Warwick District Council (202112751)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202112751

Warwick District Council

30 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:
1. Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property following the landlord’s acknowledgement of damp, mould and pest infestation issues.
2. Consideration of compensation for personal injury.
3. Complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

Whilst this service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to establish legal liability or whether a landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspect of the resident’s complaint. This matter is likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim Paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord has not provided a copy of the resident’s tenancy agreement to this Service. The resident has however advised this Service that she has a secure tenancy of the landlord. She has lived at the property which is a ground floor maisonette since 2011. Her rent is £410.96 every 4 weeks. In 2016 she suffered a stroke which rendered her disabled. The landlord was aware of the resident’s vulnerability.
The landlord has a damp and mould policy (dated from April 2023, after this complaint) which states as follows:
1. Where extensive works are required, it may be required to move the resident out of the property for a period whilst works are completed. It will provide alternative or temporary accommodation during this time.
2. Where extensive works may be required, it will consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether it is appropriate to move resident out of the property at an early stage. This requires close collaboration between all those within the landlord delivering the service to the resident.
3. It will promote the benefits of its complaints process and the Ombudsman to residents as an appropriate and effective route to resolving disputes.
The landlord’s complaints policy was not provided to this Service but is available via its website. It states as follows:
1. Before making a complaint, a resident may wish to try to resolve the matter informally by talking to the staff. If a resident remains unhappy they can make your complaint by submitting a complaint form.
2. It aims to respond to complaints within 20 working days. It will prioritise certain complaints to investigate and respond within 5 working days, these include where the particular circumstances identify vulnerability and/or a need for urgency.

Summary of events

Due to problems with damp, mould and a rat infestation at the property, remedial work was carried out to the kitchen in 2018. This did not solve the problem and the landlord concluded that the kitchen should be replaced. In March 2020, one week prior to the first national lockdown, the kitchen was taken out and the resident was left with no cooking facilities, no facilities for laundering clothes and the only running water was in her bathroom. As the bedroom was also affected by the issues, she slept in the lounge. During the 8 months it took for the works to be competed, the resident had no use of the kitchen and there were occasions where she had to rely on bottled water for drinking.
The resident made a claim via the landlord’s insurers for the inconvenience and loss of use of the kitchen (the date of this has not been provided to this Service). The insurer agreed a payment of £4,710 compensation with the resident. This included £500 for each month that the kitchen was unavailable and a further £710 for additional costs incurred for laundry, purchases of bottled water and the loss of foods due to contamination with rat faeces.
During 2020 the resident informed the landlord that there was damp and mould in the hallway, bedroom and bathroom (these reports have not been provided to this Service). This was inspected and a contractor was appointed to carry out the repairs. This involved replacing the plasterboard, skirting and redecorating. The redecoration was carried out using the landlord’s standard colours. Prior to this the resident had, at her own expense, decorated the areas with a colour of her choosing. These works were completed in early 2021 and the decorating was completed by July 2021.
On 10 September 2021 the resident submitted a complaint to the landlord and stated as follows:
1. During the COVID-19 pandemic, she had to move into her lounge as there were rats and damp and mould in the kitchen, bedroom, bathroom and hallway. She had been left with no access to facilities. The landlord had not provided her with alternative accommodation, “meals on wheels” or bottled water.
2. The situation impacted her mental health and caused depression for which she had undergone counselling.
3. The landlord’s insurance company had compensated her “a small amount” for the lack of kitchen facilities during the 8 months but she had not received an apology.
4. The landlord had moved her boundary fence. The landlord’s insurance company would not cover this.
On 4 February 2022 the resident advised this Service that the landlord had not responded to her complaint. This Service asked the landlord to do so at stage 1 by 21 February 2022.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and noted that it had visited her (the date of this is not clear) and had advised that the matters raised within the complaint had been resolved by its insurance company who had paid her £4,710 compensation. The resident advised this Service the following day that the landlord’s resolution was only in respect of the rats and damp and mould but was not in respect of the boundary fence.
On 7 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and stated that she had understood the compensation to be £3,000 for the boundary fence and £1,000 for the damp and mould and rat infestation. She stated that a third party had advised her that she had misunderstood the landlord’s calculations. She stated that she would return the £3000 the landlord had paid her. She requested compensation of £3500 for the boundary issue to enable her to have a professional re–design the garden.
On 13 May 2022 the landlord advised the resident that it had reconsidered the compensation in conjunction with the Housing Ombudsman remedies guidelines and it considered £3000 compensation to be fair and reasonable. It advised the resident that she could refer the matter to this Service. The resident advised the landlord on 23 May 2022 that it had not responded to her complaint.
On 31 May 2022 the landlord sent an email to the resident and stated as follows:
1. It apologised for the time taken for it to respond and acknowledged that this would have been “very frustrating”.
2. Once the boundary fence was identified as being incorrect, there was no option but to move it. In respect of the boundary issue it offered £1050 compensation for replacement items and for distress caused.
On 31 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service and stated:
1. The landlord had not addressed the impact the damp and mould and rat issue had on her. The insurance payment had been for the loss of the kitchen but not for loss of the other rooms.
2. The landlord’s offer of compensation in respect of the boundary issue was too low.
This Service asked the landlord to consider the matters to stage 2 and provide a stage 2 response by 30 June 2022. The landlord advised this Service that it had not considered the complaint via its complaints procedure and had instead “tried to resolve it informally, through the offer of the compensation and the lack of reference to the Housing Ombudsman”.
On 10 June 2022 the landlord advised this Service that there was no further action it could take, as the matter had resulted in an insurance claim against the landlord which had been resolved as a full and final settlement. The landlord acknowledged that the compensation did not cover the loss of the other rooms and that this was being considered by its insurers. It stated that it would be inappropriate for it to respond to this as a complaint. It stated that £3000 in respect of the boundary was “more than reasonable”.
On 21 June 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord to note that its response of 31 May 2022 had not included any escalation details. It reminded the landlord that a stage 2 response was due to the resident by 30 June 2022. Following this, the landlord wrote to the resident on 11 July 2022 and apologised for the delay in its correspondence. It stated that it had tried to resolve the matter as it had accepted that errors had been made in its handling of the boundary alignment. In recognition of this it had offered compensation of £3,000 which the resident had declined. It stated that this amount was based upon the list of items that the resident had provided which had been damaged in the garden and in recognition of her time in maintaining the “relatively small area” of garden. It advised that if she was dissatisfied, she could refer the matter to this Service.
Following further contact from the resident, this Service asked the landlord on 13 July 2022 to confirm to the resident which issues had been settled as an insurance claim. In addition, the resident asked the landlord to clarify what was included in its offer of £3000 compensation in respect of the garden.
On 29 July 2022 the landlord’s insurer wrote to the resident and advised that the landlord had redecorated the rooms that she was claiming for. As she had not suffered a financial loss, it could not offer any further compensation.
On 4 August 2022 this Service requested that the landlord provide closure letters for the resident’s complaints by 11 August 2022.
The resident chased the landlord for clarification as to what the £3000 compensation included on 12 August 2022. She advised this Service the following day that that the landlord had advised that it had offered £2,000 for the boundary issue which she had declined (it is not clear where this figure came from and this Service has not seen this offer from the landlord).
On 23 August 2022 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. In 2020 she had reported damp and mould and an issue with rats to the landlord. The situation had caused her emotional distress and recurring nightmares of rats crawling around despite having undergone therapy.
2. The works had commenced on 25 January 2021. She had suffered indignity due to the lack of facilities such as not having a bathroom and having to live in one room with the smell, noise and dust from the works. She had been denied “basic human rights” by not having access to fresh drinking water or hot food. Her right to life had been also taken away as her health was put at risk. She had been unable to wash or have the use of a toilet for a time, having to use a “makeshift”. Sanitation had been “non-existent” for 8 months.
3. The smell of rat urine, mould and damp had caused her to suffer from headaches and nausea. She had a titanium plate in her head which vibrated with noise which caused her headaches and anxiety. She had suffered with itchy eyes from the dust and living in one room caused anxiety, depression and suicidal thoughts.
4. The landlord should have given her temporary accommodation and she was entitled to compensation in regards to the living conditions and the lack of facilities for 8 months in 2020.
5. Following the works, the landlord had decorated the rooms in white and yellow which she found “depressing” and were not uplifting like her previous paint colours. She was entitled by law to recuperate her losses and to have paint colours of her choosing and that this would help her mental health.
On 23 August 2022 this Service contacted the landlord and requested it to formally respond to the resident’s complaint within 5 working days. This Service subsequently sent a final request for action to the landlord on 2 September 2022 and asked it to respond to the complaint by 9 September 2022.
On 11 September 2022 a member of the landlord’s staff contacted this Service and stated his involvement as the lead officer in the local authority’s response to the Death of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II had been his primary work. He advised that it was his intention to complete the final response to the complaint in the coming week.
This Service contacted the landlord again on 23 September 2022. The landlord advised that it would provide a stage 1 response as the other responses had been informal.
On 25 September 2022 this Service wrote to the landlord by way of a final request for action and stated that the landlord should respond to the complaint by 3 October 2022. On 3 October 2022 the landlord’s member of staff contacted this Service and advised that he was working on the complaint response but had been asked to look at a “significant other matter”. He advised that the response should be issued on 4 October 2022.
On 5 October 2022 the landlord responded at stage 1 and stated as follows:
1. An insurance claim was made at the time of the internal works (2020) which was settled and £4710 was paid to the resident. As it had been settled, the claim could not be reopened.
2. The resident had made another insurance claim in 2022 in respect of the bedroom, hallway and bathroom in respect of loss of these rooms and the redecoration. The insurer had concluded that it would not offer further compensation as the rooms had been redecorated by the landlord and the resident had not suffered a financial loss. The resident had contested this with the insurer and the matter was still being considered. The landlord was chasing the insurer to seek a resolution.
3. It had written to the resident in April 2022 to acknowledge that it could have done more to move her temporarily whilst the works were being carried out. To acknowledge this, it had offered £1000 compensation which the resident rejected. This Service has not seen this correspondence.
4. It acknowledged that the works could have been handled better with improved communication. However the COVID-19 lockdown had presented a number of challenges in delivering the works.
5. It acknowledged that residents sometimes spent significant amounts of money in personalising their property and that it needed to recognise this when undertaking work and liaising with contractors.
6. It concluded that there had been aspects of service failure and the complaint was upheld. It offered the following remedies:
  1. An apology to the resident to acknowledge its mistakes and to recognise that it had failed to provide a good repairs service.
  2. It acknowledged that it needed to learn lessons regarding communication with residents and to ensure it was empathetic to a resident’s circumstance and to acknowledge when it had made a mistake. It would ensure that when works were being carried out that it would give full consideration to move the resident when whole rooms or facilities were not available. It would liaise with contractors after works to ensure works were made good.
  3. It noted that it could only consider a financial remedy following the conclusion of its insurers investigation which was ongoing.
On 7 November 2022 the landlord’s insurer wrote to the resident and reiterated that it had paid £4,710 compensation for loss of the kitchen and other associated costs. In respect of the claim for decoration, it maintained its position that it could not offer any further compensation. The resident responded that she should be compensated for the loss of the other rooms in addition to the kitchen. The insurer advised on 15 December 2022 that it could not increase the compensation for other rooms as payment had been agreed with the resident as full and final settlement. She advised (on 15 December 2022) that she wanted to escalate the matter to stage 2 and copied the landlord into this request.
On 13 February 2023 the landlord responded at stage 2 and stated as follows:
1. It acknowledged that the resident had been without use of her kitchen for 8 months. Its insurers had agreed a payment of £4,710 with the resident. This included £500 for each month that the kitchen was unavailable and a further £710 for additional costs incurred.
2. Its insurer had advised the resident that it had considered compensation for the decoration work but had rejected this claim. In addition, its insurer had stated that it could not increase the compensation to consider the other rooms. The landlord stated however that in rejecting the claim, its insurer had not adequately addressed the issue of compensation to cover the disturbance that the resident suffered and the impact this had on her health and wellbeing.
3. Its insurer was not correct in its email to the resident of 15 December 2022 when it stated that the payment made for the kitchen was “full and final settlement” relating to the works in the hall, bathroom and bedroom. Although its insurer may not agree that further compensation was justified, it had not addressed the central point that the resident had raised. The insurer should reconsider this matter.
4. The resident had received a quote of £2,000 for the rooms to be redecorated to her preference. It acknowledged that there had been little dialogue about the choice of paint colours used. Whilst she had not suffered a financial loss in respect of the redecoration, it could have done more to redecorate in a way of her choosing. It stated that if a resident undertook improvement works to the property at their expense, there was an element of risk involved and the landlord could not be responsible for always decorating to a resident’s required standard. In this case however, taking into account its wider failings, the resident had suffered significant distress and inconvenience. It apologised and offered to cover the cost of redecoration (£2,000).
5. Taking all the works into consideration, there had been a lengthy period, from March 2020 to July 2021, when the resident suffered significant inconvenience and disruption.
6. The landlord acknowledged that the resident had suffered a stroke in the past and that she had had several issues to deal with in the same timeframe which had impacted her health and wellbeing and had led to suicidal thoughts. As she was classed as “extremely vulnerable” during the COVID-19 pandemic she had “effectively become a prisoner in her home” which had a significant effect on her mental health. As a result of her disabilities, the resident had been more adversely affected.
7. The resident had raised a separate complaint about the boundary fence for which the landlord had already paid her £3,500 and she had accepted. This Service has not seen this correspondence.
8. It would arrange an inspector to attend to reports of further mould and rat noise.
9. It had missed opportunities to resolve the matters more quickly and would do the following:
  1. Ensure full consideration was given to move a resident when whole rooms and facilities were not available.
  2. Liaise with contractors to ensure that any works were made good and paid for by the contractor.
  3. Ensure that it liaised with residents in a timely and empathetic way, so that issues and problems could be identified and resolved, as soon as possible.
On 16 February 2023 the resident advised this Service that she was not satisfied with the response as the compensation was not sufficient. She reiterated that she had suffered itchy eyes and a sore throat and that she had requested “personal damages”.

Correspondence following the referral to this Service

On 5 May 2023 the resident asked the landlord why she had not received the compensation offered at stage 2. The landlord responded on 22 May 2023 and apologised for the delay in replying. The staff member advised that this was due to him being busy with local elections. The landlord advised that it would chase up the compensation and other actions.
On 24 May 2023 the resident advised the landlord that there was still damp and mould and that her bedroom had a “choking mould and damp smell”. She stated that she would like to be compensated for mould damage to the bed, mattress, bedding and carpet.
On 13 November 2023 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. She had recently returned from having an operation and so spent time in bed which had been damaged by damp and mould.
2. The carpet had woodlice.
3. The landlord’s insurers had offered her compensation of £1082.39 in respect of these issues but this was insufficient. She stated that she needed a new bed and carpet “immediately”.
On 25 November 2023 the resident reiterated to the landlord that it had not paid her the compensation offered at stage 2. She asked to be paid the £2,000 compensation to cover decorating costs. The landlord responded on 6 December 2023 and advised that it would not pay the compensation as the resident had declined this offer.
The resident advised this Service on 4 January 2024 that she felt “very frustrated and anxious”. She stated she had sleepless nights and could not get a new bed or carpet until the decoration works had been completed.
On 31 January 2024 the resident wrote to the landlord as follows:
1. She had received payment from its insurer in respect of the mould damaged items.
2. She had agreed to the £2,000 compensation for redecoration and asked this to be transferred to her.
3. It had not paid her compensation in respect of not having access to rooms during the works.
4. A contractor had identified that a drainpipe had not been correctly fixed.
On 23 January 2024 this Service issued the landlord with a complaint handling failure order (CHFO) as it had not provided the information requested for this service’s investigation within 6 months of the request.
On 25 January 2024 the resident confirmed to this Service that her complaint did not include the boundary matter as this had been resolved.
On 22 February 2024 the resident advised this Service as follows:
1. No further compensation from the landlord or its insurer had been offered.
2. There was still mould in the bedroom and bathroom. Possibly caused by an incorrectly repaired drain pipe. (It is not clear from the records provided to this Service whether the landlord followed through on its agreement at stage 2 to inspect the damp, mould and pests or what works were subsequently undertaken, if any.)
3. Her mental health was still being affected by the situation and whenever she heard creaking she thinks the rats may have returned.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

It must be noted that this Service is not a reactive service and as such this investigation only considers the matters investigated by the landlord during its internal complaints procedure which concluded in February 2023. The resident subsequently reported further matters to the landlord and this Service. The following matters raised after the completion of the internal complaints procedure do not form part of this investigation:
1. The landlord’s insurer’s offer of £1082.39 compensation in respect of mould damage to the bed, mattress, bedding and carpet.
2. An incorrectly repaired drainpipe.
The resident also reported damp and mould in her bedroom following the completion of the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Although the landlord has not had the opportunity to address this via its complaints procedure, this Service can assess whether the landlord followed through with the action in respect of damp and mould as stated in its stage 2 response.
Complaints about insurance claims are not within the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as the insurance company is a separate organisation from the landlord and the landlord is not responsible for the insurer’s actions (para 41 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme). The loss of use of the kitchen for 8 months was considered by way of an insurance claim, which resulted in a compensation payment of £4710 to the resident. As this matter has already been dealt with by way of an insurance claim, this aspect of complaint falls outside of the Housing Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This Service has however assessed the hallway/bedroom/bathroom issues despite this also having been through an insurance claim. This is because the landlord assessed this as part of its complaint response and considered that its insurer had made a mistake in its response to this issue.
The resident’s concerns in respect of the boundary fence were resolved and so do not part of this investigation. Mention of this has however been included as the correspondence in respect of this is tied into the correspondence in respect of other aspects of complaint.

Response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property following the landlord’s acknowledgement of damp, mould and pest infestation issues

If an insurer has determined that a landlord is not liable to pay a complainant compensation, it may still be appropriate for this service to investigate and determine whether there has been any service failure or maladministration. Furthermore, it may be fair and proportionate for this service to order compensation as redress in such cases where service failure or maladministration has been determined.
There is evidence that both the landlord and its insurer advised the resident that as she had accepted the offer of £4,710 compensation in full and final settlement of the loss of the kitchen for 8 months, then the insurer was not able to consider the loss of the other rooms. Whilst this was the conclusion of the landlord’s insurer, the landlord was not bound by this decision and had the discretion to order compensation as it deemed appropriate.
Where resident’s are left without use of rooms for significant periods of time, this Service expects landlords to offer compensation based on a reduction of the resident’s rent over the period of time. In this case it is noted that the landlord’s insurer compensated the resident £500 per month for loss of the kitchen. It is not clear how this figure was determined, however this was more than the resident’s 4 weekly rent of £410.96. A rent refund for loss of a room, over and above the resident’s monthly rent, would generally be in excess of any order this Service would make. However compensation for distress and inconvenience can be considered separately.
Whilst the compensation offered by the landlord’s insurer for the loss of use of the kitchen was significant, this covered the loss of amenity until January 2021. The landlord’s stage 2 response however acknowledged that there had been significant distress and inconvenience caused to the resident until July 2021. In addition, the stage 2 response identified the need for a further damp, mould and pest inspection so it not clear that all the issues were resolved by February 2023. Given the circumstances and the resident’s reported vulnerability, compensation over and above the loss of amenity (awarded via the insurance claim) should have been considered by the landlord.
Whilst not in place at the time of this complaint, it is clear from the landlord’s damp and mould policy that a temporary decant of a resident should be considered where extensive works need to be undertaken in respect of damp and mould. This policy was not published until after the completion of the internal complaints procedure in this case. Despite this, a temporary decant would have been good practise, given the significant disruption caused to the resident by the works for a significant period of 8 months and given that her kitchen, bedroom and bathroom had been impacted by the works. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge its failing in not offering the resident temporary accommodation within its stage 1 response.
The landlord did not provide the correspondence in respect if its offer of £1000 compensation to this Service so it has not been possible to consider how this figure was determined or what the landlord took into consideration in reaching this figure. In addition the landlord has not provided a compensation policy to this Service nor was one available on its public facing website. It is however clear from the landlord’s stage 2 response that it considered the impact the situation had on the resident in light of her particular individual circumstances and disabilities. This was reasonable and appropriate and showed a resident-focused approach. Whilst the landlord could not determine that the events had caused a decline in the resident’s health, it appropriately considered her representations.
It is noted that the offer of £1000 compensation was in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for cases of severe maladministration and for when there has been a failing which has had a significant impact on the resident. This payment was offered in respect of the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s lack of consideration of a temporary decant for the initial 8 month period up to January 2021. Although compensation was appropriate, this amount did not address or reflect the considerable distress and inconvenience caused to the resident after January 2021, which was not appropriate.
It is clear from the stage 2 response that the landlord acknowledged that the loss of the other rooms had not been appropriately considered by its insurer. It was therefore reasonable for it to ask its insurer to reconsider this. Despite identifying this failure and asking its insurer to reconsider, there is no evidence that the landlord took any further steps to ensure its insurer reconsidered this following the stage 2 response. This Service has not had sight of any further communication from the landlord or its insurer to the resident in respect of the reconsideration of this or any evidence that this took place. Given that the landlord had identified a failure at stage 2, it should have been proactive in following through with the insurer to ensure that it put things right for the resident. If its insurer declined to reconsider, then the landlord should have been proactive and considered the redress offered in respect of this.
The landlord’s insurers had considered the resident’s request for compensation in respect of the redecoration. It advised that as she had not suffered a financial loss in respect of the redecoration, it could not compensate her for this. Following this the landlord acknowledged in its stage1 response that it needed to recognise that resident’s sometimes chose to spend their own money on decorating their property. It was appropriate for the landlord to acknowledge this and to take learning from the case. The landlord also appropriately advised that as this was being reconsidered by its insurer it could not offer compensation in respect of this whist the insurance claim was ongoing.
Following the insurance company maintaining its position that it could not offer compensation, the landlord appropriately reconsidered this within its stage 2 response. It acknowledged the impact the resident had described that the paint colours had on her mental health and offered her £2000 in order for her to instruct her own decorator to redecorate in her chosen colour. This was the amount that the resident had been quoted for the works and therefore the landlord’s offer of compensation to put things right was reasonable. It is noted that the resident accepted this offer of compensation and it was paid to her.
The landlord demonstrated that it had taken learning from the resident’s case and that although it could not hold itself to always decorating to the standards requested by residents, that it would endeavour to consider the impact of how it responded to such issues going forward. The landlord acted reasonably in offering the full amount of compensation requested by the resident for redecoration and in the learning it took from the case.
In summary, although the landlord considered the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, it did not go far enough in respect of acknowledging the considerable detriment caused to her during the full time period the resident was impacted by the condition of the property. This amounts to maladministration. To acknowledge the impact this had on the resident, this Service had ordered an additional £500 compensation. In addition an order has been made for the landlord to inspect the property for damp, mould and pest infestation.

Complaint handling

The Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) sets out that landlord should have a 2 stage complaints process. At stage 1 a landlord should respond within 10 working days and at stage 2 it should respond within 20 working days. If more time is required it should inform the resident of this.
The landlord’s complaints procedure does not comply with the Code. Instead the landlord has an informal stage where matters are not considered to be complaints. This led to confusion for the resident as she reasonably expected that the landlord would respond to her complaint as such and in line with its complaints procedure.
It is also noted that the landlord’s complaints procedure states that complaints are made by submitting a complaint form. This is not in line with the Code which states that landlord’s should accepts complaints no matter the format they are submitted in.
Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord’s complaints procedure does allow for prioritisation of vulnerable residents, there is no evidence that the landlord followed its procedure in how it responded to the resident with her known vulnerabilities and her repeated communications in respect of the impact of the situation on her. This was not appropriate.
The resident first submitted her complaint on 10 September 2021. The landlord did not respond to it as a complaint and instead responded informally 8 months later (13 May 2022) by advising her that it considered the compensation to be reasonable and referring her to this Service. This caused confusion to the resident who contacted this Service for assistance.
This Service was required to become involved to ask the landlord to respond at stage 2 by 30 June 2022. Instead of complying with the request, the landlord advised that it had not considered the complaint through its complaints procedure and that it had not referred the resident to this Service. This was not accurate and led to further confusion to the resident as to the steps in the landlord’s complaints process.
The landlord provided a response to the resident on 11 July 2022 (outside of the timeframe provided by this Service). It was not clear if this was a stage 2 response however again the landlord signposted the resident to this Service. This Service subsequently chased the landlord for a closure letter which the landlord did not provide by the deadline. The landlord’s explanation given to this Service, for not complying was that the staff member’s main work at that time was in respect of the death of Her Majesty the Queen Elizabeth II. This was not reasonable given the significant delays with the complaints process and demonstrated a lack of understanding of the importance of good complaint handling and staff resourcing in this respect.
This Service was required to issue the landlord with a ‘final request for action’, however again the landlord did not respond by the deadline. On this occasion it told this Service that the same staff member was working on a significant other matter. This again demonstrated a lack of appreciation of the importance of good complaint handling.
The landlord provided the stage 1 response on 5 October 2022, this was 13 months after the resident submitted her complaint, which was unreasonable. When the resident escalated her complaint on 15 December 2022, the landlord took 2 months (until 13 February 2023) to respond at stage 2. This again was unreasonable. In total the resident’s complaint took 17 months to complete the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. This caused her significant frustration and distress and took her a significant amount of time and trouble chasing the landlord. This also significantly delayed the resident being able to refer her complaint to this Service. In addition to the significant delay it is concerning that responses were only provided by the landlord following the involvement of this Service.
It is clear that the landlord did not follow its complaints procedure in responding to the resident’s complaint. It did not sufficiently resource its staff to deal with complaints and so complaints were not dealt with given the appropriate urgency. The repeated involvement of this Service to ask the landlord to respond to the complaint was not appropriate. It was also noted that even after the resident referred her complaint to this Service, the landlord failed to provide the requested information and a CHFO was issued. The landlord’s failing in its complaint handling were sustained and had a significant detrimental impact on the resident. Although the complaint responses addressed the substantive issues of the complaint, neither response addressed or acknowledged the failings in its complaint handling. In addition the landlord offered no redress in respect of its complaint handling failures or the impact these had on the resident. This was not appropriate.
Despite of the significant errors in how it handled the complaint, it is noted that the landlord assessed the decision making of its insurer as part of its complaint response and conclude that its insurer had made a mistake. This was appropriate, demonstrating a resolution focussed approach to a complex issue.
Taken together, the amount of failings in the landlord’s complaint handling, the impact these had on the resident and its lack of acknowledgement or redress, these amount to maladministration. To acknowledge the distress caused to the resident in trying to have her complaint responded to for 17 months, compensation of £700 has been ordered. This is in line with the Housing Ombudsman’s remedies guidance for maladministration where the failings of the landlord were numerous and had a significant detrimental impact on the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) the landlord’s lack of consideration of compensation for personal injury is outside the jurisdiction of this Service.
In accordance with paragraph 53 (b) of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property following the landlord’s acknowledgement of damp, mould and pest infestation issues.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord identified a failure in how its insurer considered compensation but it took no action to ensure this was followed up on. The landlord offered compensation in respect of distress and inconvenience caused to the resident, however this did not cover the entire period during which the resident experienced this.
The landlord failed to follow its complaints procedure which led to confusion and significant frustration to the resident. The landlord did not demonstrate that it had appropriately prioritised responding to the complaints and despite the repeated involvement of this Service the landlord continued to fail to respond in an appropriate timeframe. It took the landlord 17 months to complete its internal complaints process. It offered no acknowledgement of the delays not redress for the impact this had on the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to take the following action within 4 weeks and provide evidence of compliance this Service:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this investigation.
2. Pay £1200 compensation to the resident made up as follows:
  1. £500 to acknowledge the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s failing in respect of its response to the resident’s reports about the condition of the property following the landlord’s acknowledgement of damp, mould and pest infestation issues.
  2. £700 to acknowledge the complaint handling failures.
3. The landlord is to reoffer the £1000 in respect of it not having considered a temporary decant if this has not already been paid.
4. The landlord is to reoffer the £2000 compensation for the resident to instruct her own decorator to redecorate in her chosen colour or style.
5. Undertake a case review on the complaint handling failures identified in this case and the complaints policy in line with the Housing Ombudsman complaint handling code. Provide a report of this to this Service within 1 month of the date of this report detailing lessons learned and changes to the complaints policy.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to inspect the property for damp, mould and pest infestation issues to ascertain whether any issues are ongoing. The resulting report from this inspection to be shared with both this Service and the resident. Expected timescales for any identified works to be included within this report.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord publish a compensation policy.