Bromford Housing Group Limited (202210934)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210934

Bromford Housing Group Limited

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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damp and mould.
  2. Request for non-damp and mould related repairs.
  3. Complaint.

Background

The resident holds a 5 year assured shorthold tenancy with the landlord, which is a housing association. The tenancy started on 29 January 2020. As part of the investigation it has come to light that the landlord was made aware that the resident was recovering from throat cancer. The landlord has no further vulnerabilities recorded for the resident.
The property is a 2 bedroom ground floor flat in a 2 storey block. The resident lives in the property with his 2 children who were aged 6 and 9 years old at the time of the complaint.
The resident complained to the landlord about its response to his request for repairs during September 2021. Its records show it closed the complaint because the resident did not respond to its request for him to provide details of his availability for repair appointments. On 25 January 2022 the landlord raised a further stage 1 complaint. This related to the resident’s dissatisfaction that it had not resolved issues with damp and mould and dissatisfaction with non-damp related repairs in the property. It instructed an independent condensation, damp and mould survey which was carried out on 24 February. The survey made recommendations for further works. The landlord appointed a contractor to implement a package of works. However, as of 23 August 2023 the damp and mould issues had not been resolved and works remained outstanding.
During a visit from the landlord on 25 January 2022 the resident raised a second formal complaint. He said it had known about the ongoing issues since January 2020 yet the repairs were still outstanding.
The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 22 February 2022. It apologised for the damp and mould issues which it said had been ongoing for 2 years. It confirmed it had arranged for a survey to be carried out on 24 February. It said that as per resident’s request it would wait for the report before carrying out further repairs. It said it would update the resident in due course.
After the resident contacted this Service for assistance we wrote to the landlord on 27 September 2022 to ask it to clarify its position regarding the complaint. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October to confirm that his complaint was open at stage 1. It provided an update on works and compensation.
On 21 November 2022 the resident contacted the landlord because it was not communicating with him. On 22 November he reported that he was “extremely upset” at the condition of the property. On the same day, 22 November, the landlord escalated his complaint to stage 2 of its process by ‘pulling the cord’.
The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2023, saying that it:
1. Would ensure that works were checked by a senior officer when completed.
2. Would support a management move to a 1 bedroom property which was based on his housing need.
3. Had reviewed the information provided by the resident and offered £1500 as compensation for damage to personal items.
4. Acknowledged that its level of service had fallen short of its expectations.
5. Acknowledged delays and a lack of communication at stage 2 of the complaints process.
6. Apologised that conditions at the property had been “poor” and recognised the “impact this must have had on the resident and his family”, for which it apologised.
7. Was satisfied that since receiving the resident’s complaint appropriate action has been taken to resolve the issues with damp and mould.
8. Was reviewing its repairs process from end to end to see how it could make improvements to its service.
9. Had considered compensation. In addition to full replacement of flooring and redecoration, it offered £765 compensation (total £2265) comprised of:
  1. £50 for failed appointments.
  2. £100 for lack of communication.
  3. £50 for delays at stage 1.
  4. £65 (£5 per working day) for delays at stage 2.
  5. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident contacted this Service on 12 March 2023 to say that the stage 2 complaint response contained misinformation, incorrect timelines, and was not discussed with him. He said works remained outstanding and the damp and mould had not been resolved.

Assessment and findings

Landlord’s obligations policies and procedures

The landlord must ensure that its homes meet the Decent Homes Standard. This was updated in 2006 to take account of the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) which lists damp and mould as a potential hazard.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) requires the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. Section 10(1) of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, as amended by the Homes Act, states that in determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters, including freedom from damp, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Its repairing and maintaining assets policy sets out its response times to repairs as follows:
1. Immediate (2 hours)- a defect which may lead to injury or property damage.
2. Emergency (same day) – repairs that pose a risk or have a significant impact to the safety and/or welfare of the resident and/or property.
3. Emergency (next day) – repairs that pose a reduced risk or inconvenience to the customer if left unattended for more than 2 days.
4. Appointed repair – any other repair where no risk of harm or significant inconvenience or impact on customer. To be completed as required by the resident and availability of appropriate resources.
Its lettings policy states that in exceptional circumstances it may make a direct offer of a home to an existing customer outside of the nominations or direct application process. This includes cases where all attempts to resolve an issue in a housing scheme have failed. This will be progressed through its own choice based lettings scheme or through an application to join a local authority’s housing register.
Its complaint policy says that it aims to acknowledge stage 1 complaints within 5 working days and provide a response within 10 working days. It says its response at stage 1 will be agreed verbally with the resident and followed up in writing. If the resident remains dissatisfied the stage 1 response will be reviewed. If it cannot resolve the complaint immediately it will be escalated to stage 2 of the process. It will issue a response within 20 working days.
The landlord’s website refers to a process it calls ‘pull the cord’ which is designed to help it address issues with speed and certainty before they escalate and impact on residents. “Any colleague or customer volunteer can pull this cord when they feel an issue is taking too long to resolve and a dedicated team will immediately be formed to agree a long-lasting resolution.”
Its compensation policy says that letters offering compensation more than £500 should contain one of the following paragraphs:
1. Upon payment of the aforesaid sum it will be discharged from all further liabilities out of or in any way connected with the subject matter of the claim.
2. It shall pay to (the resident) the sum of (amount) in full and final settlement of any/all claims arising regarding the complaint during the period of (to be completed) to the date of the agreement.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s stage 1 response of 22 February 2022 acknowledged and apologised that damp and mould issues had been “ongoing for 2 years now.” It arranged for a damp and mould survey to be carried out on 24 February as a way of moving towards a resolution.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 March 2022 to express his concerns about the survey’s findings. He did not receive a reply so chased again on 9 March. The landlord replied on the same day, 9 March, to confirm it was reviewing the report and putting together a works package. The resident chased the landlord for updates again on 21 and 23 March. On 23 March the landlord replied to say that it had chased the survey and works package. It said it was monitoring the situation and consulting relevant departments to ensure that works were completed “as soon as possible.”
Given the length of time the resident had waited for his issues to be resolved, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to ensure it kept the resident fully updated. Had it managed his expectations effectively he would not have been caused time and trouble in chasing the landlord for updates.
On 6 April 2022 the landlord emailed the resident to confirm that it had sent the works package to the contractor who would contact him directly. However, on 14 April the resident emailed the landlord to say he had not heard anything. The landlord’s file note dated 4 May noted it had not yet received a date from the contractors but they were hoping to start at the end of the month. However, the landlord once again failed to communicate with the resident who was caused further inconvenience, time and trouble in chasing the landlord on 23 May.
On 25 May 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and apologised for the lack of communication. It provided an update on works which would start with external drainage. On 14 June the resident raised concerns about the quality of the works to the drainage. On 20 June he chased the landlord for an update, adding that a ditch dug around 2 walls was collecting water. The landlord did respond until 9 August, 50 days later, which was inappropriate.
Following her visit to the property on 2 September 2022 the neighbourhood coach said “there is drainage put around the building which is actually just going to form a river closer to the damp course, causing more issues. A good idea but not executed very well.” The internal response from the damp and mould taskforce (taskforce) did not comment on the drainage works which was inappropriate. Furthermore, the local authority’s inspection of the property on 23 September also identified “issues with perimeter ACO drainage.”
There is no evidence that the landlord addressed the concerns raised by the resident, neighbourhood coach and the local authority which was inappropriate. In its letter to the resident of 7 October 2022 it said that it initially intended to fit french drains but decided these would not be suitable so went on to fit ACO drains which it believed had been completed. However, the landlord’s file note dated 21 October said that drain works were outstanding. It is concerning that the landlord was not clear on whether works were complete and that its record keeping was inaccurate. Furthermore, its mixed messaging was confusing for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 set out the drainage works it had carried out but did not comment on whether it had corrected any errors. It was therefore unable to reassure the resident that it was satisfied works had been carried out to an acceptable standard which was inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord on 1 April 2022 to express concern that a contractor had attended to plaster over “mouldy broken render on exterior of building.” The taskforce replied to say that any external works were not in accordance with the works package arising from the survey. It offered no further explanation which was particularly inappropriate given that the resident was concerned the operative could not give a company name and did not have a sign written van or identification. It gave no indication that it would investigate the matter further in order to reassure the resident, even if a referral to another team was required, which was inappropriate.
On 17 July 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to report concerns about the quality of the work carried out on 15 July. There is no record that it replied which was inappropriate, causing further frustration to the resident.
Following the neighbourhood coach’s visit to the property on 2 September, she reported that the contractor had subcontracted the work to remove the render several months prior. She said there were “huge gaps in the render” which were letting in water. The internal response sent by the taskforce said this was not related to the package of works and the matter should be raised with the service delivery team. Once again, there is no evidence that this was actioned which was inappropriate. Furthermore, the local authority’s inspection of 23 September also noted issues with the render and gaps/hole in the original walls.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 said that as part of its investigation, it removed the gable external wall insulation to “explore if it had failed.” It said that when it was removed it was found to be in good condition therefore, it did not remove any more. Its taskforce team believed it had updated the resident verbally but had not put it in writing. It apologised for any confusion caused. It made no comment on whether it carried out works to restore the area it had removed to reassure the resident which would have been reasonable.
The survey conducted on 24 February 2022 noted that the property was occupied by 1 adult and 2 children (6 and 9 years old). It gave the property a ‘priority rating 1’ with immediate action required. Furthermore, it said the “property is classed as uninhabitable (…)”
Given the findings of the survey, and the landlord’s legal obligations under the HHSRS, The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 and Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to satisfy itself that the property was fit for habitation. If not, it should have considered an immediate decant for the resident. That it did not do so was a failure, demonstrating a lack of regard for the health and wellbeing of the resident and his children. This is particularly concerning given that its internal file note of 25 January 2022 confirmed that the resident was recovering from throat cancer and it should have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The landlord received an email on 20 April 2022 from a charity on behalf of the resident, asking that he be rehoused. The landlord’s reply failed to address this request, stating that there was a plan in place to carry out works. It once again missed an opportunity to consider whether the urgency of the situation required an immediate decant.
It was not until 17 May 2022, when the case handler became aware of the email from the charity, that it considered a decant. However, this was for the period while the internal works were completed, as opposed to an immediate need. That the landlord continued to miss opportunities to assess whether the property was fit for habitation in its current condition was inappropriate.
When the neighbourhood coach visited the property on 2 September 2022, 7 months after the survey, she advised the landlord to “weigh up what the best thing to do for this customer is.” She suggested the resident be decanted temporarily but also identified a property that the resident could move to permanently, on a like for like basis. The internal email response, also dated 2 September, addressed matters relating to the works themselves but offered no response to the question of a decant which was inappropriate.
The resident was caused distress, inconvenience, time and trouble, in contacting the local authority to try to resolve the issues at his property. It carried out a damp and mould inspection on 23 September 2022. It concluded that the February survey showed the “extent of the problem and potential solutions had been known for several months. Without a prompt definitive schedule of works and a reasonable timescale, the conditions warrant the service of a notice.”
The landlord’s file note dated 28 September 2022 said that its contractor was to issue a program for works that week which would be issued to the resident. The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October to provide an update about the start date for works. It referred to the February survey but again made no comment or observations on its finding that the property was uninhabitable which was inappropriate. This undermined its relationship with the resident because it failed to address the core finding of the survey which had caused distress to him.
The resident was decanted on 21 October 2022 and internal works commenced. The landlord’s file note of 21 October noted that the resident had been allocated a Specific Point of Contact (SPOC). It described the case as “messy”. While this was a welcome step, it is unclear why the landlord did not consider this much earlier in the process. Given the number of parties involved in the resolution, both internal and external, it would have been appropriate for a named individual to liaise with the resident and the various parties involved. This would have ensured a coordinated response with the resident updated accordingly.
The landlord’s email to the local authority of 12 October 2022 said the decant would end on 4 November. On 2 November it emailed the resident to advise that it would be extended to 18 November. The resident was caused frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble because he had to email the landlord to seek an update on 14 and 21 November. An internal file note dated 23 November showed the accommodation was extended provisionally for a further week. However, there is no evidence that this was communicated with the resident which was inappropriate.
The resident moved back to the property on 3 December 2022. On 29 December he emailed the landlord to report that damp and mould had returned. He said there was no insulation on the exterior of the property and some of his property and furniture could not be used due to being damp and/or mouldy. He said it had been very cold and he and his children had “been left over the christmas period with no useable furniture and damaged property in a damp mouldy flat.” The following day, 30 December, he sent a further email to the landlord setting out the history and providing photos.
The landlord’s response of 30 December 2022 said it could “see the distress” the issue had caused from the photographs provided. However, its general tone lacked empathy and recognition of the detriment caused by the ongoing damp and mould since 2020. It also failed to comment on the resident’s complaint about damage to his personal items and property which was inappropriate.
On 1 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord to seek an update on his complaint, particularly in relation to compensation for damaged items. He said he had been sleeping on a “damp mouldy bed” and that his clothes were being stored in cardboard boxes because his wardrobe was damaged by damp. The landlord’s response of 2 February was insensitive and inappropriate in saying “I hope this email finds you well” while failing to acknowledge the specific detriment set out in the resident’s email. It requested further information to be able to process his claim for compensation for damage to property. However, it is unclear why it did not request this information when the issue was first raised by the resident on 29 December. That it did not so was a failure.
In his email of 29 December 2022 the resident reported that damp and mould had returned however, the landlord did not consider next steps until 13 February 2023. Given the extensive history of the case and the ongoing distress caused to the resident the delay was unreasonable. It decided to carry out a further survey and considered moving the resident on a permanent basis. While this was a welcome step, it should have been considered 12 months ago, after the February 2022 survey.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 it said it would only consider moving the resident to a 1 bedroom property because the local authority had assessed the resident as having 1 bed need. Its file note of 2 September 2022 sets out this was because child benefit was being paid to the children’s mother who did not live at the property. On 9 March the resident contacted the landlord to decline the offer to move because he wanted to stay in the area.
The landlord’s lettings policy for management moves is silent on whether it will offer a like for like property or a property based on current housing need in line with the local authority’s lettings and allocations policy. Furthermore, given that the resident was already living in a 2 bedroom property with his 2 children, and its discretion relating to management moves, the offer was inappropriate.
Moving to a 1 bedroom property would have worsened the resident’s housing circumstances, causing overcrowding. For the landlord to make such an offer following the years of distress caused by living in a damp property was inappropriate and showed a lack of respect for the resident. Therefore the offer could not be considered as a genuine attempt by the landlord to put things right for the resident.
This investigation notes the updates from both parties that owing to a change of circumstances the resident is on the transfer list for a 3 bedroom property.
The landlord’s internal email of 17 February 2023 confirmed that it had inspected the property that day. Damp and mould was present in the main bedroom, bathroom, children’s bedroom and there was a “damp spot” in the kitchen. The resident remained concerned that rendering works had not been carried out properly and was frustrated about a lack of communication from the landlord. The outcome of the visit was sent to the taskforce.
An internal discussion took place 11 days later, on 28 February 2023. That the landlord delayed the discussion showed again that it did not prioritise the resolution of the ongoing issues which was inappropriate. It acknowledged that “communication has not been as frequent as we would like” and that the property had had “severe issues.” However, its position was that it had “gone above and beyond” to ensure the issues were fully rectified and it had “done what it could to support the resident.” Given the failures identified in this report the landlord’s assessment of its handling of the situation is concerning.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles requires landlords to be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes. That it took such a positive view of its handling of the case demonstrates a lack of learning which affected its ability to provide a resolution in a timely manner.
The stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 said that works would be carried out and checked by a senior member of staff. The resident contacted the landlord on 29 April to say that no works had taken place and he had not received any further communication. This was inappropriate because it added to the cumulative distress, frustration and disappointment caused to the resident. Furthermore it sent a message to him that the landlord did not take his situation seriously which added to the erosion of their relationship.
On 4 August 2023 the landlord’s contractor emailed it to confirm that it had met with the resident to discuss works. While this was a welcome step forward it is unclear why the landlord took 3 months to get to that point and the delay was therefore unreasonable.
In an internal email dated 7 August 2023 the landlord noted that the resident remained dissatisfied with the condition of the property. The landlord’s internal email of 14 August noted that it had advised the resident to approach the local authority if he believed he still had issues with damp and mould. It is unclear why, given the considerable history of damp and mould, it would inappropriately put the onus on the resident to resolve the matter via another agency. It suggested a meeting to ensure that all works identified at stage 2 of the complaints process had been carried out which was appropriate in the circumstances.
In an internal discussion on 23 August 2023 the landlord expressed concern that this Service may find failures if “we don’t sort ourselves out.” It confirmed that the previous contractors had been removed from the job and another had been allocated the works identified in the stage 2 complaint response. The response was issued on 3 March and in the 5 months that followed the landlord had failed again to complete the works which was inappropriate. It is acknowledged that the landlord noted that the resident had been reluctant to allow access at time and it was positive that it recognised the need to work closely with the resident to ensure it could gain access.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (2021) requires landlords to recognise that issues can have an ongoing detrimental impact on the health and well-being of the resident. They should therefore be responded to in a timely manner. Landlords should consider appropriate timescales for their responses to reflect the urgency of the case and set these out clearly for residents so their expectations can be managed. The evidence shows that the landlord failed to do so in this case.
It also highlights that effective record keeping provides significant benefits for both landlords and residents. For individual complaints it enables accurate information to be shared across teams and with residents to improve the landlord response. It also assists our investigations by improving our understanding of the situation at the time of the landlord response. More broadly, it allows landlords to better understand the resident, the history of the property and previous actions in relation to both so that they can consider the most appropriate response.
The repairs spreadsheet provided by the landlord contains just 19 entries for the property for the period April 2021 to November 2023. The Ombudsman expects landlords to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs. The evidence it has given has not been comprehensive and there are gaps in the timeline. Given the complexity of the case it would have been appropriate for the landlord to have kept centralised records setting out what works were carried out, when and by whom, including failed appointments. This Service emailed the landlord on 12 March 2024 to ask when the damp and mould was fully resolved. It replied on 20 March to confirm it could not see any condensation, damp and mould works on the address which is concerning.
The Ombudsman’s spotlight report requires landlords to communicate effectively with residents, sharing any relevant information so that the resident understands next steps. This can help to build trust between residents and landlords. The resident expressed his dissatisfaction around the lack of communication, having to chase the landlord for updates on several occasions. Its file note of 28 February noted its communication had not been as frequent as it would like. Its stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 acknowledged it was clear that there had been a “lack of communication” and the resident had to “consistently chase” for updates for which it apologised.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had experienced issues with damp and mould as early as 2020 and that the matters remained unresolved in August 2023, 3 years later. This investigation has identified the following failures:
1. It failed to consider the risk to the physical and mental health of the resident, who was recovering from throat cancer, and his school age children.
2. It failed to communicate effectively.
3. Its response lacked empathy.
4. It failed to consider the resident’s individual needs.
5. It failed to use the complaint as a learning opportunity and consequently failed to provide a resolution to the substantive issue in timely manner.
6. It failed to have regard to its duties under the Equality Act 2010.
The were a series of significant, and repeated, failures which had a seriously detrimental impact on the resident and amount to severe maladministration. The landlord’s response to the failures exacerbated the situation and further undermined the landlord/resident relationship.
The landlord has provided evidence to this Service which shows that it has reviewed its response to reports of damp and mould against the recommendations in the Ombudsman’s spotlight report. It completed a gap analysis in May 2023 and has provided copies of its subsequent planning process and its draft interim condensation, damp and mould policy 2024. This investigation is therefore satisfied that the landlord has taken appropriate steps to ensure that the failures identified in this report do not reoccur in the future.

Non damp and mould related repairs

The landlord’s internal file note dated 25 January 2022 identified that a number of repairs needed to be carried out including a leak from the boiler behind the kitchen sink unit which was damp as a result. There were no extractor fans in the bathroom or kitchen and the bathroom window could not be opened because the frame was bent. Finally, holes that were created when the gas meter was moved from inside the property to outside needed to be filled.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response dated 22 February 2022 acknowledged that it had known about the leak from the boiler “for some time.” Its understanding was that the repair had stalled because the resident was concerned that his services would be off to complete the work. It said it would discuss the situation internally to provide a resolution and would provide updates. There is no evidence that this was considered further until 1 November which was inappropriate. While its repairs policy does not set out response times for its repairs service, this was an unreasonable delay. The landlord’s internal email of the same date confirmed that it had visited the property twice since the resident was decanted and could not detect a leak in the kitchen.
The evidence shows that the landlord did not consider the other works until 6 and 7 April 2022 when it decided that the bent window frame should be raised as a separate repair, as opposed to be included in the package of works for the damp and mould. While this decision was not unreasonable it came unreasonably late in the process. Furthermore, it did not provide updates to the resident as promised which was inappropriate. This caused him time and trouble when he had to chase the landlord for an update on 14 April.
The landlord’s records show that it visited the property on 21 November 2022 and reported that there were no extractor fans in the kitchen. It raised the necessary works orders. This was 10 months after 25 January, when the landlord first acknowledged there was an issue. It is unclear as to why it took so long therefore the delay was unreasonable.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 the landlord confirmed that the contractor was in possession of a new bathroom window and was waiting for an installation date. This was over 12 months from the date the repair was first identified by the landlord which was an unreasonable delay.
The response also confirmed that it would install a bathroom extractor fan and check if the kitchen fan had been installed and if not, to install one. Despite the order being raised for the kitchen on 21 November 2022 just over 3 months later, it could not be sure the works had been carried out. This is further evidence of the lack of a coordinated approach to works.
Given the issues with damp and mould at the property installing adequate ventilation should have been a priority for the landlord therefore the delay was inappropriate.
The landlord’s internal records dated 6 April 2022 shows that it was aware that a separate works order would need to be raised for the electrical repairs because they would not be included in the package of works for damp and mould. While its decision was reasonable, the work was not carried out which was inappropriate.
Following her visit to the property the neighbourhood coach sent an internal email on 2 September 2022 to raise concerns about the condition of the electrics, described as “shocking.” The hall light switch acted as a main switch meaning it had to be on to be able to turn on the lights in the bathroom and bedrooms. A request was made for this to be addressed “urgently.”
In an internal email, also dated 2 September, the landlord again confirmed that an order for the electrical repairs would need to be raised outside of the package of works. It said the resident had previously declined for any works to be carried out until the damp and mould works were completed. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence to support its position. An internal file note dated 5 September set out a request to the repairs team to attend to the electrics as an emergency (same day order). This was appropriate and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
However, the local authority’s damp and mould inspection, carried out on 23 September 2022, noted the same issues with the electrics meaning the landlord failed to remedy the issue as an emergency which was inappropriate. Furthermore, given the potential health and safety implications it showed a lack of regard for the resident’s welfare.
The local authority requested a copy of the current Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR). In an internal email dated 1 November 2022 the landlord confirmed that the electrical works had been completed and the EICR produced.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 said it had raised a repair for the gas box and asked the resident to confirm his availability. By that time the box was loose but when an engineer attended on 24 April 2023 it failed to carry out the repair, despite logging the job as complete. The landlord responded appropriately by first checking that the job had been raised correctly, which it had, and then escalating the matter at senior level with its contractor.
The landlord failed to carry out the electrical works as an emergency, as requested by its own staff in line with its repairs policy. Its internal file notes make reference to the resident declining additional works until the damp and mould works had been carried out. However, this investigation has not seen any evidence to support its position. Therefore, the delays in carrying out repairs to the extractor fans, bathroom window and gas box were unreasonable. While the landlord’s repairs policy does not allocate response times to appointed repairs its general response was not reasonable.
The detriment caused to the resident was compounded by the damp and mould and general condition of the property. The landlord’s response demonstrated a general lack of regard to the welfare and health and safety of the resident at a time when he was recovering from cancer. The failures identified amount to severe maladministration.

Redress for repairs

On 7 October 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that it would replace the resident’s carpets, noted as early as 25 January as being saturated, and flooring throughout the property and to redecorate. It advised the resident that he could make a claim on its liability insurance in relation to his damaged items. It said it would review compensation for distress and inconvenience once all works were complete.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 the landlord offered additional compensation comprised of:
1. £1500 for damage to personal items.
2. £50 compensation for failed appointments.
3. £100 for lack of communication.
4. £500 for distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s file note dated 23 August 2023 states that the resident accepted its offer as “full and final settlement.” While this was in line with its compensation policy, it suggests that by accepting compensation the resident is precluded from seeking further financial redress for example, via a legal remedy or through this Service which is inappropriate.
£100 compensation for the lack of communication is not proportionate to the distress, disappointment, frustration, time and trouble caused to the resident. The resident had to chase the landlord to seek updates on the works in relation to damp and mould works and the bent window frame. It does not reflect the length of time, between 2020 and 2023, during which the resident had to chase the landlord. It also does not reflect the landlord’s lack of coordination of works including its liaison with the resident, contractor and internal departments. Therefore the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £600. The landlord may deduct the £100 it has offered if this has already been paid.
The Ombudsman considers it appropriate to require the landlord to provide financial redress to the resident which recognises the impact of the ongoing damp and mould issues on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property. The period considered for this calculation is from March 2020 up to end of August 2023.
In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers it reasonable to require the landlord to pay the resident £1739.24 compensation. This is a 10% amenity loss calculation for the period set out above:
2020 £408.01x 9 = £3680.19.
2021 £408.01 x 3 + £414.21 x 9 = £4951.92.
2022 £414.24 x 3 + £432.65 x9 = £5136.57.
2023 £432.65 x 3 + £465.17 x5 = £3623.80.
While the Ombudsman acknowledges that this is not a precise calculation, this is considered to a be a fair and reasonable amount of compensation taking all the circumstances into account.
This investigation also considers that the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation is not proportionate to the adverse effect of its failings on the resident. The series of the failures in relation to damp and mould, set out above at paragraph 58, caused significant distress to the resident. Furthermore, the failures identified in relation to non-damp and mould repairs caused additional distress and inconvenience, adding to the overall detriment caused to the resident.
Therefore an order has been made for the landlord to pay £2000 compensation for distress and inconvenience. The landlord may deduct the £500 it has offered if this has already been paid. This is in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance that compensation of at least £1000 should be awarded where there was a failure which had a significant impact on the resident. Compensation may be higher where there was a severe long-term impact.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 said that the landlord was already in the process of reviewing its repairs process from “start to finish” to see how it could improve its service going forwards. It said it would review the resident’s complaint to help to highlight the issues that customers face, and what changes are needed. This has been reflected in the orders made in this determination.

Complaint handling

The landlord issued a stage 1 complaint response (A) to the resident on 16 September 2021. This investigation has not seen a copy of the resident’s original complaint. However, the response states that the complaint was about multiple appointments required to resolve outstanding repair issues. It advised it would try to condense appointments as much as possible and asked the resident to confirm his availability. An undated note at the top of the letter says “closed as no response from customer.”
The letter contains a complaint reference number and is therefore a formal complaint response. However, it was not issued in line with the landlord’s complaints policy. There is no evidence that the landlord followed its policy by agreeing the content with the resident prior to issue. Furthermore, it did not signpost the resident on how he could escalate his complaint to stage 2 should he remain dissatisfied. This was inappropriate because it delayed the resident’s ability to resolve his complaint through the internal complaints process.
When the resident did not respond, it closed the complaint. This investigation cannot comment on timescales because the note about closure is undated, which is a record keeping failure. Given that the complaint related to necessary repairs it would have been appropriate for the landlord to follow up with the resident, even with a telephone call, but there is no evidence that it did so.
The resident was caused further inconvenience, time and trouble when he made a further stage 1 complaint (B) on 25 January 2022 to try to resolve the ongoing damp and mould. The response was issued 20 working days later, on 22 February, however the landlord’s internal records state that it appropriately agreed an extension with the resident on 8 February.
The Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) says that if all or part of the complaint is not resolved to the resident’s satisfaction at stage 1 it must be progressed to stage 2 of the landlord’s procedure unless an exclusion ground now applies.
On 1 April 2022 the resident emailed the landlord to express his ongoing dissatisfaction. He said “enough is enough with the lack of communication, poor repairs and bodge jobs.” It would have been appropriate for the landlord to offer to raise a stage 2 complaint. Instead, it inappropriately dealt with the matter informally by discussing the situation with the resident over the phone.
A charity contacted the landlord on the resident’s behalf on 20 April 2022. It said the resident was “worrying and very anxious about the situation, despondent and feeling like he is banging his head against a brick wall.” It replied to the charity but still did not consider raising a stage 2 complaint which was inappropriate.
The resident emailed the landlord to set out his ongoing dissatisfaction including on 23 May, 14 June, 17 and 27 July, 3, 20 and 31 August. At no point did the landlord consider raising a stage 2 complaint or, if it felt to much time had passed since the stage 1 complaint response (B), raising a new stage 1 complaint which was inappropriate.
Following intervention from this Service the landlord wrote to the resident on 7 October 2022 to confirm that his complaint remained opened at stage 1. The landlord had inappropriately held stage 1 complaint (B) open since its response of 22 February. In doing so it denied the resident the option to progress his complaint during the 8 months that followed which was inappropriate. The letter gave the resident the option to raise a stage 2 complaint.
Not doing so undermined the resident/landlord relationship because it again delayed the resident’s ability to exhaust the landlord’s complaint process and ultimately, access support from this Service should he remain dissatisfied. This caused the resident inconvenience, frustration, distress, time and trouble because he had to continually contact the landlord to report his ongoing concerns and ultimately, contact this Service for assistance.
The landlord’s file note of 21 October 2022 notes that the resident remained dissatisfied and it described the case as “messy.” Despite this, the landlord still failed to raise a stage 2 complaint. On 21 November the resident emailed the landlord to report concerns that it was not communicating with him. Having visited the property himself the resident emailed the landlord the following day, on 22 November, to complain about the condition of the property. It was only at that point that the landlord decided to raise the complaint to stage 2, using its pull the cord process.
However, the landlord failed to communicate its decision to the resident who was caused inconvenience, time and trouble when he emailed the landlord on 6 ad 29 December 2022 seeking confirmation that his complaint had been escalated to stage 2.
On 12 January 2023 the investigating officer emailed the resident to introduce themselves and said they hoped to respond by 1 February. The landlord sent a further email to the resident on 2 February saying it was due to issue the response that day and requested an extension to 17 February. It said this was to allow it extra time to collate the information required to be able to respond.
This was not appropriate because it was an apology for not doing something rather than proactively managing the resident’s expectations. Furthermore the landlord had since 22 November 2022, when it ‘pulled the cord’, to undertake the necessary investigation. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 3 March 2023, 70 days after it pulled the cord. Not only was this an unreasonably lengthy delay but the landlord did not provide further progress updates to the resident causing further frustration.
The pull the cord process is meant to provide a “timely long lasting resolution” for residents. However, it did not meet its objectives in this case. An order has been made for the landlord to review its approach to the pull the cord process. The Code states that landlord should have a 2 stage complaints process which is fair and transparent. Therefore, it is inappropriate to have an element of the complaints process which is discretionary.
The Code says that a complaint should be resolved at the earliest opportunity (…). The resident’s first complaint was made on 16 September 2021. At the time of the stage 2 complaint response, issued 18 months later on 3 March 2023, works remained outstanding. The landlord failed to use the complaints process as an opportunity to learn from its mistakes and put things right for the resident at the earliest opportunity which was inappropriate.
This investigation has identified the following complaint handling failures:
1. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response (A) did not comply with its complaints policy.
2. The landlord kept stage 1 complaint (B) open and failed to escalate the resident’s repeated expression of dissatisfaction to stage 2 of the complaints process.
3. When it did raise a stage 2 complaint its response was delayed. Its pull the cord approach failed to achieve its desired outcomes.
4. It missed the opportunity to use the resident’s complaint as a learning opportunity meaning it did not provide a timely resolution.
In its stage 2 complaint response of 3 March 2023 the landlord offered £50 compensation for delays in issuing its stage 1 complaint response (B). It also offered £65 for the delays in issuing its stage 2 complaint response.
The stage 2 complaint response failed to acknowledge and apologise for the other complaint handling failures identified in this report. It also failed to address the distress, inconvenience and frustration caused to the resident by its cumulative complaint handling failures which amount to maladministration.
The failures adversely affected the resident. The landlord failed to acknowledge all its failings and only made some attempt to put things right. It failed to fully address the detriment caused to the resident and therefore its offer of compensation was not proportionate to the failings identified in this investigation. The landlord has been ordered to pay the resident £800 which is consistent with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance where there was a failure which had a significant impact. The higher bracket reflects the considerable efforts made by the resident to resolve his complaint and the landlord’s inaction in escalating it to stage 2. The landlord may deduct the £115 it offered if this has already been paid.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for non-damp and mould related repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £5139.24 compensation, comprised as follows:
1. £1739.24 for the impact of the failures in its response to reports of damp and mould on the resident’s use and enjoyment of the property.
2. £2600 for the distress, frustration, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the landlord response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould and to his request for non-damp and mould related repairs. The landlord may deduct the £650 it has offered if this has already been paid.
3. £800 for the detriment caused by the landlord’s complaint handling failures. The landlord may deduct the £115 it has offered if this has already been paid.
Also within 4 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered:
1. To arrange for a member of its senior leadership team to apologise to the resident, in writing or face to face depending on their preference. A copy of the letter or file note should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
2. It should provide written feedback to the resident on the review of its repairs process as set out in its stage 2 response of 3 March 2023. A copy should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 4 weeks.
Within 8 weeks of the date of the determination the landlord is ordered to:
1. Review its pull the cord approach in terms of what went wrong in this case and how it ensures that it is applied fairly to all complaints. A copy of the review should be sent to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
2. Carry out staff training around complaint handling including when to close complaints and when to escalate to stage 2 of the process. The date and content of the training should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
3. Review its compensation policy against the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance and policy. A copy of the review should be sent to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.
4. Review the case against the Ombudsman’s spotlight reports on knowledge and information management and on attitudes, rights and respect in social housing. The landlord should identify areas of learning and what it would do differently in the future. The date and outcome of the review should be provided to the Ombudsman, also within 8 weeks.

Recommendations

The landlord should consider reviewing its repairs and assets policy to set clearer timescales for its response times. This will help the landlord be more transparent about its approach to responsive repairs and manage resident’s expectations about the service they can expect to receive.