issues while neglecting others”.
9. He considered the compensation offered to be inadequate, as the repairs had not yet been fully completed and inspected, and the amount offered did not cover the out-of-pocket costs he had incurred. He would not accept any compensation until the work had been completed to his satisfaction.
The resident also sent a copy of his referral email to the landlord. On 20 July 2023 the landlord said it was treating his email as a request to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Later the same day, it noted that it had already responded at stage 2 and apologised for any confusion caused. It said it would liaise with repairs colleagues to get an update on the outstanding works by 26 July 2023.
On 16 August 2023 the management company’s surveyor submitted a request for capital works in the resident’s bathroom. The proposed works involved renewal of the bath, pipework, flooring, tiling, extractor fan, bath panel, wash hand basin, and towel rail. They also involved possible reconfiguration of the bathroom layout to simplify the waste route for the bath, and decoration.
An internal email by the management company on 29 August 2023 stated that the resident had expected an engineer to attend that morning to finish some repairs, but they had not arrived by 12.26pm. The management company asked for the time of the visit to be checked and the resident updated. It also noted that the resident wished to make a further complaint. The repair job quoted in the management company’s email had been raised on 2 June 2023 and was due for completion by 30 June 2023.
On 2 October 2023 the resident contacted the management company’s stage 2 responder regarding a number of unresolved issues, including the compensation offered and further “challenges and setbacks”. He requested a review of his case followed by “a more consistent and accurate response”.
On 5 October 2023 the management company requested information internally “to prevent this escalating to the Housing Ombudsman”. It later chased this information on 25 October 2023.
Also on 25 October 2023, the management company invited the resident to its offices to discuss his case. It subsequently met with him on 30 October 2023. An email sent to the resident following the meeting thanked the resent for meeting with the management company and its surveyor, and stated that:
1. The management company was sorry for the delay in carrying out repairs.
2. A transition from one contractor to another had impacted on its ability to deliver a good service.
3. Due to a lack of resources between 2022 and early 2023, it had not been carrying out post-inspections following repairs. This affected the works carried out by its contractor between December 2022 and February 2023.
4. To address the outstanding issues and the resident’s concerns, it would take the following actions:
  1. Address the ceiling and walls affected by damp and mould in the basement as part of major works. This would be carried out once other works to the property were complete, and in the interim it would provide draught excluders to reduce cold air travelling up from the basement.
  2. Assess the vents in the property, including the chimney vent.
  3. Arrange for a contractor to visit the same week in relation to the recurring bathroom leak. As a temporary fix it could move the toilet closer to the waste pipe. Due to the age of the property, the pipework needed replacing, but this would only be considered once a full bathroom upgrade had been authorised.
  4. Arrange for a contractor to carry out decoration at the earliest opportunity (following replastering of cracks), and liaise with the owner of the neighbouring property to assess the wall from the other side.
  5. Investigate the dip in the floor when carrying out works to the basement.
  6. Arrange a drone survey in relation to a roof leak.
  7. Investigate a recurring leak in the kitchen, possibly from next door.
  8. Explore options for dealing with woodchip wallpaper in the hallway.
  9. Instruct pest controllers to attend in relation to a suspected infestation of bedbugs.
On 22 November 2023 the management company asked the resident how things had been progressing since the meeting on 30 October 2023. In his reply, the resident expressed his concern and frustration regarding the delayed commencement of works to the property, particularly in relation to a persistent leak. He said he was disheartened to hear that the landlord had refused funding for “a comprehensive solution”. He felt that, as well as being inconvenient, the recurring leaks created an unsafe environment that could result in electric shock (as water had entered a ceiling light). He also said he had become aware of record keeping issues where jobs were not fully documented on databases. He asked for the outstanding works to be completed urgently, particularly to his kitchen ceiling which was boarded up.
In an update provided to this Service on 13 February 2024, the resident advised that there was now a green substance covering the walls and pipes in the basement; that ventilation issues continued; that work had not commenced to fix the bathroom leak; that 80% of the cracks on the walls and ceilings had been fixed; that no structural inspection had taken place to address dips in the floor; and that other repair issues had arisen since his complaint. He said the landlord had offered him compensation of £25 per week throughout the repair period, which had now extended to nearly a year. He had not accepted this.
Correspondence between the resident and management company in March 2024 indicated that the resident was satisfied with the standard of the bathroom renovation, but that damage to the kitchen ceiling remained unresolved. The resident said some recently replaced vents were poor quality and already detaching from the walls. The management company replied that its surveyor had now left and proposed an inspection by a different surveyor. The resident asked it to provide a detailed and timebound plan of action.

Assessment and findings

Terminology

In this section, references to ‘the landlord’ may include the management company. Distinction between the two will be made only where this is relevant to the Ombudsman’s findings. Where failures are found and orders made, it is for the landlord to decide whether actions are completed by itself or the management company.

Scope of investigation

Under paragraph 42a of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which are made prior to having exhausted a member landlord’s complaints procedure. More recent issues raised by the resident – such as concerns about woodchip wallpaper and a suspected bedbug infestation – are therefore not included in the current investigation, as they were not addressed in the landlord’s stage 1 and 2 complaint responses. Similarly, some aspects of the resident’s original complaint which were dealt with as a separate complaint or not escalated to stage 2 – such as heating issues, damaged windows, broken banisters, and a rodent infestation – fall outside the scope of this investigation. The resident may make a further complaint to the landlord regarding these matters (or request to escalate matters already addressed at stage 1), and he may subsequently refer any such complaints to this Service if he is dissatisfied with the landlord’s response.
Under paragraph 42c of the Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally 6 months of the matter arising). Therefore, while some events prior to 2022 have been briefly summarised in this report by way of context, the focus on this investigation is on events from July 2022 onwards. The Ombudsman appreciates that the resident says he had previously attempted to complain to the landlord verbally about the same repair issues, and this has been taken into consideration.
It is important to note that the Ombudsman is unable to determine whether the landlord’s action or inaction caused or worsened a health condition. Such matters are best suited for investigation via the courts or a personal injury insurance claim.

Damp and mould in the basement

It is unclear from the information provided which works were included in the specification produced by the landlord’s surveyor in July 2022 (and not subsequently raised with contractors). The repair logs indicate that the resident reported a bad smell coming from the basement on or around 27 October 2022; bad smells in other areas of the property, which may or may not have been related to the damp and mould in the basement, had previously been reported on 20 September 2022 and 20 October 2022. Despite 2 of these 3 reports having target response times of 7 days, there is no confirmation that any action was taken. While the repair logs sent to this Service are in spreadsheet format and so may have been imported from the system on which they were originally inputted, it would have been helpful for a completion date and any comments following each repair to be included. This may have assisted the landlord in having effective oversight of its repairs and avoiding the confusion outlined.
The resident’s complaint of 17 November 2022 referred to damp and mould throughout the property, concerns about the basement area which contained coal and had previously been sealed off, and a gas-like smell. The complaint was made 3 months before the landlord’s damp and mould policy was introduced in February 2023. There is no evidence that the landlord took steps later required by the policy such as conducting an inspection within 48 hours, completing a ‘damp and condensation’ form with the resident, providing a copy of its damp and condensation leaflet to him, or adding his report to its damp and mould tracker. While it is understandable that the landlord did not complete actions which did not yet form part of its policy, these actions also do not appear to have been completed or considered when the policy came into effect.
Following the resident’s complaint about various repair issues, it was appropriate for the landlord to visit the property, although the visit took place nearly 3 weeks later on 7 December 2022. The landlord apparently did not raise any work orders relating to the basement until 15 December 2022, almost a month after the resident had referred to the damp and mould issues in his complaint. It then did not remove coal and rubble from the basement until 11 January 2023. This delay of almost 8 weeks was excessive, and avoidably prolonged the resident’s concerns about damp, mould and possible health impacts such as carbon monoxide poisoning. In addition, the landlord did not allay the resident’s concerns about carbon monoxide – for example, by checking he had working carbon monoxide alarms in his property and explaining any likely alternative cause of the smell.
At the time of the landlord’s stage 1 response, its position was that the damp and mould issue in the basement had been resolved. This was because its contractor tasked with removing the coal and rubble did not identify any damp and mould. However, it was inappropriate for the landlord to assume that the absence of a proactive report by its contractor indicated the absence of any continued issues. It is unclear from the information provided whether the contractor in question was qualified or experienced in dealing with damp and mould, or whether it was specifically asked to comment on any damp and mould that may be present. When the resident raised concerns in his escalation request about the contractor’s qualifications, ongoing damp and mould, and a lack of follow-up on the contractor’s recommendation for a dehumidifier, the landlord did not respond with appropriate understanding and empathy. It therefore missed an opportunity to alleviate the resident’s concerns by giving assurance regarding its contractor’s qualifications and taking further positive action to deal with the damp and mould. It also did not provide a dehumidifier until a month later (on 3 May 2023), which was unsatisfactory.
When the dehumidifier was provided, delivery of an extension cable was delayed. While this no doubt caused further frustration to the resident, it was likely outside the landlord’s control, and the landlord acted appropriately by recommending use of draught excluders. However, it had not supplied the draught excluders by the time of its meeting with the resident 5 months later (on 30 October 2023). This delay was excessive, particularly given the straightforward nature of the action. According to the resident, the landlord also did not carry out the weekly visits it promised to empty the dehumidifier. This no doubt undermined the resident’s confidence in the landlord’s commitment to resolving the issues he was experiencing. At the time the resident referred his complaint to this Service, he advised that the dehumidifier had been running continuously for 2 months, causing him to worry about the impact on his utility costs. The resident had repeatedly told the landlord about his financial difficulties, but there is no evidence that it signposted him to relevant support agencies for assistance, which was unacceptable.
The landlord told the resident on 31 October 2023 that it intended to address the ceilings and walls affected by damp and mould in the basement as part of major works once all other works were completed. While delay of cosmetic works may have been justifiable – and it was good practice for the landlord to explain its decision making to the resident – the green substance found on walls and pipes in the basement in February 2023 indicated that the underlying damp and mould issues were ongoing. This meant that the damp and mould problems were not fully resolved 15 months after the resident complained about them in November 2022. The length of this delay far exceeded the landlord’s maximum 28-day timeframe for repairs, and was at odds with the landlord’s policy commitment of resolving damp and mould in a timely manner. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not take the resident’s reports sufficiently seriously or do enough to put things right when he expressed his concerns. As a result of the delays and the inadequate level of redress offered for these, a finding of severe maladministration has been made.

Ventilation issues and vents not changed

After the resident raised ventilation issues in his complaint, the landlord said its contractor replaced 8 ventilators and installed a new fan in the bathroom between 13 December 2022 and 23 February 2023. The resident disagreed that the vent replacement took place. While the Ombudsman cannot say for certain what works were carried out by the contractor, it is concerning that the landlord could not provide a specific date or documentary evidence of the works being completed. There is no reference to vent replacement in the repair logs provided to this Service. The landlord later explained that it had experienced issues associated with a change in contractor and had not been carrying out post-inspections of works due to resourcing issues in 2022 and 2023. This supports the resident’s claim that the vents were not replaced as the landlord believed.
Once the resident told the landlord (in his escalation request) that the vents had not been changed and the ventilation issue had not been rectified, it was appropriate for the landlord to attempt to arrange an inspection. While it took 3 weeks to do so, this caused no significant additional detriment to the resident and it was reasonable of the landlord to class the ventilation assessment as a routine repair. It had also evidently taken steps to ensure that asphalting works carried out in or around January 2023 allowed for cross ventilation of the area.
The landlord was initially unable to contact the resident about the inspection, despite making suitable efforts to do so via phone calls, voicemails, email and its stage 2 complaint response. When the inspection went ahead on 10 May 2023, the surveyor found evidence of “damp smells emanating from vents in all rooms”. It would have been appropriate at this stage for the landlord to apologise to the resident for previously claiming the vents had been replaced, as he had repeatedly expressed concern about inaccurate information being provided. This would have gone some way towards rebuilding the landlord-tenant relationship.
Unfortunately, despite identifying an ongoing ventilation issue, the landlord further delayed in resolving it. It did not arrange a further visit to assess the vents until at least 31 October 2023, 5 months after the inspection. It is unclear exactly when replacement vents were installed, but the resident raised issues with the quality of the replacement vents in March 2024. This meant that the ventilation and vent replacement issues were ongoing 16 months after they were first reported. This was excessive, and has resulted in a finding of maladministration. A finding of severe maladministration has been avoided only because of the level of detriment to the resident (with the blocked vents being a symptom of other issues rather than an issue in their own right), evidence of some efforts by the landlord to resolve the issue on the basis of the information available, and difficulties it experienced in contacting the resident.

Bathroom leak affecting the kitchen

The landlord’s poor record keeping caused confusion in relation to the bathroom leak. While the resident’s complaint of 17 November 2022 included “bath and floor leaking” in a list of outstanding repair issues, the landlord’s repair logs do not indicate that it raised a repair at this point. Following further contact from the resident, it told him it would look into the matters he had reported “as a matter of urgency” on 30 November 2022. However, still no leak repairs were raised. This resulted in the resident telling the landlord again on 12 January 2023 that “leaks in bathroom floor need to be checked”. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response stated that it subsequently renewed flooring in the bathroom, presumably (from context) around February 2023, though it is unclear exactly when the flooring was replaced or whether it carried out works to diagnose and/or repair the leak before doing so. The level of detail in the repair logs and other records supplied prevents a more thorough assessment of the landlord’s action.
Despite acknowledging on 24 February 2023 that further works were to be completed in the bathroom, and telling the resident on 3 May 2023 that it had been trying to arrange for its contractor to visit in relation to the bathroom leak, the landlord’s stage 2 response dated 5 May 2023 stated that it had no reports of a leak in the bathroom. This was concerning given the references above, and also the resident’s statement in his escalation request (on 3 April 2023) that “the bath and floor are leaking, causing water to leak through into the kitchen downstairs”. Even if the resident had not separately contacted the landlord to report repairs using its preferred method, it should have taken the initiative of raising any new repairs identified in his complaint, emails and escalation request. On at least 9 occasions it missed opportunities to do so. This suggests a siloed way of working and lack of a comprehensive approach to repairs and complaints.
When the landlord’s surveyor inspected on 10 May 2023 and found “clear evidence of a leak from the bath”, their report stated that a previous inspection had found no evidence of a leak. It is unclear when this inspection took place, as any previous assessment of a bathroom leak is not documented in the repair logs provided. By 10 May 2023, the leak had brought the kitchen ceiling near to the point of collapse. As such, the repair met the landlord’s criteria for an emergency repair, but the only element of the repair that was treated as an emergency was removal of the ceiling. The surveyor further noted on 10 May 2023 that the kitchen ceiling had been bowing during a previous inspection to assess the condition of newly installed windows. Again, there is no record of this inspection or its findings. The landlord’s lack of action after previously observing the kitchen ceiling to be bowing during a window inspection indicates a narrow and restrictive view of repairs, treating each issue in isolation. This may offer some insight into why the landlord’s contractor tasked with removing coal and rubble from the basement did not comment on the separate issue of damp and mould, as discussed above.
On 16 August 2023, more than 3 months later, the landlord submitted a request for capital works relating to the bathroom. These included renewal of the bath and supply/waste pipework. The ‘free text’ section of the request form noted that the bathroom was “clearly past its lifespan” and that the resident had “reported leaks from the bath for years”, but did not refer to his family’s vulnerabilities or highlight any urgency. No internal correspondence relating to consideration and approval of the works has been provided to this Service, and further delays led the resident to contact the landlord’s stage 2 responder about unresolved repairs on 2 October 2023. An internal email dated 5 October 2023 requested an update “to prevent this escalating to the Housing Ombudsman”. This was a cause for concern, as landlords should aim to deliver an effective repairs service regardless of whether a resident has complained and not simply to avoid investigation by this Service. Furthermore, the delay of 5 months between the landlord’s surveyor finding evidence of a longstanding leak and steps being taken to progress the repairs was unacceptable.
During a meeting with the resident on 30 October 2023 and email follow-up on 31 October 2023, the landlord rightly apologised for the delays and described some of the factors that had contributed to its recent level of service. This was appropriate, although it should also have considered whether any further financial redress was due. It then said it would arrange for its contractor to visit the same week to progress a temporary fix while it awaited authorisation of a full bathroom upgrade. A prompt response to address the urgent situation was reasonable, although it is undocumented whether the visit and interim works were carried out.
The repair logs indicate that the capital works were authorised and raised on 10 November 2023, with a target date of 8 December 2023. However, the resident reported on 22 November 2023 that the leak continued and that water had now entered his ceiling light (rendering this aspect of the repair an emergency). He then told this Service on 13 February 2024 that the landlord had not yet begun works to fix the bathroom leak. The further delay of at least 3 months after the capital works were raised – 3 times the target 28-day timeframe – was excessive, with no explanation or apology apparently provided. Though the resident confirmed the bathroom renovation works had been completed by 8 March 2024, he expressed concern that the underlying issue of old leaking pipes had been overlooked, resulting in damage to the kitchen ceiling and beams. This meant that some aspects of the bathroom leak repair remained unresolved 16 months after the issue was first brought to the landlord’s attention. In view of the hazardous nature of the issue and the obvious impact on the resident, this far exceeded what the Ombudsman would expect. There is also no evidence that the landlord carried out a risk assessment at any stage, considered the presence of hazards as defined by the Housing Health and Safety Ratings System (HHSRS), or explored whether the offer of a decant was appropriate.
In summary, the landlord’s handling of the bathroom leak repair was characterised by disproportionate delays, poor record keeping, and poor communication. This caused understandable frustration and worry to the resident, whose household was vulnerable, as well as significant inconvenience through loss of amenity. There was no acknowledgement by the landlord that its record keeping was inadequate, and while it identified some factors that had impacted its service delivery, there is limited evidence that it took learning from these or made sufficient efforts to improve (particularly with regard to its handling of the resident’s case). Its apology of 31 October 2023, coupled with its stage 2 compensation offer of £120 – which reflected all delayed repairs up to 5 May 2023 – fell far short of what was required to put things right. The landlord appeared to prioritise avoiding scrutiny by this Service over its objective of providing “dry, warm and safe homes” to its residents. As a result of the above, a finding of severe maladministration has been made, together with orders for additional redress.

Cracks on the walls and ceilings

The landlord again could not be specific regarding when it carried out initial repairs to the wall and ceiling cracks following the resident’s complaint. According to its complaint responses, its contractor applied sealant to the walls and ceilings in the kitchen and toilet, decorated both rooms, removed wallpaper in the hallway, and renewed defective plaster at some point between 13 December 2022 and 23 February 2023. This is not disputed by the resident, and it was appropriate for the works to be commenced within a month of his complaint. This was in line with the landlord’s 28-day timeframe for a routine repair.
However, in April 2023 the resident disagreed that the cracks had been rectified, pointing out that all of them were still visible. In the context of more serious ongoing repairs affecting the property, some of which could influence the presence of cracks, it was again reasonable for the landlord to treat this as a non-urgent repair and to propose an appointment to assess the condition of the walls and ceilings in May 2023. On 10 May 2023, the landlord’s surveyor found cracks along the junction of the wall and ceiling in the living room, dining room and stairwell, as well as cracks to an external wall. Having obtained an overview of the outstanding repair issues in the property on this date, the landlord should have informed the resident of its plans to address each issue, even if this meant completing cosmetic repairs last. It should also have given assurance that the cracks did not indicate a structural issue, and it would have been good practice for it to share the surveyor’s report with the resident.
The landlord’s response to the cracks issue deteriorated following the period of the resident’s complaint. On 19 July 2023 the resident noted in his referral to this Service – which was copied to the landlord – that no plastering, decorating or wallpapering had taken place to address the water damage in the property, more than 2 months after the inspection on 10 May 2023, and that new holes and cracks had emerged in the ceiling. He said he was concerned about the risk of harm to his family from falling debris. The landlord should have treated this as an emergency or at least urgent repair, particularly given that ceilings had bowed and been at risk of imminent collapse elsewhere in the property. However, there is no indication from the records provided that any action was taken, with the next reference to this issue being in October 2023 when the landlord said it would replaster the cracks and carry out decoration as soon as possible. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord did not do enough to satisfy itself in July 2023 that the new cracks described by the resident did not pose a risk to safety.
The landlord apparently replastered and decorated the property at some point between 31 October 2023 and 13 February 2024, as the resident told this Service on that date that 80% of the cracks had been repaired. However, 20% remained, and he brought this to the landlord’s attention on 8 March 2024. He was met with a confused response, as the landlord’s original surveyor had left and so a reinspection was proposed. While this was helpful, it is evidence of the record keeping issues referred to above that the landlord did not have sufficiently comprehensive records for its new surveyor to understand the ongoing issues at the property.
Overall, it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to redecorate some areas of the property in circumstances where other delayed repairs (for which it was responsible) had contributed to cracks and damage. This was despite its repairs policy stating that redecoration is usually the tenant’s responsibility, and represented a reasonable use of discretion. However, the landlord’s record keeping was again poor, and better communication would have helped the resident to understand the landlord’s intentions and reasons for prioritising certain aspects of his repairs. These failures, together with the repeated delays – particularly in July 2023 when the resident reported a potentially dangerous situation – have resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Structural stability concerns

The resident’s concerns about the structural stability of the property appeared to arise from the landlord’s previous lack of communication regarding the basement, which had been sealed off when his family moved into the property. It was unsealed only when the landlord investigated the resident’s recent reports of a bad smell. The resident described the basement in his complaint as a “charcoal mining shaft” which caused “significant carbon monoxide poisoning and structural damage”. He felt the landlord had put his family at risk by exposing them to potentially dangerous gases, and then attempting to cover this up. The landlord did not adequately respond to this concern or offer sufficient reassurance. Its surveyor’s report dated 10 May 2023 included a useful description of the original function of the basement (or ‘coal cellar’), whereby: “As the old heating methods that were used during the point at which these properties were built, these vents would direct heat from the coal furnace around the property. As these areas are now redundant and were covered up at some point [in] the late 60s, there is a strong possibility the residents were not made aware of its presence.” As noted above, it would have been good practice and a demonstration of openness for this report to have been shared with the resident at the time, and an order has been made for it to be shared now.
The landlord’s initial response to the resident’s concerns was insensitively worded. Referring to his worries about structural instability, it said it was “unable to establish that this is factual”. While it was appropriate for the landlord to agree to carry out further investigation, its wording suggested that the resident’s concerns were themselves not ‘factual’. There may have been no structural issues to be concerned about, but the resident’s concerns were real and the landlord’s response served to invalidate them. It would have been more helpful for the landlord to show understanding of his concerns, identify that the existence and function of the basement had been poorly explained in the past, and give assurance that correct process had been followed in relation to its sealing and unsealing (if this was the case). Instead, its response came across as dismissive and unsympathetic.
On 3 April 2023, the resident noted that the landlord had not yet investigated the structural stability of the property. It should have honoured its commitment to do so on 24 February 2023, which (in line with the 28-day response time for routine repairs) would have meant carrying out an assessment by 24 March 2023. The landlord undertook in its stage 2 response to carry out a structural stability assessment and keep the resident informed, which was appropriate. However, it apparently did not contact him about this between 3 April 2023 and its stage 2 response on 5 May 2023, resulting in nearly 5 additional weeks of concern. It is noted that the landlord made some attempts to contact the resident by phone which were unsuccessful, but since he preferred to communicate via email, it would have been helpful for the landlord to try to arrange the assessment sooner or at least reassure the resident that it did not believe his family’s safety to be at risk because of structural issues.
During the inspection carried out by the landlord’s surveyor on 10 May 2023, a number of potentially structural issues were identified, even if these did not directly relate to the basement. The surveyor found evidence of “cracks that may lead to a section of ceiling or the entire ceiling being taken down” in the dining room, the kitchen ceiling being near to collapse, large sections of plaster delaminating from the wall of the stairwell, an external wall that was “on its last legs” and may need to be demolished and rebuilt, and water penetration from a neighbouring property and/or the chimney stack. Had the landlord responded more promptly to the resident’s concerns about structural instability in November 2023, it may have identified these serious issues 6 months earlier and prevented them from worsening. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the delay resulted in additional avoidable cost to the landlord, as well as prolonged worry to a vulnerable household.
According to the resident, he had received no update following the surveyor’s assessment by 19 July 2023, more than 2 months after the inspection took place. This was unsatisfactory. Later, on 31 October 2023, the landlord told the resident it would investigate a dip in the floor of the property and carry out other actions relating to possible structural issues, but the resident informed this Service that no structural inspection to address the dip in the floor had taken place by 13 February 2024. Both periods of delay were excessive and unwarranted. As with the cracks issue discussed above, the landlord’s change of surveyor resulted in a further inspection being proposed in March 2024. This meant that, 16 months after the resident’s complaint, the landlord had done little to address the resident’s concerns about structural instability, despite becoming aware of some potentially serious structural issues. Its delayed response was once more exacerbated by its poor communication and record keeping, and this has resulted in a finding of maladministration.

Complaint handling and compensation

When the resident complained to the landlord on 17 and 19 November 2022, it was reasonable for the landlord to confirm receipt of his emails within 4 working days (on 23 November 2022). This was within its target timeframe of 5 working days. However, while it appropriately forwarded the resident’s emails to its management company, it did not log a complaint. Since the resident’s email was headed “THIS IS A FORMAL COMPLAINT”, it is unclear why it did not do so. It also delayed for 13 working days (until 6 December 2022) in telling the resident’s stepson it required an authority form in order to discuss the resident’s repairs and complaint with him, and for 11 further working days in processing the form once received. This was unsatisfactory.
While the landlord later concluded it should have logged the resident’s complaint on 16 January 2023, it is the Ombudsman’s position that it should have logged and acknowledged the complaint within 5 working days of 17 November 2022, as well as explaining its requirement for an authority form. It should not then have delayed unreasonably in processing the authority form or exploring alternative methods of appointing a representative. Rather than blaming another team for the delay, the landlord should have taken a more holistic view of the repairs and complaint, and (if needed) obtained verbal consent from the resident to begin its complaint investigation while it processed the authority form. Instead, its explanation of the process on 6 December 2022 was unclear and unnecessarily protracted.
The landlord’s provision of an incorrect email address for the management company evidently caused great consternation to the resident. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was likely an isolated human error and was not intentional. When the error was identified, it was appropriate for the management company to promptly apologise on the landlord’s behalf, although it would have been good practice for the landlord’s relevant team to offer a further apology. This would have reassured the resident that the team had taken responsibility for its error, recognised the impact of it, and put measures in place to prevent the issue from recurring. This is particularly important in view of the record keeping and communication issues that gave rise to the resident’s complaint, and the loss of confidence in the landlord that he had already experienced.
Following receipt of the authority form, there was some confusion regarding the content of the complaint. On 21 December 2022, the landlord logged a stage 1 complaint in response to an email sent by the resident on 13 December 2022. This concerned issues with the central heating and the contractor that had installed the resident’s boiler. However, the resident’s email of 13 December 2022 had been intended as a follow-up to his original complaint dated 17 November 2022. Though the original complaint was not attached or copy-pasted at the end (as it had been on various other communications), the email dated 13 December 2022 was titled “Stage 1 complaint follow up” and began with the words “Follow up on the stage 1 complaint at [the property]”. The landlord should therefore have referred to previous correspondence from the resident in defining and logging the complaint, and if it was unsure, it should have confirmed the content of the complaint with the resident. Defining the complaint in its acknowledgement email of 21 December 2022 would also have given the resident an opportunity to clarify any misunderstanding.
While the landlord told the resident it had responded to his heating complaint by post on the target date of 10 January 2023, it is unclear why it did not send the response to him by email on that date. This resulted in the resident chasing the response on 12 January 2023. The response itself will not be assessed as the heating complaint falls outside the scope of the current investigation. However, the landlord’s correspondence with the resident following the response was confusing. While it was appropriate for it to decline to escalate the heating complaint to stage 2 on the grounds that other aspects of the intended complaint had not been included, the landlord could have taken the initiative of logging a further complaint in relation to the other repair issues complained about on 17 November 2022, rather than repeatedly restating its position to the resident. It could also have resolved the issue more swiftly by phone rather than by email. The resident explicitly requested a phone call on 18 January 2023, but it does not appear that this took place as the resident sent a further email on 6 February 2023 and the landlord replied on 9 February 2023.
The landlord did not log a stage 1 complaint in relation to the issues originally complained about by the resident until the Ombudsman requested it to do so on 10 February 2023. By this time, it had been 68 working days since the complaint was made and 34 working days since the authority form was completed. It is concerning that, despite frequent contact from the resident during this period, the landlord did not review the correspondence and identify for itself the need to log a further complaint. The delay caused unnecessarily prolonged distress and frustration to the resident, who was simultaneously frustrated by delays in completing repairs to his property (as discussed above).
Some aspects of the stage 1 response dated 24 February 2023 were confusing. Firstly, in relation to the repair issues, it stated that “within our policy we only accept complaints where the issues occurred within the last 6 months”, but went on to consider a 12-month period between 1 November 2021 and 17 November 2022. Using its discretion to consider a longer period may have been appropriate, but quoting its policy only to depart from it without explanation was misleading. There is also no evidence that previous events other than the surveyor’s visit in July 2022 were considered (for example, bad smells and leaks reported in September and October 2022). The response presented a helpful summary of the landlord’s current position on each repair issue; however, while it acknowledged that there had been an “oversight” resulting in works not being raised with its contractor, it did not apologise or offer any compensation for this.
Secondly, the section on complaint handling was overly long and difficult to make sense of. It is unclear why this section was included at the start of the response, before the section addressing the substantive issue of the complaint, and it focused disproportionately on use of different email addresses. The landlord noted that it apparently did not respond to an email sent by the resident on 18 January 2023, and while it explained why this happened, it did not apologise for its omission. It also missed an opportunity to reiterate its apology for the incorrect email address previously provided to the resident, and to demonstrate learning from its error. The response contained a number of typos (“should we be present” instead of “should he be present”, and “are systems” instead of “our systems”), making it appear hurriedly compiled. It did not specifically state what investigations the landlord had carried out in formulating its response – for example, reviewing its repair logs and other systems, and interviewing its staff and contractors – and its upholding of the resident’s complaint appeared conditional.
For clarity, the Ombudsman does not consider it appropriate for a landlord’s decision to uphold a complaint to be subject to the resident agreeing to certain actions. The handling of complaints should be independent of other issues such as any unacceptable behaviour actions, and it was unreasonable for the landlord to attempt to incentivise the resident to agree to such actions in this way. The landlord should have followed its unacceptable behaviour policy (or equivalent policy) if needed in relation to behaviour by the resident’s stepson. The potential impact of certain behaviours and access issues on a landlord’s resources is appreciated, but this does not absolve the landlord of its repair and complaint related responsibilities. This includes investigating complaints fairly and impartially.
Lastly, it is unclear why the stage 1 response was dated 24 February 2023 (seemingly in order to comply with this Service’s deadline) but sent on 25 February 2023. It is noted that 25 February 2023 was a Saturday and the response was sent to the resident in the early hours of the morning. The Ombudsman’s position is that actions required by a certain date should be completed by close of business hours on that date, ie by 5pm, and that the resident should have been informed in advance of any delay beyond 5pm on 24 February 2023. It is noted that the response in general did not take account of the resident’s individual circumstances or the impact of events on him, and read as unsympathetic and defensive. The £60 compensation awarded for complaint handling failures was reasonable in relation to that aspect of the complaint, but did not reflect other failures such as significant repair delays.
When the resident sent 3 emails on 25 February 2023 expressing continued dissatisfaction with the landlord’s actions, the landlord should have checked whether he wished to escalate his complaint to stage 2. Instead it did not respond, and did not escalate the complaint until the resident explicitly requested this on 3 April 2023. This had the effect of extending the complaint process by over a month. Nevertheless, it was appropriate for the landlord to confirm escalation within 1 working day on 4 April 2023, although it confusingly repeated its acknowledgement of the escalated complaint on 6 April 2023. Its stage 2 response time of 20 working days was also acceptable and in line with its policy.
The stage 2 response again presented a useful and detailed summary in relation to each repair issue. This time the landlord appropriately acknowledged the impact of the situation on the resident and assured him of learning it had taken and actions it had implemented to avoid future issues. This was positive, and evidence of a solution-focused approach. However, despite acknowledging that “I can see your stage 1 complaint doesn’t seem to have been addressed and you haven’t been updated”, the stage 2 responder did not award compensation for this. In fact, the £120 awarded for repair delays at stage 2 appeared to override the £60 awarded at stage 1 – which the resident did not appear to have accepted – and so did not reflect any complaint handling failures. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, £10 per week for delay of multiple repair issues, several of which remained outstanding at the time of the stage 2 response, was insufficient. The award should also have included amounts for complaint handling, distress, time and trouble, and reflected the total timeframe of the complaint from 17 November 2022. While compensation has been referred to elsewhere in this report, and findings have not been duplicated across sections, the level of compensation has been discussed here as it is unclear which repairs the stage 1 compensation award related to.
The Ombudsman notes that, according to the resident, the landlord subsequently offered him £25 per week throughout the repair period, which by the time of his update was nearly a year. At this rate, a year’s worth of compensation would total £1,300. The Ombudsman has seen no documentary evidence of this amount being offered. The landlord’s stage 2 responder apparently did not reply to the resident when he emailed them on 2 October 2023, and on 31 October 2023 the landlord appropriately apologised for the continued delays but did not offer further compensation. It is not in the spirit of this Service’s dispute resolution principles for a landlord to offer more substantial redress late in a protracted process with the intended effect that the Ombudsman will not consider the matter further. Therefore, while an award of £1,300 is more in line with the Ombudsman’s expectations than the previous awards of £60 and £120, further compensation has been awarded as outlined below.
Finally, it is noted that there is no evidence the landlord logged or responded to a further complaint when the resident requested this on 29 August 2023. This was unsatisfactory, as even if the landlord had reason to decline the complaint, it should have informed the resident of this and explained its reasoning (with reference to its policy).
A finding of severe maladministration has been made in relation to complaint handling, due to the landlord’s 12-week delay in logging the resident’s complaint (including delays in resolving the authority issue), its poor communication regarding the content of the complaint, its confusing and unapologetic responses, its conditional upholding of the stage 1 complaint, and its insufficient offer of compensation at both stages. The overall 24-week timeframe of the complaint was excessive and prolonged the resident’s distress and frustration. There is also limited evidence that the landlord conducted a thorough investigation as part of its response to the resident’s complaint, that it meaningfully reflected on its performance, or – given events since the stage 2 response – that it took adequate steps to implement learning from the resident’s experience.
It should be noted that, because the resident’s complaint about heating (logged by the landlord on 21 December 2022 and responded to on 12 January 2023) was not escalated to stage 2, it has not been possible for the Ombudsman to consider it as part of the current investigation. The compensation that has been ordered below therefore does not reflect any failures or expenses incurred in relation to heating. The resident retains the option of escalating his heating complaint to stage 2, or of making a new complaint to the landlord regarding this issue, which he may subsequently refer to this Service if he is dissatisfied with the response.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the basement of the property;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of ventilation issues and that vents had not been changed;
3. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the bathroom, causing water to leak in the kitchen;
4. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of cracks on the walls and ceilings;
5. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the structural stability of the property;
6. severe maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s associated complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

The landlord delayed for 3 weeks in visiting the property after the resident reported damp and mould in the basement. It then delayed for a further week in raising a work order for removal of coal and rubble. When the coal and rubble was removed, the landlord assumed that there was no continuing damp and mould as its removal contractor did not proactively report this. It did not provide a dehumidifier until 3 months after its contractor recommended it did so, and did not carry out weekly visits to empty the dehumidifier as it said it would. It also delayed for at least 5 months in providing draught excluders. The landlord did not take the resident’s concerns about damp, mould and the costs of running the dehumidifier sufficiently seriously, offer financial support, or make adequate redress. A lack of effective action meant that the damp and mould issues persisted after 15 months.
Poor record keeping and contractor issues resulted in the landlord telling the resident it had replaced vents in the property when it apparently had not. It did not apologise for this mistake. Following an inspection on 10 May 2023, the landlord further delayed in resolving the ventilation issue, and replacement vents installed between October 2024 and March 2024 were reported to be of poor quality.
Despite the resident informing the landlord of a bathroom leak on at least 9 occasions between 17 November 2022 and 3 April 2023, it denied having received any reports of the leak on 5 May 2023. This resulted in the kitchen ceiling being close to collapse at the time of an inspection on 10 May 2023. A previous inspection in which the ceiling was observed to be bowing was not documented. After the ceiling was boarded in May 2023, the landlord delayed for over 3 months in requesting a bathroom replacement. It is unclear whether a temporary fix discussed in October 2023 took place. The bathroom replacement took 3 times the target timeframe, and, according to the resident, left some aspects of the leak repair unresolved after 16 months. There is no evidence that the landlord conducted a risk assessment, assessed the presence of hazards in the property, or considered a decant.
The landlord carried out initial repairs to cracks on the walls and ceilings within a reasonable timeframe. It then rightly carried out an inspection within a month when the resident reported that the cracks remained, and exercised appropriate discretion in carrying out some redecoration. However, it did not reassure the resident that the cracks did not indicate a structural issue or share its surveyor’s report. It then delayed in carrying out further repairs, and did not respond with sufficient urgency to a report of new cracks and risk of falling debris in July 2023. While the majority of the cracks were repaired by February 2024, some remained in March 2024, and poor record keeping resulted in a confusing response to the resident’s report of continued issues.
The landlord did not give the resident adequate information regarding the basement in the property. It responded insensitively to his concerns about structural stability and risk of carbon monoxide poisoning. After undertaking to carry out a structural assessment of the property, it delayed for 5 weeks in arranging this and did not allay the resident’s concerns in the meantime. The landlord did not inform the resident of its findings for at least 2 months following the assessment. It then said it would investigate a dip in the floor in October 2023, but had not done so 4 months later. The landlord had done little to address the resident’s concerns about structural stability after 16 months, and poor record keeping resulted in a further inspection being proposed.
When the resident complained about a number of outstanding repair issues, the landlord informed its management company of the repairs but did not log a complaint. It also delayed in requesting completion of an authority form and in processing the completed form. Its communications regarding the authority process were repetitive and unclear. The landlord provided an incorrect email address for the management company, and record keeping issues resulted in 2 separate complaints being logged for issues raised in the resident’s original complaint. The landlord did not reply to an email sent by the resident on 18 January 2024. It logged his complaint only when required to do so by this Service, and responded a day late at stage 1 without advance notice. The stage 1 response was overly long, confusingly structured, unapologetic, and inappropriately placed conditions on the upholding of the complaint. The landlord missed an opportunity to escalate the complaint on 25 February 2024 and did not award sufficient compensation at either stage. The 24-week timeframe of the complaint process was excessive and prolonged the resident’s frustration.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident for its delays in carrying out repairs and poor communication in relation to his repairs and associated complaint. The apology should be made in writing by the landlord’s chief executive officer.
2. Pay the resident £5,100, comprising:
  1. £1,000 for its delay in addressing the damp and mould in the basement of the property;
  2. £600 for its delay in addressing the ventilation issues and replacing vents, including record keeping issues relating to the vent replacement;
  3. £1,000 for its delay in addressing a leak in the bathroom;
  4. £600 for its delay in addressing cracks on the walls and ceilings;
  5. £600 for its delay in addressing the resident’s concerns about the structural stability of the property;
  6. £800 for its complaint handling failures, including the level of compensation offered;
  7. £200 for the distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family over a 16-month period;
  8. £300 in contribution towards the time, trouble and costs he incurred as a result of the delayed repairs, such as running costs of the dehumidifier and repeated redecoration.

Any compensation already paid to the resident in relation to the current complaint (not the heating complaint) should be deducted from the above amount, meaning that the difference is now due.

Provide a copy of its surveyor’s report dated 10 May 2023 to the resident, if it has not already done so.
Provide to the resident and this Service a detailed schedule of works outlining the remaining repairs to be completed and anticipated completion dates. It should then arrange to update the resident at an agreed frequency (eg weekly or fortnightly), using his preferred method of contact, until all repairs are completed. All repairs must also be post-inspected. Once the repairs are completed to the resident and landlord’s satisfaction, the landlord must award additional compensation to reflect the further inconvenience caused to the resident between the date of this report and the date of completion. This should be awarded at the landlord’s maximum rate for delay and distress, ie £40 per week. The landlord must inform this Service of its decision regarding additional compensation.
Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord reviews its record keeping in relation to repairs and ensures the completion date for each repair is clearly logged on its system. Operatives carrying out repairs should also be able to add notes relating to the work completed. Where possible, this information should be included in records submitted to this Service in future. Some of this work may already have been completed in compliance with case 202200596 (determined by this Service in November 2023), for which a wider order relating to repairs and record keeping was made.