Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust (202315451)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202315451

Cheshire Peaks & Plains Housing Trust

31 July 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. Damp and mould in the property.
2. A series of leaks in the resident’s bathroom.
The Ombudsman has also looked at the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident occupies a 2-bedroom house under an assured tenancy which commenced on 28 October 2022. The landlord is aware that the resident’s daughter is autistic, and the resident has a diagnosis of ADHD.
Between October and November 2022, the resident reported:
1. rotten timber windowsills causing damp and mould to the adjacent dining room wall inside her property.
2. damp walls causing plaster to come away.
3. water marks to the ceiling of her daughter’s cupboard.
4. ivy growing up the exterior walls and to the roof of her property.
The resident reported further repairs in her bathroom including:
1. The shower was leaking in or around February 2023. The landlord inspected the resident’s shower and fitted plastic trim to the bottom of the tiles to prevent the water from leaking.
2. The shower door was leaking in or around May 2023. The landlord raised a job to replace the shower door, but it needed to order the door to complete the repair. The job was later abandoned, and the bathroom was renovated in December 2023, including the shower.
3. The wastepipe in her bathroom was leaking wastewater across the bathroom floor in June 2023. The landlord raised an emergency visit to contain the leak. It later replaced the sealant and push cone.
In response to the damp and mould reports, the landlord inspected in January 2023 and March 2023. The findings of the first survey were not provided. However, the second inspection found the property was suffering from condensation causing a moderate amount of mould. The landlord said the inspections did not find any high readings of damp. It recommended the installation of fans in the kitchen and bathroom.
The resident raised a formal complaint on 24 April 2023. She said the landlord had consistently failed to communicate with her about the outstanding work required at the property. She was also unhappy that works had taken so long to be raised after reporting the majority of the issues at the time of her viewing in October 2022.
The landlord responded the resident’s complaint on 26 April 2023 with a “quick resolution.” It provided a written response that said it had booked appointments and attended to repairs within its target dates. It recognised the resident had reported the majority of issues at the time she signed up to the property and that it had not raised the relevant jobs at that time. It also gave various appointments for the remaining works.
The resident escalated her complaint on three occasions between 28 April 2023 and 12 June 2023. She said:
1. the landlord’s initial response had not addressed its delays and poor communications.
2. the majority of repairs remained outstanding and the landlord’s communications about this continued to be poor.
3. she was confused why the landlord had assessed the property and said there was rising damp but later a contractor said there was no rising damp.
During this time, the landlord conducted another survey of the property. It recommended the landlord conduct mould washes to the affected areas and replace sealants where required. The landlord raised a works order to clean the mould, but this was abandoned because another inspection was due to take place. When the landlord inspected in June 2023 it found moderate mould across the kitchen, hallways, dining room and bedrooms. There was a further recommendation for extraction fans to be installed by the landlord at the property.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response on 21 July 2023. It said it had issued a schedule of works to its contractor to address the external sills, black mould to the skirting board, and damp and mould to the dining room. It also said its contractor would scope the works and complete them on 31 July. As this did not go ahead, the landlord later said it would conduct all the work at the same time to reduce the distress, inconvenience, and disruption to the resident and her daughter.
The landlord met with the resident in August 2023 to discuss the external works to the garden and sills. It identified drainage issues at the side of the house which was being made worse by bamboo making the garden unlevel. It issued a schedule of works the same month to level the paving, create additional drainage under the front window, and at the side and back elevations of the property.
The resident escalated her complaint on or around 2 August 2023 because the landlord was not taking any action and she was worried about rising damp in the property. The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 1 September 2023. It said:
1. the repair issues raised were either resolved or had a plan of work that had been conveyed to the resident and agreed upon separately.
2. its communications had been poor, and this led to missed appointments and work taking longer to be resolved.
3. it recognised the distress and inconvenience of its communications and delays on the resident and her daughter.
4. it offered the resident £400 as a gesture of goodwill and that it would consider reimbursing the costs related to any damage to her flooring subject to evidence being provided by the resident.
5. it would conduct a post completion visit to confirm the resident’s satisfaction with the repairs.
The resident continued to raise her concerns about the incomplete repairs between August 2023 and October 2023. The landlord visited the resident in October 2023 and provided a schedule of works for a bathroom and kitchen replacement and replastering across the property. Due to the level of work required, the landlord decanted the resident between 7 November 2023 and 6 December 2023. The landlord undertook the kitchen, bathroom, external drainage, and garden work during this time.
In May 2024, the landlord offered the resident an additional £500 to acknowledge further poor service and poor communications concerning the outstanding repairs, which occurred after the landlord’s complaint procedure had been completed.
The resident referred her complaint to the Ombudsman because the damp and mould returned, and she felt the landlord had not confirmed whether there was rising damp in the property. She also said that the compensation offered by the landlord did not acknowledge the amount of time the issues had been outstanding or the impact of this on her and her daughter.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The landlord’s internal complaint procedure investigated and responded to several repair issues across the resident’s home. However, the resident has subsequently confirmed to this service that she only considers the landlord’s handling of the leaks in the bathroom and the damp and mould to be outstanding. She states the other issues of the complaint have been resolved by the landlord to her satisfaction. Accordingly, this investigation has focussed on and assessed the circumstances of the outstanding issues, as outlined in the background section of this report.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould in the property

The landlord has a legal obligation to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, this includes drainage pipework within the boundary of the property. This is set out in s.11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The resident’s tenancy agreement reflects this. Where there is damp and mould and this is caused by leaks – then the landlord will be responsible to ensure that it offers a full and effective repair to prevent the damp from returning. Where damp and mould are condensation-related, the landlord’s obligation will be to ensure the property is free from hazards (under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System) and that it is fit for human habitation under s.9A of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. These do also apply to repairs.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will complete responsive repairs on a priority basis and set targets and timescales for achieving them that will be understood and acceptable to tenants. The Ombudsman expects routine repairs to be carried out by landlords within a reasonable time.
The resident said she reported concerns about damp and mould in her property between October 2022 and November 2022. This included the presence of mould, rotten timbers under the dining and living room window and ivy growing on the roof. The landlord’s lettings checklist completed around the time of the resident’s viewing does not contain notes relating to the condition of the property, or that the property was affected by mould. However, the landlord’s quick resolution response on 26 April 2023 acknowledged the resident had reported various issues related to damp and mould around the time her tenancy began in October 2022.
It is concerning to note that neither the landlord’s letting checklist, or the repair records contain the dates the resident first reported the issues related to the damp and mould. The Ombudsman expects landlords to create and maintain robust records of contacts and repairs. This is because clear, accurate, and easily accessible records provide an audit trail and enhance landlords’ ability to identify and respond to problems when they arise. The failure to create and record information accurately can result in landlords not taking appropriate and timely action, missing opportunities and contribute to inadequate outcomes, communication, and redress.
The landlord conducted a series of inspections at the resident’s property which it had referred to in its communications as “damp inspections.” The landlords inspections were completed in:
1. January 2023.
2. March 2023.
3. June 2023.
The findings of the first survey (January 2023) were not provided to this service. When the landlord was asked by the Ombudsman to comment on this, it said that this was a property inspection and not a dedicated damp and mould survey, and it had identified the following issues, which were “not an exhaustive list”:
1. work to the garden.
2. above normal levels of moisture in certain rooms.
3. to replaster certain rooms once the cause of the damp had been identified.

It said it raised jobs for these issues as was the process at the time and the landlord and the resident would have agreed on any works verbally at the time.

It is unclear why the landlord conducted a general property inspection if it was aware that it needed to respond to the damp and mould reported by the resident. The repair records also failed to reflect this inspection’s findings, which is evidence of poor record-keeping. As a result, the Ombudsman has been unable to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably to the resident’s initial report of damp and mould in October 2022. The inspection was carried out 2 months after the resident’s report which was an avoidable and unreasonable delay that caused anxiety to the resident. This is because she was living in a damp and mouldy home and the landlord had failed to show how it was progressing the matter during this time.
The second surveyor (March 2023) commented that the property was suffering from condensation and mould in “a couple of areas.” It said the landlord needed to install fans to remove the moisture in the air. The email from the surveyor noted that there were no high moisture readings. The surveyor also advised that the low-level timber sills were rotten beneath the external wall of the lounge and dining room. They said these needed replacing to prevent potential water ingress.
The resident contested this survey occurred and the landlord did not produce a report from this inspection. The landlord supplied an email from a contractor which detailed their findings. The email did not contain evidence of having taken any damp readings. The Ombudsman does not have enough evidence to draw a meaningful conclusion about how the landlord came to its findings that the moisture readings were not high, based on the evidence provided.
The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have produced a report to explain what it looked at during this inspection and any evidence it had gathered to come to any conclusion. This would have justified any further action required to remedy the damp and mould. This was further evidence of poor record-keeping. In addition, the Ombudsman considers the landlord unreasonably delayed in carrying out its second survey because this took place 5 months after the resident’s initial report.
During May 2023, the landlord raised a job for a mould wash to the dining room for the stain on the kitchen ceiling to be treated. However, the repair notes said this “required more time and [the operatives] were waiting until after an inspection.” It is unclear why there was a 2-month delay by the landlord to raise the mould wash or why a further inspection was required given the landlord’s position based on its inspection in March 2023.
There is no evidence the landlord explained to the resident that it intended to carry out a further inspection before it carried out any treatments to the mould. While the landlord was entitled to carry out a further inspection, it should have demonstrated it had communicated this to the resident. This was evidence of poor communication which caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord conducted the third survey (June 2023) 8 months after the resident’s initial report. It contained checklists relating only to mould. It also contained pictures which showed the mould was moderate and across the bedroom, lounge, hallway, kitchen, and dining room. The report concluded the cause of the mould was condensation caused by poor ventilation and water leaks. It recommended the landlord install fans and a ventilation system as well as to complete mould treatments to the affected rooms, replace affected sealants, and to redecorate. It also noted there were damp patches on the floor and skirting boards as well insects coming out of the walls. The survey did not evidence any measurement of the damp levels in the property.
While the landlord was entitled to carry out inspections of the property, it should have been clear why these were necessary and what it was trying to achieve given that it had already completed a survey and there had been two recommendations to install extractor fans. The Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s third survey may not have been necessary had the first and second surveys resulted in detailed reports being created. There is some learning for the landlord here to ensure that it asks its surveyors and experts to provide the report in a specific written format, together with date and time stamped photographs.
During the inspection in June 2023 the resident explained that the surveyor had told her there was rising damp in the property. She said that the landlord had since denied this. The landlord said it found no evidence on file there was rising damp in the property. The evidence shows:
1. The landlord’s repair records noted in May 2023 there was “damp coming through the screeded floor.” It is unclear if this was the source of the report regarding rising damp.
2. The landlord’s internal communication records in July 2023 evidence that it was aware there were two differing opinions about the origin of the damp mould in the property and over the question of the presence of rising damp. The landlord had asked a contractor not to comment on the presence of rising damp during a scheduled appointment because of this.
3. An email from a contractor in July 2023 treating a pest infestation thought the mould spots were dead bed bug eggs and could be wiped away. They said they were “no building inspector” but did not believe there was rising damp. Although they also said the black spots would need to be wiped away and if they did not return then their conclusion would be supported.
4. The landlord’s internal communications in October 2023 noted that repairs had been raised in the garden to address rising damp and water pooling from the ramp at the front of the property.
Overall, there were conflicting opinions regarding the presence of rising damp based on the communications of the landlord at the time, although the origin of this was unclear. The resident requested the landlord’s position on this issue on 5 occasions between June 2023 and September 2023 and this featured part of the resident’s escalation of her complaint.
There is no evidence that the landlord was clear about whether it thought there was rising damp in the property. This was ultimately because there is no evidence it carried out full and objective diagnostics of what was causing the damp and mould. That was fatal to the landlord’s handling of the matter. As the landlord had acknowledged it was aware of two differing professional opinions, it should have explained which conclusion it supported and why. If it were unsure, it should have carried out an independent damp survey by a specialist so it could be clear about its findings. Further, it is concerning to note it had the opportunity to do this during the complaint’s procedure but did not. This will be explored further in the complaint handling section of this report.
The landlord’s repair records indicated that it had completed the replacement of the external sills to the walls adjacent to the dining room and living room in June 2023. This was delayed because the landlord required a specialist contractor due to the presence of asbestos.
While the landlord required a specialist to complete the repair, this was identified in May 2023 which was 7 months after the resident’s initial report. As a result of the landlord’s delay in actioning the repair, it was completed 8 months after the landlord had been put on notice of the problems. This was inappropriate because the landlord did not adhere to its repairs policy by resolving the issue within a reasonable time. This caused time and trouble for the resident because she was chasing a resolution to the damp and mould issues.
The landlord’s internal communications indicate it removed the ivy from the outside of the property in June 2023. However, it was unable to action the replacement of fascia boards due to nesting birds which were protected by law. The ivy was removed by the landlord 8 months after the resident’s initial report. It is unclear from the evidence if the landlord has actioned any replacement or repair to fascia boards. The Ombudsman considers the landlord failed to act in accordance with its repairs policy because it unreasonably delayed in removing the ivy and there was no evidence the landlord replaced the fascia board.
The landlord said in its stage 1 response (21 July 2023) that it would conduct a home visit to discuss the remaining scope of the works with the resident. It also said it would start and complete the work on 31 July 2023. It is unclear which works the landlord was referring to. In any event, there is no evidence that the landlord visited the resident until 22 August 2023. This was even though the resident chased the landlord frequently between 24 July 2023 and 15 August 2023 for a home visit. This was a failure because the resident would have felt let down by the landlord not following through with the actions it had said it would carry out and this undermined the landlord and tenant relationship.
When the landlord met with the resident on 22 August 2023, it agreed a scope of works which included:
1. checking the gravel membranes under the front window and drainage.
2. creating an additional soakaway or drainage as required.
3. relaying the flagstones away from the brick wall at the side of the property because they were starting to “blow” at ground level. It would lay stone chippings against the property.
4. removing the bamboo to level and turfing half of the garden.
The resident explained that poor communication around the repairs had impacted her mental health and caused her considerable anxiety. The landlord acknowledged that the repairs would create disruption for the resident and her autistic daughter. As a result, it tried to have all the outstanding repairs in the property from August 2023 onwards completed together. The landlord identified that the extractor fans and replastering could be completed at the same time as the kitchen and bathroom renovations, which were due to take place at the property in September 2023. This was appropriate because the landlord recognised the vulnerabilities in the household and the need to mitigate the disruption to the household.
However, there is no evidence that the landlord carried out the works it agreed to in September 2023. There is also no evidence the landlord explained that it could not start the works it had agreed. The resident explained during October 2023 that she was “at [her] wits end and was struggling mentally and emotionally.” The landlord ought to have been clear about any delays to its timeframes to create certainty for the resident.
The communications between the landlord and resident indicate that the weather had delayed the exterior works, agreed in August 2023, from being completed. In addition, the internal works were interdependent on the external work being completed by the landlord. The landlord completed the external work in November 2023.
Notwithstanding the weather-related delays, the landlord failed to update the resident about the delays it was experiencing and ultimately completed the work 13 months after the initial report. This was a significant and unreasonable delay which caused the resident distress and inconvenience, as well as time and trouble in following the repairs through to completion.
Separately, the landlord’s repair records noted it completed a kitchen refurbishment in October 2023. The Ombudsman recognises that the landlord installed extractor fans at the same time. In most cases, it is not unreasonable for landlords to complete multiple jobs simultaneously. However, they must consider whether leaving the works until an upgrade would place the resident at risk of harm. They should then consider what they can do to mitigate this, such as temporary short-term works.
Overall, the landlord completed the repair 12 months after the resident’s report in October 2022. This was a significant and unreasonable delay. Further, there is no evidence the landlord tried to mitigate the impact of its delay by considering providing a dehumidifier or conducting cyclical mould washes while it was preparing to refurbish the kitchen. Therefore, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration with this element of the complaint.
The landlord inspected the property further in October 2023. It created a schedule of work to complete which included:
1. Inspection of the damp by the front door. The landlord suspected this to be caused by the existing ramp and poor drainage.
2. The relocation of the lounge radiator.
3. The lounge walls required plastering.
4. Replacing the lounge skirting board.
5. The bedroom required plastering.
6. Staining to the bedroom ceiling and the daughter’s bedroom cupboard.

It also suggested that it needed to decant the resident for 3-4 weeks to enable it to complete the repairs. It said it wanted to resolve the internal works before Christmas and would progress the works when it had booked them in.

The resident explained she was told by the landlord this work would start on 30 October 2023. The resident contacted the landlord weekly during October 2023 to ask for an update. The landlord said it had kept the resident up to date during this time in its internal communications, but it could not give the resident definitive dates which was driving further contact from the resident.
There is no evidence to support the landlord’s assertion it had kept the resident up to date about the emerging timeframes for the repairs due to start by the end of October 2023. It would have been open to the landlord to have demonstrated to the Ombudsman how it had kept the resident updated with relevant call notes or emails. Landlords are aware that they need to create and maintain adequate records to demonstrate compliance with their legal and regulatory obligations. In this case, the Ombudsman is not able to find that the landlord regularly updated the resident as it said it did. For that reason, the landlord is at fault.
The landlord decanted the resident between 7 November 2023 and 6 December 2023 to complete the works noted at paragraph 46. During this time, it also completed a bathroom refurbishment which included extractor fans. This was 14 months after the resident’s initial report and was a significant and avoidable delay by the landlord.
The resident explained that the damp and mould was outstanding at the property at the time of writing this report. The landlord has not produced evidence to demonstrate it has fully resolved the issue. This was a significant failing by the landlord to adhere to its repairing covenants to ensure it satisfied itself that the property was free from hazards and remained fit for human habitation.
Overall, the Ombudsman considers there was maladministration by the landlord because:
1. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had carried out sufficient investigations into the levels of damp in the property when it carried out its surveys in January, March, and June 2023.
2. The landlord’s record keeping was poor because it did not provide evidence of the written reports and supporting evidence relating to the surveys it said it carried out in January or March 2023.
3. It delayed in raising the works for the extractor fans recommended in March 2023 and delayed installing these in the kitchen and bathroom until October 2023.
4. It failed to mitigate the impact of the damp and mould in the property because it did not consider the use of mould washes or alternatives such as a dehumidifier while it sought to install the extractor fans at the property.
5. It delayed carrying out the external works to the property including the removal of the ivy, and the drainage to the side, front and back elevations of the property between July and August 2023. This had a knock-on effect in carrying out repairs internally.
6. It consistently failed to update the resident about when it would complete works and when between July and October 2023. During this time, it gave the resident dates that it said it would complete works, conduct home visits, and call her but did not always do this. This caused uncertainty, anxiety, and confusion for the resident on repeated occasions.
7. It failed to provide a lasting and effective fix to the damp and mould despite completing several repairs during October and December 2023.

The landlord’s handling of a series of leaks in the resident’s property

The landlord has a legal obligation to keep any installation it provides for sanitation and the supply of water in repair and proper working order. This is set out in section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. The also forms part of the resident’s tenancy agreement.

The shower leaks

The resident reported the shower was leaking however it is unclear from the records when this occurred. This is evidence of poor record keeping. The landlord’s repair records noted it had inspected a leak under the shower tray in February 2023. The repair records noted the contractor lifted the shower tray and fitted plastic trim to the bottom of the tiles. The Ombudsman is unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy because the repair records did not contain information about when the resident reported her repair. This was a significant failure.
The resident later reported the shower door was leaking on 24 April 2023. The landlord arranged an appointment to overhaul the shower door on 30 May 2023. The repair records provided do not reflect this appointment. The internal communications from the landlord indicate it did not have the part to complete the repair. The resident had a bath installed at the end of 2023 as part of her bathroom renovation. However, there is no evidence the landlord completed the repair before this, therefore the Ombudsman is unable to determine it acted reasonably in the circumstances.

The wastewater leak

The resident reported an emergency repair because the wastepipe was leaking wastewater onto the bathroom floor. The repair records do not detail when the resident reported this issue. The landlord’s repair records show it re-aligned the waste pipe seal and push cone and that it had left it in working order on 10 June 2023. The landlord re-attended on 30 June 2023 and renewed the wastepipe seal and renewed the connection to the toilet pan.
The Ombudsman is unable to verify the landlord acted in accordance with its repairs policy and attended the property within 24 hours of the resident’s report to contain the leak. This is due to the missing details in the repair records which was evidence of poor record keeping. This was inappropriate because of the urgent nature of the repair. As such, the landlord did not demonstrate it responded reasonably to the repair needed to the resident’s wastepipe.
The landlord renovated the resident’s bathroom during December 2023. The resident reported after she had returned home on 10 December 2023, that the toilet was backing up. The landlord’s repair logs noted on 11 December 2023 that it was unable to clear the upstairs toilet and the issue was related to the bath wastepipe going too far back into the stack and the work required a plumber.
The repair logs note the landlord re-attended the property in April 2024 and carried out a CCTV survey. Although the resident said the landlord replaced the stack, the repair logs did not reflect this. The landlord was asked by the Ombudsman to comment on this, and it said that the “necessary drainage works were completed” and the toilet was reinstated. The resident explained she was concerned that the CCTV survey was unable to reach the part of the pipework that was in question, which meant she did not think the landlord had made a lasting fix. However, she explained the pipework around the toilet was no longer visibly leaking.
The evidence shows the landlord responded reasonably concerning the resident’s further report in December 2023 because it attended the property within 24 hours. However, there was a 4-month delay in the landlord carrying out necessary further investigations into the issue. This was maladministration because the landlord ought to have acted sooner to arrange for the CCTV survey.
The Ombudsman was unable to access the findings from the survey, therefore we have been unable to verify if there were any recommendations or remedial works required. However, as the resident confirmed to the Ombudsman there were no further leaks from the toilet pipework, it is reasonable to conclude that the drainage works completed by the landlord resolved the issue.
Overall, there was maladministration with this element of the complaint because the landlord delayed raising a CCTV survey to investigate the cause of the toilet leak. This caused distress and inconvenience to the resident.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’) effective from October 2022 was in force during the time of the resident’s complaint. This stated:
1. Landlords must ensure that efforts to resolve a resident’s concerns do not obstruct access to the complaints procedure or result in any unreasonable delay. It is not appropriate to have extra named stages (such as ‘stage 0’ or ‘pre-complaint stage’) as this causes unnecessary confusion for residents.
2. Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law, and good practice where appropriate.
3. Landlords must respond to the complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
4. Landlords must respond to the stage two complaint within 20 working days of the complaint being escalated. Exceptionally, landlords may provide an explanation to the resident containing a clear timeframe for when the response will be received. This should not exceed a further 10 days without good reason.
The landlord operated a three-stage process because it responded to the resident’s initial complaint in April 2023 with a “quick resolution.” The resident requested that her complaint be escalated on three occasions between April 2023 and June 2023. This was inappropriate because the landlord did not act in accordance with the Code which sets out that landlords must not obstruct access to the complaint’s procedure through the use of pre-complaint stages. This delayed the resident from accessing the formal complaint procedure and subsequently in accessing redress from this service.
The landlord issued its stage 1 response 61 working days after her initial complaint. This was inappropriate because this was a significant and avoidable delay because the landlord acted outside of the 10 working day timeframes in the Code. This caused the resident distress and inconvenience.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response 22 working days after her request to escalate. This was 2 working days outside of the Code, however this would have had minimal impact on the resident.
The resident asked the landlord for its position on whether there was rising damp in the property as part of her communications with the complaints team in April 2023 and during her escalation request in August 2023. The complaint responses did not provide the landlord’s position. The landlord did not act in accordance with the Code because it failed to answer all the elements of the resident’s complaint.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response the landlord was vague about which works it intended to complete. It said, “it had resolved the issues, or they were in a plan of work with individual managers and agreed by the resident.” Given the heart of the resident’s complaint was about the landlord’s poor communication around what it was doing and when this was an inappropriate response. The response should have included specific details about the scope of work it intended to carry out and when. This caused further time and trouble to the resident because it created uncertainty over what the landlord intended to do and when.
The landlord offered the resident £500 as part of its final response. However, it did not pay the resident this compensation. The resident raised this in December 2023 however it took 5 additional months to pay the resident’s compensation. When it did pay the resident this compensation in May 2024, it awarded a further £400 for its poor service and communications. The Ombudsman considers this was reasonable in the circumstances because the landlord acknowledged its poor communications and tried to put things right.
However, the landlords overall redress was insufficient to remedy the failures it was aware of at the time of its stage 2 response. This included the unreasonable delays, missed phone calls, missed appointments, consistently poor communications around repairs. This caused time and trouble as well as anxiety to the resident. In addition, there is no evidence of any wider learning the landlord has taken from this complaint to improve its service provision. This meant the landlord missed an opportunity to explore the reasons why things had gone wrong for this complaint.
Overall, there was maladministration with the landlord’s complaint handling because:
1. It failed to address all the elements of the resident’s complaint.
2. It failed to issue its complaint responses in line with the timeframes in the Code.
3. It failed to provide a remedy that was proportionate to the failings it was aware of at the time of issuing its final response.
4. It failed to explain why things had gone wrong and any wider learning it had identified from the resident’s experiences.
This caused unnecessary distress and inconvenience to the resident. There is no evidence the landlord tried to learn from its errors to ensure it did not repeat them.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the series of leaks in the resident’s bathroom.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration with the way the landlord handled the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 28 days of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failures found in this report.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £2,000 comprised of:
  1. £1,000 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its failure to make a lasting and effective repair to resolve to the damp and mould in the property between October 2022 and June 2024.
  2. £500 to recognise the time and trouble caused to the resident in chasing repairs between October 2023 and December 2023.
  3. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of its delay in making a lasting and effective repair to resolve the series of leaks.
  4. £250 to recognise the distress and inconvenience of the failures found in its complaint handling.

This compensation is awarded in addition to any payments made to the resident during the complaint’s procedure. The landlord must arrange to pay the resident the compensation it previously awarded if it has not done so already.

Within 56 days the landlord must conduct a case review of this complaint to identify:
1. Why the lettings checklist did not capture the repairs the resident said she reported at the viewing in October 2022.
2. Why it delayed in in responding to the resident’s reports to damp and mould between October 2022 and January 2023.
3. Why its repair records did not contain important information about when the resident made her reports, the findings of all its inspections relating to the repair issues, as well as the follow-on repairs required.
4. Why it failed to provide its position on the presence of rising damp in the property.
5. Why it failed to clearly communicate to the resident which repairs it would undertake and when between January 2023 and May 2023.
6. Why it consistently missed the timeframes it gave the resident to complete repairs between July 2023 and November 2023.
The landlord must arrange for an independent qualified surveyor to undertake a damp survey at the property. The landlord must agree a mutually agreeable appointment for the survey to take place within 14 days of this report.
1. The surveyor must produce a report with its findings, setting out:
  1. the levels of damp and mould within the property, with accompanying photographs.
  2. whether the property is habitable.
  3. if there is rising damp at the property and, if applicable, the possible ways to resolve this.
  4. a scope of works and indicative costs and timescales to complete the works.
2. the surveyor must be encouraged to produce a report within 5 working days of the inspection.
3. the landlord must share the full report with the resident and the Ombudsman within 5 working days of receipt.
The landlord must use its best endeavours to ensure any works identified are completed within 56 days of the date of the survey, or shorter where timescales detail. Where it cannot meet this deadline, the landlord must set out its reasons to the resident and the Ombudsman together with evidence of why it cannot make this deadline.