Clarion Housing Association Limited (202127420)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202127420

Clarion Housing Association Limited

29 January 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 handling of pest control reports and related works.
2. The landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
3. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen alteration.
4. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.
5. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy. The property is a one-bed flat on the second floor of a communal block. The tenancy began on 24 December 2018. The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for anybody at the property.
Due to a previous determination by this Service, a plan of works was agreed for the resident’s property in October 2021.
Following that complaint, the resident contacted the landlord with further concerns around pest control and damp and mould concerns in early 2022. The resident said that during inspections by the landlord, follow on works had been agreed but it had not acted on them. The resident also said that previous discussions around assisting her with obtaining a move and altering the kitchen to accommodate her fridge freezer had not led to any action from the landlord.
The resident raised a complaint around the lack of progress and action relating to her concerns in February 2022. Throughout the complaint process, the landlord and resident remained in contact regarding the repairs but the repairs were not completed despite reaching the end of the complaint process in August 2022.
The landlord provided an amended stage two response in September 2023, as previously agreed works had remained outstanding.

Policies and procedures

The tenancy management policy says that in relation to pest control issues the landlord would be responsible for the following:
1. Identify and block any potential access points in the structure of the property.
2. Eradicate any infestations and pests in communal areas.
The landlord’s damp and mould policy says that it will:
1. Diagnose the cause of damp and mould and deliver effective solutions based on dealing with the cause of the problem.
2. Inform the resident of the findings of an investigation detailing the causes, solutions, details of all necessary works and estimated timescales to complete the works.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process as follows:
1. Stage one (complaint) – The landlord should “resolve complaints within 10 working days”. If it us unable to resolve the complaint within this timeframe, it should keep the resident informed, explain the reasons for the delay and provide a timescale of how long it should take.
2. Stage two (Peer Review) – The landlord should “resolve complaints within 20 working days”. If it us unable to resolve the complaint within this timeframe, it should keep the resident informed, explain the reasons for the delay and provide a timescale of how long it should take.
The landlord’s management transfer policy says that it would only grant a management transfer were a resident was experiencing the following:
1. Serious ASB or harassment that puts their life at risk.
2. Domestic abuse that is putting or is likely to put the tenant or a member or their households’ life at risk.
3. A significant change in circumstances and the resident is no longer able to access their home.

Summary of events

Scope of Investigation

The resident previously raised a complaint with this Service, reference 202017590. This complaint was resolved through a mediation agreement. The complaint related to damp and mould in the property and concerns around pest control. An agreement was made to carry out certain works to address these concerns and a compensation payment of £5,072.54 was agreed. This agreed resolution was confirmed with both parties on 8 October 2021 and the agreed actions were noted as being completed on 19 October 2021.
In view of the previous determination, this investigation will focus solely on the period following the previous complaint. Therefore, this investigation will predominantly cover the period from 9 October 2021, until the stage two response was issued on 22 August 2022.
Since this case was duly made and the requested information was made available to this Service, the landlord has since provided an amended final response on September 2023, along with some further evidence. The landlord’s position and information provided since, will be included within this investigation, however, this will only relate to the issues raised at stage one of the complaint.

Events during complaint process

A pest control contractor emailed the landlord on 1 December 2021 with details of its visit on 30 November 2021. It said “full inspection and proofing works carried out” with “all holes and gaps found have been sealed using cement, silicone, xcluder and wire-mesh”.
The pest control contractor said it attended on 7 January 2022 but the resident did not provide access. The resident disputed this claim, as she said she was at home that day for a separate appointment that the landlord had attended.
A Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) attended on 7 January 2022 to help the resident with improving her profile for the property exchange site.
On 18 January 2022, the landlord attended the property to carry out an inspection following the damp and mould works carried out as part of the previous complaint. The resident said that she raised concerns around condensation forming on the windows. She said that the Technical Inspection Officer (TIO) agreed to replace panes of glass within the windows that had “blown”. She said she was told that this would be reported to the landlord and a glazing contractor would be in contact to arrange those works.
An internal landlord email between the RLO and Housing team from 19 January 2022 says that the resident had asked for the RLO to contact her on 24 January 2022.
The resident said that on 25 January 2022, she discussed the possibility of her moving to another borough with the RLO. She said that she was left with the impression that a move could be arranged. This Service has not had sight of any notes from this call between the two parties.
The resident said that she spoke to the RLO again on 2 February 2022 but on this occasion she was told that a move could not be arranged, unless she met the criteria for a management transfer. This Service has not had sight of any notes from this call between the two parties.
The landlord raised damp and mould related works on 4 February 2022. The RLO asked that it be raised due to “damp and mould coming through all of the windows”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 9 February 2022, as it had been unable to contact her. Within the email, it said it had asked the TIO that attended on 18 January 2022 to call her back around the windows.
An internal landlord email from 23 February 2022 shows that the TIO was asked to call the resident, as she had chased the previously requested call back.
The resident raised a complaint with the landlord on 28 February 2022. Within her complaint the resident detailed complaints and her requested resolutions for the following:
1. Damp and mould – She explained that “condensation on the windows is producing mould” and expressed concerns that this would attract pests such as mould mites.
2. Mice – The resident said that she could still hear mice in the walls.
3. Bathroom fan – She said that since this was changed she was experiencing more condensation and mould near the ceiling.
4. Communication issues with the landlord – The resident detailed several instances of failed contacts or a lack of follow on to previous contacts.
5. Fridge freezer – She raised a concern around the safety of her fridge freezer being located in a hallway.
6. Assistance with obtaining a move – The resident said the landlord set her expectations incorrectly as it previously said it would help her move.
Another internal landlord email was sent on 2 March 2022 asking the TIO to call the resident. The resident said that she was called on 4 March 2022 and the TIO advised that he would be arranging the agreed visit from the glazing contractor upon his return from annual leave the following week. No works orders were raised following this call.
The landlord emailed the resident on 5 March 2022 and advised that her complaint email had been passed to the Repairs team and it would contact her directly.
On 10 March 2022, the landlord attended the resident’s property to carry out an inspection of damp and mould that she had reported. The resident said that the appointment was attended later than scheduled. She said that after the operative reviewed the property, she said he advised that the mould would need to be “scraped out and resealed”. She said she was told she would be called the next day to arrange the required works but this did not happen.
The landlord raised a works order on 11 March 2022 to inspect the bathroom fan as “it isn’t working properly”.
The landlord attended on 14 March 2022 to inspect the bathroom fan. The resident said that she was told that the fan that had recently been installed was “their best one so they will not be changing it”.
The resident contacted this Service on 16 March 2022, as she had not received a response to her complaint.
A works order was raised on 18 March 2022 following a visit by the pest control contractor the day before. It was proposed that access hatches be installed in the ceilings in order to allow for bait to be set. It was noted that there was no evidence of any within the property itself but the resident had advised that she heard mice in the walls of the property. The resident said that she received a text message from the landlord on the same day advising her of an appointment on 6 April 2022. She said that she had not agreed this with the landlord.
This Service contacted the landlord on 30 March 2022 and requested that it provide a response to the resident’s complaint by 13 April 2022.
The resident emailed this Service on 31 March 2022 to ask that within the complaint response, it should also address the issues raised around communication and that it considered the negative effects that these issues were having on her and her son’s mental health.
On the same day, the pest control contractor failed to attend a scheduled appointment at the property “due to unforeseen circumstances”.
An internal landlord email from 20 April 2022 said that a second pest control visit had been arranged for 1pm on 26 April 2022. It said it had asked that another contractor attend the same visit to discuss fitting access hatches for bait.
The landlord provided a stage one response on 25 April 2022. Within its response, it offered a payment of £25 for the delay in providing a response to the complaint but it did not indicate whether the complaint had been upheld or not. It addressed the issues raised in the complaint as follows:
1. Pest control – The landlord said that it was currently in the process of carrying out a three-part treatment plan and it was looking to arrange for the installation of access hatches to allow further baiting. It acknowledged that a previous visit had been missed but said the next visit was booked for 26 April 2022.
2. Fridge-freezer – It acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the current placement of the appliance as it would not fit in the kitchen. It agreed that the current position was not safe as it would be considered a fire safety hazard. However, it said it would “not be our responsibility to reconfigure the kitchen to allow this item to fit”.
3. Damp and Mould – The landlord said that “thermal boarding and drylining works were carried out recently to help reduce the mould affecting your property”. It said it had also carried out works to improve the performance of the newly installed extractor fan. In relation to the windows, it said it had replaced some panels of glass and if there were any further issues, it would replace any “blown sealed double glazing units”.
4. Transfer request – It said that the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer but it had offered support around how to seek a mutual exchange. It said it had “provided everything we can in relation to assisting” with a mutual exchange.
5. Communication – The landlord apologised that the resident had been disappointed with the communication from it.
The pest control contractor attended on 26 April 2022 but the second contractor failed to attend. A further appointment was then arranged for 28 April 2022 but the contractor failed to attend during the scheduled timeframe and the appointment could not go ahead.
A works order was raised on 4 May 2022 to install two access hatches in the ceilings. This was arranged for 17 May 2022 but later rearranged as the resident was not available.
The resident requested that her complaint be escalated to stage two on 22 May 2022. Within the response, she requested a compensation payment of £4,403.50 along with a breakdown of her request. The resident provided a detailed breakdown of her complaint, which included the following issues:
1. Two missed appointments by the pest control contractor and instances of poor communication by the landlord, relating to pest control issues and appointments.
2. Failure to arrange an appointment, since January 2022, to measure up her windows for the panes of glass to be replaced. A contractor failing to attend to complete follow on works to address mould around some of the windows.
3. The quality of a fan that was installed in the bathroom.
4. The landlord’s position that it would not make changes to the kitchen layout to accommodate her fridge freezer.
5. The landlord setting her expectations incorrectly around a potential move.
6. Poor communication from the landlord around her complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 30 June 2022, as she had not received a stage two response.
Following contact from the resident, this Service emailed the landlord on 22 July 2022 as the resident had not received the stage two response. The landlord was asked to provide a stage two response by 5 August 2022.
The landlord responded to this request on 25 July 2022 and said that the delay in issuing its response was due to a previous cyber attack that the landlord had experienced.
The landlord provided its stage two response on 23 August 2022. Within its response, the landlord addressed each of the issues as follows:
1. Pest control – It acknowledged that it had failed to take the required actions to bait the ceilings due to missed appointments. It said it would coordinate works to have hatches fitted in both ceilings.
2. Windows – It acknowledged that it had failed to arrange works to windows that had been identified as requiring repairs. It said it would arrange for these works to be completed.
3. Bathroom fan – It acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the performance of the fan and agreed to have this investigated.
4. Mould wash – The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to attend the property to apply mould wash, as agreed within its stage one response. It said it would arrange a visit to carry out this work.
5. Fridge freezer – The landlord said that it was not required to reconfigure the kitchen to fit the appliance but said that in the hope of finding a solution, it would carry out a review to see if this could be arranged.
6. Property move – It apologised for any miscommunication around the resident’s eligibility for a management transfer. It said it had assisted the resident with her attempts to secure a mutual exchange but her current situation would not mean she was eligible for a management transfer. It offered further advice around seeking a move to a different area.
7. Lack of communication – The landlord acknowledged that it had failed to keep her updated around scheduled visits and apologised for the lack of communication provided throughout.
8. In resolution to the complaint, it said it would do the following:
  1. Allocate a dedicated officer to manage and provide oversight of the required works at the property.
  2. Carry out a review of its repair process to ensure follow on works were completed.
  3. It would ensure that her preferences around appointments were noted on its systems.
  4. It offered a compensation payment of £2,330 to address all of the issues acknowledged within the complaint.

Events following the initial complaint process

The resident replied to the stage two response on 11 September 2022 and indicated that she was not satisfied with the delays in its responses, the outstanding works and its offer of compensation. This letter was also sent to this Service.
In October 2022, previously arranged ceiling works did not go ahead due to incorrect planning by the landlord. In its email on 11 October 2022, it said “really sorry to read of the confusion from our side”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 November 2022 to express concerns around its management of the works that it had previously agreed to. In response, the landlord contacted the resident and discussed options for the outstanding works. This included replacement of the two ceilings that required access hatches, an option to reconfigure the kitchen to accommodate the fridge freezer and mould treatments.
The resident chased the landlord on 26 January 2023 as the works remained outstanding and the damp and mould was getting worse.
On 2 February 2023, the landlord emailed the resident outlining a proposal to decant the resident while the ceiling works were carried out. It also proposed that a damp and mould survey be carried out.
A damp and mould survey visit was carried out on 10 March 2023. This recommended that two of the extractor fans were upgraded and damp treatments were applied. These works were completed on 26 May 2023.
The landlord carried out an inspection at the property on 14 July 2023 for outstanding repairs. It identified and discussed issues with the following:
1. Window units – Trickle vents painted over in closed position and blown DGU’s.
2. Bathroom fan – It recommended installation of a previous model of the fan.
3. Bathroom – It identified “minor” mould issues and recommended treatments.
4. Pest control – Hatches had been discussed but had not been installed due to ceiling construction. It said it would consider access from communal area.
5. Location of fridge freezer – Landlord said it could not accommodate this in the kitchen despite efforts to do so. It proposed a new socket be installed in living room.
The landlord provided an amendment to the previous complaint on 22 September 2023. This response provided updates on the issues that were raised in the initial complaint. Within the response it said the following around each subject:
1. Pest control – It advised that previous plans to scrape the ceilings, due to asbestos, were cancelled when the construction of the ceiling was found to be plasterboard. It said it had proposed decanting the resident during the required works but these were delayed due to it prioritising the continued reports of damp and mould. It said at the time of the letter, it was in discussions with its contractor to arrange works that would be “less disruptive”.
2. Damp and mould – It said it had carried out a survey on 10 March 2023 and completed the recommended works on 26 May 2023.
3. Windows – The landlord acknowledged that its survey on 14 July 2023 identified some required repairs to blown double glazing units. It said the contractor would be in contact with the resident in due course to arrange the works.
4. Property transfer – The landlord said it had provided the support that it could and apologised for any incorrect information that had been provided previously.
5. Location of the fridge freezer – The landlord acknowledged that it had previously offered to reconfigure the kitchen to allow this to fit. However, it had since been reviewed again and found this would not be possible. It had offered to provide an additional socket for the current position and the resident was considering this offer.
6. Communication – It apologised for continued issues around coordination of the outstanding works.
7. Compensation – The landlord offered a further payment of £1,450 for the period since the stage two response on 23 August 2022.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of pest control reports and related works.

It is evident that the landlord had previously carried out proofing works to prevent pest access into the property, in line with its responsibility set out in the tenancy management handbook. These works were confirmed as being completed by the survey provided by the contractor on 1 December 2021.
Following the resident’s concerns of mice in the walls of the building, the landlord arranged for another visit from the pest control contractor. The landlord was then made aware of the requirement for installation of access hatches in the ceilings following a visit on 17 March 2022. Upon being made aware of this, it would be reasonable for the landlord to have attended the property to inspect the ceilings and then arrange for them to be installed in a timely manner. It failed to carry out a joint visit between required contractors on two separate occasions in April 2022. The visit was completed on 8 June 2022 and removal of the ceilings was proposed due to potential presence of asbestos. The delay of almost 3 months between identifying the required action and this visit taking place, cannot be considered timely.
The landlord then failed to undertake this work prior to the issue of its stage two response on 23 August 2022, over 5 months after proposing the installation of the access hatches. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to undertake the required work within a reasonable timeframe. Although it did need to carry out checks prior to completing the work, this should have been carried out much sooner and the work completed soon after. This is a failing on the part of the landlord, which left the resident living with an issue that made her feel “uneasy” and “disturbs” their sleep.
The landlord acknowledged that it missed some appointments without providing adequate notice and the resident was not made aware of other appointments, which led to them failing. This is another failing by the landlord, as the resident was inconvenienced by the failed appointments and incorrectly told she had missed those which she was not made aware of. This led to the resident feeling that the landlord considered “my time is not valuable at all”.
At the time of its amended complaint response on 22 September 2023, some 18 months after the proposal to bait the ceiling, the required works had still not been completed. This is despite the landlord having offered assurances around this work within its initial stage two complaint response from 23 August 2022. Although there is evidence of further proposals and plans being made to complete this work following the stage two response, these had still not been completed at the time of the amended stage two on 22 September 2023. This is a significant failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to take adequate and timely action to address the resident’s concerns around mice in the walls and ceilings. The resident has had to continue to live with the noise in the walls that she had told the landlord was causing her and her son to lose sleep.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to provide adequate management and oversight of the works linked to the pest control reports. This led to failed appointments, the resident regularly having to chase updates and a lack of action being taken by the landlord. The works were not completed in the five months between being proposed and its stage two response, or following the assurances made in that response. The landlord acknowledged that as of September 2023, the works remained outstanding. In considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.

The landlord followed up on previous damp and mould works on 18 January 2022 when the TIO visited the property. This Service has not had any sight of any inspection report from this visit, despite a request. However, it is evident that some damp and mould related works were then requested by the Resident Liaison Officer (RLO) on 4 February 2022. These related to condensation around the windows, which the resident said she raised with the TIO on 18 January 2022. This shows a delay of over two weeks following the TIO visit were no works orders were raised. There is no explanation of why these were not logged at the time but demonstrates a lack of follow up action since the visit on 18 January 2022. This is a failing by the landlord, as it did not act in line with it’s policy in providing clear plans around the required works and the estimated timeframes. It’s failure to do so created a further unnecessary delay to those works being completed and left the resident to chase those works and added to the frustration she experienced.
The resident claims to have discussed changes to the windows or glazing with the TIO. Given the lack of an inspection report or notes following the visit, the exact nature of the conversation and any agreement on works cannot be verified. However, the resident chased updates from the TIO on three occasions before receiving a call back, over three weeks after first requesting it. The resident said she was told by the TIO that he would arrange an appointment upon his return from annual leave. No works order was raised and the resident continued to chase these works throughout her complaint. At the time of the initial stage two response, no glazing works had been raised. Given that the resident had raised these concerns around condensation from those windows causing damp and mould, the landlord should have carried out some form of documented inspection to show that these concerns had been considered. This is a failing on the part of the landlord as it failed to adequately address the resident’s concerns around the windows, or provide any evidence to show that it had done so. This could only have added to the resident’s feelings of being overlooked around her concerns of damp and mould in the property and the inconvenience she experienced in chasing up a response or any action.
Following the resident’s report of damp and mould in the property that was recorded on 4 February 2022, the only work it confirmed as being completed was the visit to review the performance of the extractor fan in the bathroom. The landlord carried out a damp and mould assessment on 10 March 2022. The resident raised concerns around this appointment, as it was attended late and the landlord did not contact her as agreed, to book further works to treat the mould. A works order was raised to inspect the extractor fan, however, aside from this, no other works orders were raised. The landlord later acknowledged in its initial stage two response that it failed to carry out the mould wash treatment that was required. This is another failing on its part as it failed to take required steps to eliminate mould from the property.
Given the residents repeated concerns around damp and mould in the property, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to produce a report following the inspection on 10 March 2022. It is evident given the works order to inspect the extractor fan that there was some form of issue. However, no other works were arranged and there would be no survey outcome information available to recommend suitable works if the landlord had looked to ensure it had addressed the reports of damp and mould. This is a further record keeping failure and additionally it shows a lack of oversight of the damp and mould concerns by the landlord.
It is evident that the resident continued to raise concerns around damp and mould following this complaint. The landlord carried out a survey on 10 March 2023 and completed the required works on 26 May 2023, some 15 months after the resident her concerns.
Overall, the landlord failed to take adequate steps to address the resident’s concerns around damp and mould. It failed to raise the required works following the visit on 18 January 2022 and took until 10 March 2022 to attend and carry out an inspection. This Service had no sight of any notes or reports from either visit and the only work it recorded as being completed at the time of the initial stage two response, was a visit to inspect the extractor fan with no improvement works being completed. It acknowledged that a mould wash treatment was required but was not carried out prior to the stage two response being issued on 23 August 2022, some five months later. This work remained outstanding and following further reports in February 2023, the landlord arranged for damp and mould survey and it completed the required works in May 2023, some 14 months after its initial survey. Ultimately, the landlord failed to take adequate steps to address the resident’s concerns around damp and mould in the property during this time. In considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen alteration.

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns around the safety of where she kept her appliance and agreed it could be a fire safety risk. However, it maintained it was not responsible for ensuring that it fit into the kitchen. As there is no obligation on a landlord to ensure that a resident’s appliances fit, this was a reasonable position to take.
It is evident that at stage two of the complaint the landlord considered the possibility of making amendments to the kitchen to allow this to be relocated. However, it was unable to do so and therefore no changes were made.
Given that the landlord has no responsibility to ensure that residents appliances fit and no obligation to reconfigure the property to allow them to, there was no maladministration in its handling of the resident’s request.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a move.

It is evident that the landlord engaged with the resident in January 2022 to assist with her search for a mutual exchange. However, discussions between the two parties in the following weeks led to the resident believing that a move could be arranged by the landlord. The landlord has not provided any records of these interactions, so the exact nature of the conversations cannot be established. However, it is evident that the landlord reviewed the resident’s eligibility for a management transfer and advised that she did not meet the criteria for it.
As the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer, it is understandable she would be disappointed, especially if her expectations had been incorrectly set. However, the landlord would not be able to meet her request for this kind of transfer, given the strict guidelines set out in its policy.
It is good practice, where possible, for landlord’s to offer assistance to residents who are looking to move. However, this can only be as a support function to work alongside the guidelines it has in place around transfers and exchanges. It is evident that the RLO offered assistance with the mutual exchange profile and has sought advice from the Housing team when looking to assist the resident. It has maintained its position throughout the complaint process and having reviewed this process, there was no maladministration in this instance.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord failed to provide a stage one response in line with the timeframe set out by its complaint policy. Having received the resident’s complaint on 28 February 2022, it failed to respond until 25 April 2022, some 40 working days later. This is a failing by the landlord as it did not meet its own timeframe of 10 working days, which left the resident feeling ignored and having to seek the assistance of this Service to obtain a response.
The landlord initially passed the complaint to the Repair team rather than the complaint team. If the landlord had looked to address any outstanding works prior to providing a response, it would be reasonable for it to make the resident aware of its proposal. However, it failed to do so and the resident contacted this Service to report the lack of a response. When the landlord was asked to provide a response by this Service, the landlord also failed to meet the timeframe set out in the request.
When the landlord provided its stage one response, it acknowledged the issues raised by the resident. However, its responses around certain elements of the complaint did not demonstrate a full understanding of the situation or the actions it had taken. Its response to the residents concerns of damp and mould detailed works that had been completed as part of a previous complaint from the previous year. It failed to address the lack of any action around the windows that the resident had chased on several occasions since January 2022. The response failed to acknowledge any of its failings, outside of a missed appointment and the delay in it providing a response to the complaint. This lack of acceptance of the failings in its service could only have led to the resident feeling a lack of understanding of her concerns and added to her frustration around the complaint.
The resident escalated her complaint to stage two on 22 May 2022. The landlord should have provided a response within 20 working days but the landlord failed to provide a response until 23 August 2022, some 65 working days later. The landlord explained that the delay in it providing a response was due to a cyber attack that the landlord experienced on 17 June 2022, which was 18 working days after the complaint was raised. It is understandable that this would have impeded the landlord’s ability to provide a response to the complaint, however, this delay is still a failing on the part of the landlord as the resident was still left without a response to the complaint for a significant period.
Within the landlord’s stage two response, it accepted that it had failed to manage the required works for the damp and mould, pest control and the concerns around the windows adequately. It also accepted its failings around scheduled visits and its general communication with the resident. It made a compensation offer of £2,330 within this response, which it said it considered reasonable in addressing all of the issues acknowledged within the complaint.
The landlord followed this up on 22 September 2023 with an amended stage two response. Within this, the landlord acknowledged that it had failed to carry out the actions it proposed as a resolution within the previous complaint response. It said that the damp and mould issues had been addressed and it said that a further review had identified that the kitchen could not be reconfigured to accommodate the fridge freezer. However, the works linked to the pest control reports and the review of the windows in the property had not been completed. It acknowledged its failings and made an additional offer of compensation for £1,450.
Throughout the complaint process, the resident made requests for compensation and provided a detailed breakdown of her proposals. The landlord acknowledged the requests and explained that some of the claims made by the resident would be those she would need to seek through a personal injury claim. It provided a breakdown of its offers on both occasions and it is the view of this Service that the total offer of £3,780 was reasonable in addressing the complaint at the time of the amended stage two response. This will be maintained as part of this determination.
In providing the amended stage two response one year later, the landlord acted outside its own complaint policy. This demonstrates both a lack of follow up on its previously agreed actions and a lack of learning from the first complaint. Despite a year having passed, it had still failed to carry out works that were not complex and could have been completed in a timely manner, had it provided adequate oversight of those works. This is another failing on the part of the landlord, as it failed to show sufficient desire to carry out the required works that she had indicated were causing her distress. Its failure to do so meant that she continued to experience these issues for a further year after her complaint was supposedly addressed.
Ultimately, the landlord failed to address the resident’s complaint in line with its own policy, or in line with the principles of dispute resolution. Its initial response was provided outside of the timeframes set out in its policy with the landlord failing to acknowledge its failings and then it did not take actions to resolve the outstanding issues. The stage two response was also provided outside of the timeframes in its policy and despite acknowledging its failings and identifying the work that was required, it failed to carry out the required and proposed works. After the resident raised further concerns, the landlord then provided an amended response one year after the initial response, which acted as a further stage in its complaint process. When considering the failings in the management of this process, cumulatively this amounts to maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the pest control reports and associated works.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of damp and mould reports.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a kitchen alteration.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

Despite having identified in March 2022 that it needed to install access hatches to assist with baiting the walls and ceilings, the landlord continually failed to carry out the required work. Despite several proposals of different works and visits to the property, the landlord had still not completed these works 18 months later.
The landlord was already aware of historical damp and mould issues at the property but failed to take adequate steps to address new concerns. It initially failed to carry out any form of survey or complete any works, despite acknowledging that some were needed. It took 11 months after the initial complaint before the landlord carried out a survey and a further 2 months before the works identified during the survey were completed. During this time, the resident reported that the damp and mould was getting worse, expressing concerns around her and her sons safety.
There is no obligation on a landlord to make alterations to a property in order to accommodate appliances. The landlord did consider making changes to assist the resident and has offered further options in the form of additional sockets.
Although there may have been discussions which led to the resident’s expectations being set incorrectly, the resident did not meet the criteria for a management transfer.
The complaint was not managed in line with the timeframes set out in the landlord’s policy. The landlord failed to acknowledge failings in its initial response and then after recognising them, it then failed to carry out the required works to address the ongoing issues. Despite adding an additional stage to its complaint process, it still did not carry out the proposed works from one year prior.

Orders

If works to create suitable access points to enable the baiting within the ceiling and wall space has yet to be completed, the landlord should attend the property and assess whether it can access the ceiling and wall space from the communal area. If it can, it should arrange for the area to be suitably baited and if not, it should arrange for the ceilings to be replaced and access hatches installed within them. This should be carried out within 56 days of the date of this report.
The landlord should attend the property and carry out a full review of the windows. If any double glazing units are blown, it should arrange for them to be replaced. Inspection and all works should be completed within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord is ordered to make the previously proposed payment of £3,780 to the resident. If any part of this payment has already been made directly to the resident, it should be deducted from the amount. This should be paid directly to the resident within 28 days of the date of this report.
The landlord must review the learning from this report, it must advise this Service of its intentions within four weeks of the date of this report and provide a report showing that this has been brought into its operations identified improvements within three months of the date of this report. This review must consider at minimum:
1. Ensuring it has adequate oversight measures in place to meet timeframes set out in its repair policy in respect of damp and mould.
2. Ensuring it has adequate oversight measures in place to complete actions proposed within its complaints, in a timely manner.
3. Ensuring adequacy of records when repairs and inspections are taking place and detailing the outcomes.
4. Ensuring adequacy of records following contact with the resident.
5. Knowledge refresh for relevant staff re complaint handling timeframes and managing complaints in line with its complaint policy.