Aster Group Limited (202200958)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200958

Aster Group Limited

29 October 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

This complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of defective guttering and related damp at the property.
This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the associated complaints.

Background

The resident is a former assured tenant of the landlord. She purchased the property under the Right to Buy scheme on 28 February 2022. The property is a two-bed house.

Policies and Procedures

Under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord was required to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair prior to the resident’s purchase. This included the guttering. Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord was required to carry out repairs within a reasonable time.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy sets out its timescales for repairs. It says:
1. Emergency repairs will be carried out within 24 hours, urgent repairs will be carried out within 5 working days, and routine repairs will be carried out within 20 working days.
2. When repairs require significant investment, those repairs may be dealt with outside of the landlord’s responsive repairs procedure, or fall into a planned or cyclical works programme.
After the resident submitted her application to purchase the property under the Right to Buy scheme, the landlord was no longer required to carry out certain repairs and maintenance, as the valuation of the property was based on its condition at the date of valuation. However, it was still required to carry out the repairs included under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 until the purchase completed.
Following her purchase of the property, the resident became responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property, including the guttering, under the terms of the transfer.
The landlord has a two-stage complaints process. Stage 1 responses must be issued within 10 working days, and stage 2 responses must be issued within 20 working days.

Summary of events

The resident said she reported issues with damp and mould caused by leaking guttering in April 2019. She said the landlord carried out an inspection, and told her it would add complete guttering replacement to its 2020 repairs budget. The Ombudsman has not been provided with any evidence of reports or an inspection in April 2019.
The landlord’s repair logs say that the resident reported issues with condensation and mould on 5 November 2019. The logs show the resident told the landlord she believed water was coming in from the flat roof over the bathroom, as she had noticed water pooling in that area. She told the landlord the bathroom was constantly damp, and that she had been dealing with the damp by opening windows, painting, and cleaning.
On 12 November 2019, the landlord arranged for a surveyor to inspect the property. Its notes state that the resident said there was no mould in the bathroom at that point as she regularly cleaned it, and she was concerned about water pooling on the roof. The landlord asked the resident to send photos of the water on the roof, so it could determine whether to send a roofer. The landlord has provided no evidence of any further inspections carried out by its surveyor at that time. It marked the job as complete at that stage, but has provided no evidence that any repairs had been carried out.
On 28 December 2019, the resident contacted the landlord. She said she had not heard from the landlord regarding the damp at the back of her house, and that she had noticed a water line at the edge of the bedroom ceiling, which indicated the guttering was leaking.
On the same day, the resident made a complaint to the landlord. She said the issues with the mould and leaking guttering had not been progressed or resolved.
On 2 January 2020, the landlord booked a surveyor to look into the resident’s concerns. The inspection took place on 10 January 2020. The resident said she was told the guttering would be replaced as part of the landlord’s planned improvement works. The landlord’s records show it referred the works to the planned improvements team, and chased up a response on 14 September 2020.It did not receive a response from the relevant team. The landlord has provided no inspection notes, and no evidence to show it carried out any remedial works to prevent further water ingress in the meantime.
On 23 November 2020, the resident reported damp on her bedroom and bathroom ceilings again. The landlord attended the property and repaired a hole in the roof felt. The repairs team contacted the planned improvements team, who said the resident would be sent a letter when guttering works were due to start.
During the first half of 2021, the resident started the process of purchasing her home through the Right to Buy scheme. The landlord’s valuation was carried out on 30 April 2021, and the landlord sent the notice of freehold value to the resident on 25 June 2021. The letter said:
1. ‘If you disagree with the valuation of your home, you have the right to ask the district valuer to determine the value. To do this you need to fill out Form SOCD1 sent with this letter and send it back to us…within 3 months from the date on this letter.’
2. ‘Your home has been valued as it stands (unless otherwise detailed above). If we carry out any repair/replacement/improvement after this notice, we have the right to increase the sale price to cover the cost of the work completed.’
The landlord’s structural defects notice, attached to the notice of freehold value, confirmed that the landlord was not aware of any structural defects. However, it noted that no structural survey had been carried out, and recommended that the resident obtain a structural survey and her own advice. It also identified that the gutters were concrete and prone to leaking, and that replacement would be expensive.
On 5 July 2021, the landlord put all 2021-22 programmed works on hold.
On 27 September 2021, the resident signed the relevant paperwork confirming that she wished to proceed with the purchase of the property at the price stated.
On 1 October 2021, the resident reported that the gutters were overflowing, with water leaking into the cavity wall and penetrating the inside of the property. The landlord’s logs show it did not initially respond to the resident’s report.
On 7 October 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response. As a result, the landlord inspected the property on 18 October 2021. The landlord’s repair logs state that the guttering was flint loc, and was due to be replaced ‘at some point’. It said the gutters could not be coated during wet weather. It has provided no evidence of booking in a further appointment to carry out works at that stage, or of any attempts to identify an appropriate time to carry out the works.
On 1 and 23 November 2021, the resident chased the landlord for an update as the weather had changed. The landlord’s logs show no works had been booked in due to an error on its part.
On 10 and 13 December 2021, the resident chased the landlord again, as she had not yet received any details of when the works would go ahead.
On 13 December 2021, the landlord referred the guttering replacement to the planned improvements team for a second time. It did not contact the resident.
On 17 and 21 December 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a response as she had received no further contact from it about the guttering and water ingress.
On 21 December 2021, one of the landlord’s staff asked for someone to contact the resident ‘to stop… a complaint’. It internally discussed the guttering issue, and a surveyor noted he had referred the guttering for improvement at the start of 2020. He said the guttering was on the 2022-23 improvement programme, and suggested sealing the gutter as a temporary measure.
On 30 December 2021, the resident contacted the landlord again, as she had still received no response.
On 2 January 2022, the resident reported ‘major damage’ caused by the leaking guttering. She said the cement under the guttering was so damp it crumbled.
The landlord’s repair logs show that it decided to arrange a temporary repair of the guttering to avoid a potential complaint. It noted that full replacement was on the following year’s improvement plan, but that the issue was causing internal damage.
On 5 January 2022, the landlord’s contractors cleared the guttering, and applied a liquid coating. The resident emailed the landlord on the same day and reported that the contractors had told her the sealant would only last three months as the guttering was damp at the time. The landlord told the resident that similar works had lasted four years in other properties, and there was nothing else it could do until the guttering was replaced.
On 6 January 2022, the landlord contacted a roofing contractor to request a quote for urgent remedial works to the guttering.
On 7 January 2022, the resident made a further complaint to the landlord. She said:
1. After an inspection in April 2019, she had been told there would be a full replacement of the guttering in 2020. This was not done in 2020, leading to extensive damage to the property.
2. Temporary sealant had been added, but this disguised the problem rather than solving it.
3. She had applied to purchase under the Right to Buy scheme, but she remained a tenant until the purchase completed, and expected the repair to be honoured.
4. There would be no issue if the guttering had been properly maintained.
5. She wanted the landlord to replace the guttering, even if she completed her purchase of the property.
On the same day, the resident reported that the temporary fix to the guttering had failed. She said the guttering was still leaking and needed to be replaced. The landlord opened a repair job, which it marked as complete on 11 January 2022, despite having taken no action.
On 11 and 14 January 2022, the landlord discussed the resident’s complaint internally. It said it was only meant to carry out emergency repairs once the Right to Buy application had been submitted, but that it could not sell a house which had water leaking into it. It referred to the size of the discount the resident had received under the Right to Buy scheme, and queried why the resident was going ahead with the purchase if the issues were as bad as she had reported. It said replacing the guttering was a major improvement and not a repair, that it could not carry out the works once the resident had purchased the property for legal and insurance reasons, and that if the resident wanted the guttering replaced, she would need to withdraw from the Right to Buy process and submit a new application once the works had been completed.
On 19 January 2022, the resident asked the landlord for copies of the quotes it was obtaining for roof repairs. When the landlord advised that it had not received quotes yet, the resident told the landlord that her mortgage offer was due to expire, and the guttering needed to be fixed before her purchase.
On 21 January 2022, the landlord discussed the complaint internally again. It said condensation and mould issues had been reported on a number of occasions, but it did not know what investigations had been carried out to determine whether the issues were caused by cold-bridging from the gutters, or whether an assumption had been made that the gutters were leaking and causing the internal damage.
On 24 January 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said they had recently spoken regarding the guttering replacement, and quotes had been sent to the landlord. She asked the landlord to complete the replacement as soon as possible. The landlord has provided no notes of its telephone conversations with the resident regarding quotes for the guttering replacement.
On 27 January 2022, the landlord had received the quotes for replacing the guttering. Its notes say it was awaiting instructions from the Right to Buy team.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the complaint. It said:
1. There was no evidence of an inspection in April 2019. The first inspection was in November 2019 for a damp and mould assessment. The notes on file said there was no mould as the resident had cleaned it off. It asked the resident to send photos of the water pooling on the roof, and its notes stated that no further action was required.
2. There was a further visit in January 2020, after which the issue was referred to the property investment team to ‘line or modify the leaking finloc gutters’. This would mean it would be added to the works for the following financial year.
3. The gutter repair had not been added to the programme of works for the following year, possibly due to Covid-19 and budget limitations. There was a planned replacement for the 2022-23 financial year, however his would be classed as major work, which would have been cancelled when the resident submitted her Right to Buy application.
4. Under the Right to Buy legislation, it would not carry out any further works on the property once the application was received. It had a legal obligation to carry out certain works, and it had met those obligations by carrying out a responsive repair on the gutters which would last beyond the completion of the resident’s purchase.
5. There was no obligation on the landlord’s part to carry out regular maintenance on the gutters every five years, as the resident had suggested.
6. The resident was made aware during the Right to Buy process that the gutters were of a type which was prone to leaking.
7. If the resident felt the valuation of the property was too high as a result of the guttering, she could have disputed the valuation via the district valuer before accepting the purchase price. Alternatively, the resident could have withdrawn from the Right to Buy process until the planned works went ahead, and then applied again.
On 28 and 30 January 2022, the resident asked to escalate her complaint. She said:
1. The valuation said the guttering was prone to leaking, but it had failed entirely after the valuation but during the Right to Buy process. The guttering had only been painted with sealant once in 28 years, and the recent repair had not worked as it was still leaking.
2. The landlord had inspected the mould in 2019-20, and the resident had wiped it off to avoid damage to her health. It reappeared weekly, and the underlying issue was getting progressively worse. The wallpaper was now coming off the walls and the plaster had gone soft.
3. The landlord had deterred her from going to the district valuer by telling her the process would take around three months.
4. The valuation would not take account of the recent deterioration of the property. She felt the landlord should reduce the price of the property or replace the guttering, as if she pulled out of the purchase she would lose her solicitor fees.
5. She had spoken to the landlord’s surveyor, who had told her she would definitely receive compensation for the issues with the guttering and water ingress.
6. Major repairs were needed as a result of the guttering leak, and the pending purchase of the property should not mean the landlord would not have to carry out its repair obligations.
On 2 February 2022, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said she would have to go ahead with completion to avoid losing her solicitors’ fees and her chance to get a mortgage at a low rate. She said the guttering had been an issue since 2019, that the gutters had failed entirely since the valuation, and that the temporary repair carried out was inadequate. She said she was upset that the landlord would not replace the guttering if she completed her purchase.
On an unknown date between 8 February and 18 February 2022, the resident emailed the landlord. She said it had obtained two quotes for fixing the guttering around 10 days before. She said it was odd the landlord would get those quotes if it did not feel it was liable for the recent damage, and that she believed the landlord simply did not want to pay for the repair after seeing the quotes.
On 18 February 2022, the landlord issued its stage 2 response to the complaint. It said:
1. The resident had reported issues with condensation and mould in 2019. There was no mould at the initial inspection, and the resident had explained she had been wiping the mould off.
2. There was a further inspection in January 2020, in which the surveyor found the issue was not substantial enough for urgent works, so decided to add the guttering to a programme for replacement in future. Had the surveyor found the issue to be serious, more action would have been taken at the time.
3. Programmed works were suspended due to the Covid-19 pandemic and Government advice to avoid all but essential travel. It received the resident’s Right to Buy application on 18 March 2021, which was the point any planned improvements would stop. It had told the resident that works would stop, but could have been clearer about which planned works would be cancelled.
4. The valuation was based on the condition at the time of the report, and if the resident felt the valuation was incorrect, she could have gone to the district valuer. The guttering was referred to in the valuation, so the guttering type was taken into account as part of the valuation.
5. It had requested the quotes for replacement guttering to give the resident a better idea of how much works were likely to cost, so she could make a more informed decision on her purchase.
On the same day, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said the responsive repair had failed and the guttering was still leaking. She said she was still a tenant until completion, and she was entitled to have the repair completed in a satisfactory manner.
On 21 February 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident. It said it had carried out a repair in January 2022, which it would not normally do when there was a Right to Buy application, and the team leader had confirmed that the repair would last past the point of purchase. It said it would no longer attend to carry out repairs unless they were a health and safety concern.
The same day, the resident wrote to the landlord. She said no proper repair was carried out as the sealant was applied to a wet surface in cold weather, so did not work. She said when she reported that the sealant had not worked, she was told someone would come out to inspect, but nobody ever came. She said after she signed the Right to Buy offer, the guttering failed completely, leading to water ingress.
On 28 February 2022, the resident completed on her purchase of the property.
On 13 and 29 April 2022, the resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman. She said:
1. The landlord had inspected the damp in January 2020. The operative said they did not need to do a damp test as the condition of the walls spoke for itself, and the guttering was failing. The operative said the resident would be put on the list for replacement guttering in the 2020-21 financial year, but this never went ahead.
2. She did not see why the replacement could not have gone ahead as stated when it was outdoor work.
3. She felt the landlord should replace the guttering, or give her the money to do so, as it had not resolved an issue which had been ongoing since 2019.
4. While renting the property she had to live with damp and mould. When the guttering failed completely, rainwater was leaking into the cavity wall insulation, with damp and mould spreading across the walls, the wallpaper peeling, and the plaster going soft and crumbling. The landlord knew the issues were caused by the guttering failing, but did nothing about it.
5. When putting sealant on the gutters in January 2022, the operative stated that the resident would be lucky if the sealant lasted three months.
6. She could not pull out of the purchase because of the financial cost of doing so.
7. When the temporary repair failed, the landlord got two quotes for replacement guttering. It also told her over the phone that she would be compensated for what had happened, but had not done so.

Assessment and findings

Guttering repairs

The resident said that she reported issues with leaking gutters and damp in April 2019, and that the landlord carried out an investigation at that stage. The Ombudsman has seen no evidence from either the resident or the landlord to show that the resident made any reports of damp before 5 November 2019. In the absence of any evidence of a report before that date, the Ombudsman will only consider the landlord’s actions from 5 November 2019 onwards.
When the resident reported issues with condensation and mould on 5 November 2019, the landlord arranged for an inspection. The landlord’s notes state that the resident had cleaned up the mould, and that it had asked the resident to take photos of water on the roof. The landlord has provided no evidence to show its surveyor carried out any investigation into the cause of the damp, such as taking damp readings, inspecting the guttering, or inspecting the flat roof themselves rather than asking the resident to send photos of the roof. It then recorded that the repair was complete, despite not having carried out any works.
The landlord only arranged a further inspection after the resident made a complaint about the lack of any progress in resolving the issue. Following the second inspection, the landlord referred the guttering and pointing to its planned works team. The landlord has provided no notes of this inspection, or details of any information given to the resident at the time. It also failed to attempt or consider any temporary repairs to the guttering to prevent water ingress until the guttering could be replaced.
The landlord was required, under the tenancy agreement, to carry out repairs within a reasonable time. When a major repair is needed, it can be reasonable for a landlord to add the repair to a planned works programme. However, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to provide meaningful updates to residents, explaining when the works were scheduled to take place, and to carry out interim repairs to prevent ongoing damage to the property and limit the impact on its resident.
When it is unable to take effective temporary measures, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to carry out a full and lasting repair as soon as possible, rather than adding the repair to a planned works programme. Although the landlord referred the guttering replacement to its planned improvements team, it did not receive any confirmation that the guttering replacement had actually been added to the programme of works, and only made a single attempt to chase a decision in September 2020, which was around 8 months after the referral. It did not provide the resident with any updates, or confirmation of when the works were likely to go ahead. It also carried out no temporary repairs to prevent further water ingress. Instead, it chose to leave its resident in a property with leaking gutters, water ingress and damp for an indefinite period of time, with no communication or updates. This was inappropriate.
The resident said she was told that the gutter replacement would be added to the landlord’s 2020-21 improvement programme. The landlord’s records show that it referred the works to be added for that year, but the guttering replacement was not added to the programme of works. In its stage 1 response, the landlord said it assumed this was due to COVID-19 or budget restrictions. However, the works were referred before any COVID-19 restrictions existed, and the landlord has provided no evidence which demonstrates this was more than an assumption on its part. There is nothing in the evidence provided which explains why the works were not added to the 2020-21 planned works programme.
In its stage 2 response, the landlord said that all non-urgent programmed works were suspended due to COVID-19 and the relevant restrictions in place, so the works would not have gone ahead in the 2020-21 financial year. While the Ombudsman appreciates the need to comply with regulations, the landlord has provided no evidence which demonstrates that the regulations in force at the time prevented the guttering replacement from going ahead. The Ombudsman also notes that the Government issued advice on 18 May 2020 that routine repairs to social housing should be going ahead, and that it ‘was expecting many landlords to resume external planned maintenance works’. As such, the landlord has provided no reasonable explanation for why the guttering replacement could not have proceeded at that time.
When the resident reported overflowing gutters and related water ingress on 1 October 2021, the landlord arranged an inspection for 18 October 2021. This was a reasonable first step to take. The landlord’s repair logs say that the guttering was due to be changed ‘at some point’, but it has provided no evidence of any attempts to find out when the replacement was scheduled to go ahead, or any attempts to prioritise the repair given the ongoing issues. It noted that it could not arrange a coating for the gutters at that time, as the coating would not work in wet weather.
It was not unreasonable for the landlord to wait for drier weather to apply a coating for the gutters if the coating would not work in wet weather. However, it has not shown that it took any steps to book in further repair appointments, or provide any meaningful updates to the resident. It has also not demonstrated that it considered whether there were any options available to limit further water ingress until the coating could be applied. The resident had to chase for an update on eight occasions over two months before the landlord responded. The landlord has provided no explanation for this significant delay, and its internal emails show that it responded to the resident to avoid a complaint rather than from a desire to resolve the issue. The landlord has therefore not shown that it took the reported issues seriously.
When the landlord arranged a temporary repair on 5 January 2022, its repair logs also state that it only carried out a temporary repair to avoid a complaint, despite it being required to carry out a repair under s11 Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. While the resident had submitted a Right to Buy application, the landlord was still required to comply with its statutory repair obligations until the purchase was complete.
Shortly after the repair went ahead, the resident told the landlord that the contractor informed her she would be lucky if the repair lasted 2 to 3 months as the guttering was wet. The landlord responded by telling the resident that the repair would last for 4 years, and there was nothing else it could do until the guttering was replaced. This was despite its own repair notes stating that applying a coating to the guttering would not work in wet weather. On 7 January 2022, two days after the repair, the resident reported that the temporary repair had failed. The landlord recorded the report and marked it as complete on 11 January 2022, despite having taken no action in response.
When investigating the resident’s complaint at stage one, the landlord said it did not know what investigations had been carried out to determine whether the guttering was causing the internal damage, or whether that was an assumption made at the time. This meant that two years after the inspection, with no meaningful repairs completed, the landlord was not sure, as a result of its poor record keeping, that the guttering was the cause of the internal damage to the property.
The Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on repairs sets out the expectations the Ombudsman has for landlords where repairs are concerned. The report says landlords should keep clear, accurate, and easily accessible records of residents’ reports of disrepair and the landlord’s responses, including details of appointments, any inspections, any work carried out, and completion dates. Landlords should also monitor the progress of any reported repairs and comply with the repair timescales set out in their policies as far as possible. When it is not possible to comply with the timescales set out in its policies, a landlord should communicate the reason for the delay with its resident.
In this case, the landlord has provided no notes from its initial inspection, or explained why it asked the resident to send photos of the flat roof rather than carrying out an inspection itself. It has also provided no inspection notes from its inspection in January 2020. It referred the works to be added to an improvement programme for a future year, but took no steps to stop the water ingress in the meantime, to check that the guttering replacement was actually scheduled for replacement, or to provide any meaningful updates to the resident.
The landlord was reactive rather than proactive with regard to the repairs, with the resident having to repeatedly chase updates and responses. The landlord has also demonstrated a lack of understanding of its repair obligations when a Right to Buy application has been made. As a result, the resident had been living with leaking gutters, water ingress, and worsening damp for over two years by the time she completed the purchase of the property. The landlord maintained in its complaint response that there was no service failure on its part, which demonstrates that it has not taken the opportunity to learn from the complaint. The landlord’s actions amount to severe maladministration.
The resident believes that, to put things right, the landlord should either replace the guttering or pay for the cost of her replacing the guttering. She also said that the valuation for her purchase was based on the guttering being prone to leaking, not on the guttering having failed. She said it failed entirely after the valuation, and that this impacted on the value of her property.
It is not within the remit of the Ombudsman to determine the impact the reported deterioration of the property would have had on the value of the property, and the Ombudsman has been provided with no evidence to show that the value did reduce as a result of the guttering failing. The options open to the resident, if she was unhappy with the valuation, were to challenge the valuation through the district valuer, or to withdraw from the Right to Buy process until repairs were carried out. While the Ombudsman appreciates that the resident had other reasons for choosing to go ahead with the purchase, in doing so she accepted the property at the value stated.
Having considered the circumstances of the case carefully, the Ombudsman does not consider that it would be appropriate to order the landlord to either replace the guttering or pay the resident the cost of the guttering replacement. This is because when choosing to complete her purchase rather than withdrawing from the Right to Buy process until the guttering was replaced, the resident accepted the property in the condition it was in at the time of completion, and the landlord’s repair obligations ended at that point.
However, the Ombudsman does consider that the landlord should pay the resident compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by the way it handled her reports of water ingress and damp. As a result of the landlord’s failings, the resident had to live in a property with progressively worsening damp for over two years, regularly cleaning up mould to try and avoid damage to her health. This would inevitably cause a significant level of distress and inconvenience, which was exacerbated by the landlord’s failure to provide any meaningful updates, leading the resident to have to repeatedly chase the landlord for repairs or updates.
Having considered all the circumstances of the case, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay the resident £2,500 in compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s published remedies guidance for serious failings which accumulate over a long period of time, and which have a significant impact on the resident. The landlord was not responsible for any deterioration in the condition of the property from the date of completion, as all repair obligations for the property passed to the resident from that point. The compensation is therefore for the distress and inconvenience caused up to the date the purchase completed.

Complaint handling

The resident initially made a complaint about the landlord’s handling of the repairs on 28 December 2019. Under the landlord’s complaints policy, it was required to issue a stage one response within 10 working days. It arranged for a further inspection of the guttering, but has not shown that it issued any stage one response to the initial complaint. This was not in line with its complaints policy, and was inappropriate.
The resident made a second complaint, including some of the issues raised in her initial complaint, on 7 January 2022. The landlord’s investigation initially focused on why the resident wished to proceed with her purchase rather than reviewing the way it handled her reports of issues with the guttering. Its internal emails in that regard were lacking in empathy, with a focus on the resident’s actions rather than effectively investigating the substance of her complaint. When the landlord later attempted to investigate the repair issues, it had no records of the investigations carried out in January 2020, or how it reached the conclusion that the guttering was the sole cause of the water ingress. This meant that its investigation of the complaint was then hampered by poor record keeping.
When the landlord issued its stage two response, its response was inaccurate. For example, the landlord told the resident that it would not usually repair gutters when a resident starts the Right to Buy process, despite it having a statutory obligation to do so. It also told the resident that a gutter replacement would be classified as an improvement, despite its own surveyor identifying the replacement as urgent remedial works when requesting quotes from a roofing company, and that it had carried out a lasting responsive repair in January 2022, despite being aware that the repair had failed two days later and that it had taken no further action.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to ensure that it properly investigates complaints within a reasonable timescale, and that its complaint responses are accurate. The landlord did not issue a response to the resident’s initial complaint, it has not shown it investigated the complaint appropriately, and its stage two response was inaccurate, meaning the resident needed to contact the landlord to point out inaccuracies and its repair obligations. This amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been severe maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and defective guttering.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there has been maladministration by the landlord with regard to its handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has not shown that it carried out reasonable investigations in 2019 or 2020. It attempted no repairs to prevent further water ingress and damp after inspecting the property at that point, and did not take adequate steps to check that the guttering replacement was added to its planned improvement works. It blamed the COVID-19 pandemic for works not going ahead, despite Government advice being that routine repairs and external maintenance should continue. It provided the resident with no meaningful updates, meaning she had to repeatedly chase for updates, and only carried out a temporary repair (which failed within a matter of days) to avoid a complaint, after which it took no action regarding the disrepair. Its inaction left the resident living with water ingress and damp for more than two years by the time she completed her purchase of the property.
The landlord provided no response to the resident’s initial complaint. It has not shown it investigated her subsequent complaint appropriately, and its stage two response was inaccurate.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Issue a written apology to the resident for the failings identified in this report. The apology must come from the landlord’s Chief Executive.
2. Pay the resident £2,700 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s repair requests and complaints. This is broken down as follows:
  1. £2,500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its poor handling of the resident’s reports of defective guttering and damp;
  2. £200 for its poor handling of the associated complaints.
Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a review of the way it handled the repairs in this case to determine what action it needs to take to prevent a reoccurrence of the failings identified. As part of this, the landlord should review the Ombudsman’s March 2019 Spotlight Report on Repairs and the Ombudsman’s October 2022 Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould, and ensure its staff are aware of them. The review should include consideration of:
1. the landlord’s processes and procedures for responding to reports of repairs, both before and after inspections are carried out;
2. the processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs are completed within a reasonable timescale;
3. the processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that repairs it carries out are effective and lasting repairs which resolve the issue;
4. the processes and procedures it has in place for temporary repairs to be carried out to prevent further damage to property, or detriment to its residents, when properties are awaiting planned improvement works;
5. the processes and procedures it has in place to ensure that residents are provided with regular updates on repairs;
6. the need for the landlord’s staff to understand its repair obligations following receipt of a Right to Buy application;
7. the processes and procedures it has in place for record keeping.

The landlord must provide the Ombudsman with a copy of its resulting action plan.

The landlord is to reply to this Service to provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timescales set out above.