Twenty11 Homes Ltd (202225419)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202225419

Twenty11 Homes Ltd

27 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:
1. repairs to the property following the resident’s reports of damp and leaks.
2. the related complaint and claim for compensation.
The complaint is also about the impact of the damp and leaks on the resident’s family’s health.
We have also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

The resident is a fixed term tenant of the landlord. The property is a 2-bedroom house where the resident lives with her young child.
The landlord’s repairs policy sets out that responsive repairs should be completed within 20 working days. It says it will keep residents informed about the progress of repairs. The landlord’s damp, mould and compensation policy came into effect in December 2022. This states that the landlord aims to prevent occurrence of damp, mould and condensation in its homes, and to manage the consequences of it in an efficient and effective way. It says its approach to damp, mould and condensation is based on a “zero-tolerance” principle. It says that this will ensure damp, mould and condensation cases are identified and that it acts quickly. It says it will monitor such cases through to completion and confirm to the resident in writing when it believes damp, mould and condensation has been resolved.
The landlord has a 2-stage complaints process. It aims to provide a response to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and to those at stage 2 within 20 working days. The landlord’s compensation policy says it may pay compensation in several forms, including:
1. for stress, upset and inconvenience caused by the landlord’s actions/inaction.
2. For loss and damage – to compensate residents for decoration, furniture or personal items damaged due to neglect by a member of staff.
It states that it will not pay compensation for insurance claims relating to financial loss or damage to property or personal injury as a result of its negligence. It says these will be dealt with in accordance with insurance procedures.

Summary of events

At the end of April 2022 the landlord noted contact from the resident about water damage at her property. It recorded that a new appointment had been raised to attend the resident’s property on 10 May 2022, but did not detail the outcome of this visit. No records were made of any actions following this.
In September 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident about concerns she had raised about a number of repairs raised following an inspection by a repairs specialist for the landlord on 28 June 2022. Repair notes included inspecting the roof for suspected water ingress and repointing work. The landlord said it had liaised with the repairs specialist and a contractor had booked to erect scaffolding on 27 September 2022. It said this was to complete repointing work on 5 October 2022. Records provided do not detail what work was completed following this.
On 1 January 2023 the resident contacted the landlord. She said that damp issues at her property were getting worse and work to resolve this should have started months ago. She said she wanted the landlord to inspect the property and for the issues to be resolved. On 4 January 2023 the landlord asked that the resident to send photos she had attached in a different way as it had been unable to view these.
On 12 January 2023 the resident complained to the landlord about the damp issues affecting her property. She said:
1. this was a reoccurrence of an issue she had been affected by when she first moved to the property.
2. the water damage had come back in her bedroom.
3. scaffolding had now been erected at her property for months, without work being completed.
4. she had chased the landlord a number of times but there had been a lack of communication and she had been “messed around”.
5. the landlord had attended on 6 January 2023 and said it would contact her to book appointments.
6. she felt she had been “pushed and shoved” between different people and told “one thing then another”.
7. she felt she was not getting anywhere, and the water ingress was spreading.
Later in January 2023 the landlord noted it contacted the resident by videocall and that she reported her bedroom was covered in damp. She said she was also concerned by floorboards that dipped and windows and doors that let in draughts. She said she had not received updates from the landlord about the work, despite making contact.
On 19 January 2023 the landlord noted a roof inspection was required as there was a steady flow of water through the ceiling. The landlord noted the work order was completed that day, but no notes were made. On 25 January 2023 the landlord raised a work order for repointing at the property and resealing of the windows.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident on 26 January 2023. It said repointing work had been due to take place on 4 October 2022, but this did not happen due to the scaffolding being put in the wrong place. It noted that when the resident had made contact with the contractor about when the work would be completed, her call was not returned by a manager as promised. It said it had been in contact with the contractor about its communication to ensure clear dialogue with residents during repairs. It apologised for the lack of clarity to allay the resident’s concerns about the delays.
The landlord noted the resident had reported the return of damp to her bedroom. It said:
1. it had attended on 6 January 2023 to investigate and raised a number of repairs including, resealing windows.
2. it would need to erect scaffolding again to complete window work and repointing of the rear elevation at the property.
3. internal work to support resolving the damp problem would be completed after the external work was complete.
4. it was sorry for the delays with the scaffolding and a lack of communication.
5. there had been an avoidable delay since 6 January 2023 in completing the repointing work.
6. it would monitor the work and escalate if it received no satisfactory update by 27 January 2023.
On 27 January 2023 the resident requested that her complaint be escalated. She said she had sent “loads of emails” without getting any response. She said the damp at her property did not just affect her bedroom but now also affected her lounge and hallways. She said that landlord was aware of this from its inspection on 6 January but had not taken it into account in the complaint response. She said she had also previously sent an email about compensation for the damage that had occurred to her decoration. The resident said that scaffolding had been put up unsafely 3 times and that on the fourth occasion it was put in the wrong position. She said as a result scaffolding had been up for months.
On 10 February 2023 the contractor sent an email to the landlord setting out that:
1. scaffolding at the resident’s property had been erected on 29 September 2022 and repointing to the elevation had been completed on 23 November.
2. scaffolding was erected again on 7 February 2023 to complete further repointing, but an operative who had attended confirmed additional scaffolding was needed due to the extent of repointing needed.
3. It was also to seal windows.
Also on 10 February 2023 the landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response to the resident. It said:
1. repointing work was completed on 23 November 2022 after scaffolding was erected.
2. an isolated area of damp returned in the resident’s bedroom, which was reported on 1 January 2023.
3. it undertook a visit to the property on 6 January 2023 when it identified additional work, including further repointing, and resealing of windows.
4. this was authorised on 25 January 2023 but due to internal delays agreeing the extent of work, this work was yet to start.
5. it should have completed a full and comprehensive damp, mould and condensation survey at its first visit to allow a greater degree of co-ordination of the work. It said it had adopted a zero-tolerance of damp since January 2023.
The landlord said that it acknowledged there had been significant delays in addressing damp and mould at the resident’s property. It said that these delays could have contributed to the extent of damage to decorative surfaces. It said it did not pay compensation for damage to decoration but would offer compensation when considering the resident’s complaint as a whole.
The landlord acknowledged that scaffolding had been up at the resident’s property since 29 September 2022 until the point of its complaint response (apart from a week when it was removed then reinstated). It said this far exceeded the usual timeframe, and directly related to the effective case management of the work. It noted the outstanding repairs and said it was to contact the resident on 21 February 2023 to arrange this work. It apologised for the service the resident had received and offered her £250 in recognition of avoidable delays, stress, inconvenience and poor communication.
On 3 March 2023 the landlord’s repairs manager sent an internal email about the progress of repairs at the resident’s property. He noted he had spoken to the resident earlier in the week about work and had explained:
1. external work now needed including removal of failing insulation and removal of a gable wall.
2. it would move onto internal work after external work was completed.
3. it would decorate rooms it had worked in but would not wallpaper the resident’s lounge and this would need to be done by her own decorator.
4. it was to replace damaged floor in the resident’s bedroom.
The landlord noted the resident was concerned that the compensation previously offered would not cover the cost of decoration. The landlord’s repairs manager noted he had explained the landlord would now arrange all redecoration with the exception of wallpapering her lounge. He said the compensation previously awarded could go towards covering this.
On 27 April 2023 the landlord’s repair manager sent an internal email. He said he had been in regular contact with the resident while work was being arranged. He noted the work to the cavity wall was due to start on 16 May 2023, and that the gable wall was then to be taken down and rebuilt. Records provided by the landlord do not contain details of the external work completed following this.
In August 2023 the landlord raised work to hack back and reskim plaster in the resident’s bedroom and landing, and to replace damaged flooring in the bedroom. It noted that this work was completed on 18 September 2023. However, in October 2023 the landlord noted internally that the property had now undergone a complete rebuild of the gable end but that in September 2023 damp patches had reappeared in the main bedroom and landing. It noted it had arranged for a new contractor to inspect issues and quote for remedial work. It said that due to this roofing issue it had not been able to start internal plastering work at the property. The landlord’s records show a repair was raised for roofer to inspect on 4 December 2023, but records do not detail the subsequent work.
The landlord told us in March 2024 that after the gable end was rebuilt, damp issues were not resolved. It said it appointed a new contractor in October 2023, who had identified the following issues:
1. the dry verge had been fitted incorrectly.
2. roof felt was overlapping the cavity allowing rainwater to enter the cavity.
3. a window was poorly fitted and had been damaged at installation.
4. guttering rise and fall brackets had been fitted too high.
5. overflow pipes did not come through the brickwork.
The landlord said that it had a protective membrane installed at the gable wall end of the property due to staining appearing after the new contractor had completed work. However, it said this was to be removed in the week commencing 11 March 2024. It said it would then monitor work for a period of 2 weeks to ensure that external repairs have resolved issues. After this it would complete internal work which included redecoration. It said it was also still to complete cavity wall insulation once it confirmed the water penetration was resolved. The landlord said that work reports from the first contractor were not available as this company was no longer trading.
The landlord said it had not received a claim from the resident for personal possessions, but had received one as part of a new complaint, made on 7 March 2024. It said it would consider the resident’s request for compensation as part of its response to her new complaint.
The landlord said, when it provided its stage 2 complaint response to the resident, it had considered she was responsible for internal decoration. However, it said that on review it decided the damage caused to decoration was at least partially due to delays on its part. It is said for this reason it later agreed to complete internal redecoration.
The resident told us that repointing work was not completed in November 2022 as the landlord stated in its stage 1 response. She said she wants to move from the property and had put in request to the landlord in November 2023. She said that while the landlord had now agreed to redecorate, she wanted it to compensate her appropriately for the distress and inconvenience of living with the unresolved damp issues for such a long period of time. She said the amount offered did not recognise the distress and inconvenience she had been caused. She said that she was unable to use her garden easily while scaffolding was in place, which caused her an issue as she has a dog.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
The resident says that the damp issues at the property may have had a negative impact on her family’s health. While the resident’s concerns about this are acknowledged, we cannot draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health. This is a matter which is most appropriately decided by a court following a claim for damages. It could also be considered by way of a personal injury claim through the landlord’s insurer. It would be appropriate for the landlord to provide the resident with details of how she could make such a claim.
Paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme states that we may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion concern matters where it would be quicker, fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. It follows that the resident’s complaint about this matter is not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider in line with paragraph 42(f) of the Scheme. However, we have considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the impact on her health and well-being when considering her complaint. We have also considered any distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any failings by the landlord.

Scope of investigation

The resident raised concerns with us that she has experienced damp issues at the property since the start of her tenancy in 2019. It is noted from repair records that the resident reported water damage to the landlord in January 2020 and that the landlord subsequently completed internal and external repairs relating to this in April 2020. However, we have seen no further reports of water damage until 28 April 2022. For this reason, our investigation will focus on the issues since that date.
The resident’s desire to move is noted. However, we cannot make a decision on whether the landlord should move the resident as that would be a decision for the landlord to make in line with own policies and procedures.

Repairs to the property following the resident’s reports of damp and leaks.

The landlord poorly detailed and recorded the resident’s reports of damp issues and its subsequent attendance at the property. Records we have seen indicate the resident raised concerns about water damage in April 2022. The landlord noted it had arranged to attend on 10 May 2022. While that was in line with timescales set out in its repairs policy, there is no record of this attendance. Its failure to adequately record it attendance means it cannot adequately demonstrate that it took appropriate action, in line with its repairs obligation, after the resident’s report.
Subsequent correspondence with the resident in September 2022 set out that its repairs specialist had completed an inspection of the property on 28 June 2022. Again, it failed to make adequate record of this inspection and what had prompted it. The correspondence of September 2022 and subsequent work orders raised in September 2022 note the roof was to be inspected for suspected water damage, and that repointing was needed. While the landlord later said scaffolding was to be erected at the property 29 September 2022, it did not appropriately detail this in records or note what progress was being made towards completing these repairs. Without doing so, it is difficult to see how it maintained any level of monitoring of the repair work.
During its complaint response the landlord acknowledged it would have been appropriate for it to complete a full damp, mould and condensation inspection at its first visit. This would have helped to ensure issues the resident was reporting were robustly and efficiently resolved. Its own damp, mould and condensation policy was not in place at the time of the resident’s first report of water damage/damp in April 2022. However, the Ombudsman’s spotlight report and damp and mould, from October 2021, sets out that landlords should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, and should make proactive interventions. But there is little evidence the landlord did so.
The resident complained in January 2023 that scaffolding had been in place at her at her property for several months without work being completed. In its stage 1 response the landlord acknowledged that repointing work was not completed in October 2022 as planned as scaffolding was in the wrong place. Later, in its stage 2 response the landlord said that repointing work had been completed on 23 November 2022 after the scaffolding was erected. But there is no contemporaneous record of this work and the resident later disputed that it had been completed. Clearly, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to maintain keep clear contemporaneous record of what work had been completed. Without this it is not possible to know with any certainty what level of repointing, if any, was completed in November 2022. In addition, it is apparent any work done had failed to resolve the damp issues, and there is no evidence the landlord had communicated with the resident to establish whether issues continued. By February 2023 it had established a significant amount of additional repointing was needed.
The landlord acknowledged in the stage 1 response that there had been failings in its contractor’s communication with the resident about the progress of repairs during this time. It is evident from the resident’s contact with the landlord in January 2023 that she felt she was being “messed around” and that the issues were not being appropriately resolved by the landlord. In line with its own damp and mould guidance the landlord should have been monitoring work to ensure it resolved damp and mould issues. This would have needed effective communication with the resident. Its inadequate recording of inspections and work, even after the resident had raised concerns about progress, can only have contributed to the inefficient management of work. For instance, repair records make no note of the findings of its inspection of the property in January 2023. It should reasonably have done so.
It is acknowledged that the landlord subsequently identified a significant amount of additional work was needed to the property, including rebuilding the gable end of the property and cavity wall work. It is also clear that the landlord identified in September 2023 that issues with damp at the property persisted even after this work was completed. Due to lack of clear records, it is not apparent whether issues identified by the new contractor in October 2023 were connected to the work completed following resident’s reports of damp issues since April 2022, or to work previously completed. However, it can reasonably be concluded that a detailed damp and mould inspection after the resident’s report in April 2022 would have helped the landlord to avoid a delay resolving these issues. It would have helped identify and resolve all possible causes of the damp issues in the most efficient and effective way. Despite stating in its stage 2 response that it should have completed a full damp and mould survey at the outset, there is no evidence the landlord took any appropriate steps to do so subsequently. While it noted in August 2023 that it had attended the resident’s property to complete a damp, mould and condensation review, its records contain no details findings of this.
Additional record keeping failings can be seen in the lack of detailing of what work the landlord completed after identifying further roof issues in October 2023. It should have done so, not only so it could ensure effective monitoring of repairs, but also to show evidence how it was responding to the longstanding damp issues the resident experienced.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property since the resident reported damp and leaks in April 2022. Issues with damp are yet to be fully resolved almost 2 years after the resident reported them to the landlord. While it is acknowledged that the scale of work needed increased, it was unreasonably prolonged due to the landlord’s poor monitoring of work, communication and failure to complete appropriate damp and mould surveys. It is apparent that the resident had suffered frustration, distress and inconvenience due to the length of time work has been ongoing.
So far the landlord has offered the resident £250 for the impact of its failings. We consider this award to inadequately recognised the level of distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance a further award has been ordered aimed at fully recognising the impact on the resident of the landlord’s failings. We have also considered the resident’s loss of amenity since April 2022. Since that time her bedroom, lounge and hallways have been affected by damp issues. While the landlord took steps to try to resolve the problem, its management and handling of the issues was poor. This resulted in delays, so the damp persisted and decoration became damaged and unsightly. Its poor management of the case also resulted in scaffolding being in situ for longer than necessary, which affected the resident’s use of her garden.
This loss of amenity has been calculated as 5% of the property. We have noted the resident has paid weekly rent since April 2022 of between £168.73 and £180.54. Using the rent amount paid, we have calculated the total compensation for loss of amenity as £875. That is 5% of the rent paid since April 2022 to date. It is acknowledged that this is not a precise calculation. However, it is considered a fair and reasonable amount to recognise the impact of the landlord’s failings on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home and garden. We have also ordered a separate award to recognise the degree of frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failings in it management of repairs.

The related complaint and claim for compensation.

The landlord responded to the resident’s complaint at each stage within timeframes outlined in its complaints process. However, while it recognised some failings in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, it did not recognise the full extent of the issues since April 2022. For instance, it did not acknowledge damp issues had first been reported in April 2022. It also concluded that work completed in November 2023 had resolved damp issues, and that issues had subsequently returned. It appeared to have misunderstood what the resident had said in her complaint. She said that damp issues she had experienced at the start of her tenancy had returned. Evidence we have seen does not show the damp issue had been resolved in November 2022, or that the landlord had taken any adequate steps to issue it had resolved matters at that time. Instead, the resident said in January 2023 that damp issues had not been resolved despite scaffolding being in place for several months. The landlord acknowledged that scaffolding was in place for longer than expected, and the issues with communicating with the resident. But its award of £250 in February 2023 was an inadequate amount to recognise the impact of its failings at that point.
The landlord noted during its complaint handling that there had been failings in its communication with the resident about repairs. It was positive that the landlord acknowledged this and sought to raise issues with its contractor. However, there was more the landlord could reasonably have done. It would have been appropriate for it to put in place a point of contact for the resident in order to ensure effective monitoring of repairs to conclusion. In addition, while it noted that a damp and mould survey should have been completed at the outset, it did not then take steps to ensure one was completed. It should have done so. This might have helped to avoid delays in identifying all work needed to resolve the damp and leak issues, such as further the roof work identified in September 2023.
The resident raised concerns in her escalation request that she should be compensated for the damage to her decoration. The landlord has since said it changed its stance from the position set out in it stage 2 response, and that it had later agreed to complete redecoration for the resident. However, records we have seen indicate that while the landlord had agreed to redecorate in rooms work was completed in, it said this would not extend to wallpapering the lounge. It told the resident in March 2023 that the £250 previously awarded could go towards wallpapering costs. The landlord’s position, both at the time of providing its complaint response and subsequently was unreasonable. Its compensation policy outlines that it may compensate the resident for damage to decoration caused by neglect by its staff. But its award to the resident made no recognition of an amount for decorative costs. While it is acknowledged the landlord later agreed it would complete redecoration for the resident, it is unclear why it considered it appropriate to direct her to use compensation it had awarded avoidable delays, stress inconvenience and communication to fund wallpapering cost. If it considered the need for this work was not as a result of its failings in handling damp/leak repairs, it should have explicitly said so.
The compensation policy indicates the landlord may also deal with claims for damaged items through insurance procedures, but it made no reference to this in its correspondence with the resident. It would have been reasonable for it to advise the resident she could submit a claim through its insurer. In light of the issues identified with landlord handling of the resident’s claim for damaged decoration, an order has been made that it review policies and training to ensure staff are appropriately aware of how to respond to such claims under the landlord’s compensation policy or by directing residents to its insurer. The resident has since submitted a further claim to the landlord for damaged items. This claim is being considered by the landlord as part of a new complaint. However, we have recommended that the landlord ensure this is claim is considered in line with its compensation policy, and that it provides the resident with details of how she can submit a claim through its insurer.
We have found maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint and claim for compensation. The landlord did not fully acknowledge the extent of its failings to deal with damp and leak issues. It did not take steps to ensure an appropriate damp and mould survey was completed, even after identifying one should have been completed at the outset. It failed to appropriately address the resident’s claim for damage to her decoration. These failings caused the resident frustration and can only have contributed to delays in work to fully resolve damp and leak issues quickly and inefficiently. With reference to the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance an award has been ordered to recognise the impact of these complaint handling failings.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property following the reports of damp and leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the related complaint and claim for compensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.
In accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the impact of damp and leaks on her family’s health falls outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.

Orders and recommendations

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. write to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report, in line with the Service’s guidance that:
  1. an apology should acknowledge the maladministration or service failure; accept responsibility for it; explain clearly why it happened; and express sincere regret.
  2. where appropriate, an apology should include assurances that the same maladministration or service failure should not occur again and set out what steps have been taken to try to ensure this.
2. pay compensation to the resident of £1,975, made up of:
  1. £875 to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident’s ability to make full use and enjoyment of her home and garden.
  2. £600 to recognise the frustration, distress and inconvenience caused to her by failings in its handling of the repairs.
  3. £250 in recognition of failings in its handling of the resident’s related complaint and claim for compensation.
  4. £250 previously awarded for failings it identified in its handling of damp and leak repairs.
3. contact the resident to clarify whether wallpaper in her lounge was damaged due to its failings in handling damp and leak repairs, and consider how it should resolve this in line with its compensation policy.
4. ensure an appropriate damp and mould survey has been completed and that all damp and leak issues have been resolved.
5. contact the resident to confirm what external work has been completed to resolve damp and leak issues, and provide her with a schedule setting out when all internal work will be completed.
6. provide the resident with a point of contact who will monitor work through to completion.
Within 6 weeks of the date of this report the landlord should:
1. consider failings identified in this report in its monitoring of repair work, and review what steps are needed to avoid these mistakes being repeated.
2. consider record keeping failings identified in this report and review whether it has processes in place to ensure effective recording of repair reports and subsequent work completed. This review should be undertaken with reference to the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management.
3. review policies and training in place to ensure staff are appropriately aware of how to respond to claims relating to damaged items, under the landlord’s compensation policy or by directing residents to the landlord’s insurer.

Recommendations

Ensure the resident’s claim of March 2024 for damaged items is considered in line with its compensation policy, and that it provides her with details of how she can submit a claim through its insurer.