Citizen Housing (202301690)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202301690

Citizen Housing

31 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 resident has complained about the landlord’s:
1. response to reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB), including the use of CCTV and a boundary dispute.
2. response to the resident’s request for works to the heating and hot water system including for a replacement boiler to be located in the kitchen.
3. response to the resident’s concerns about the windows in one of the bedrooms.
4. response to reports of damp and mould.
5. response to reports of water contamination.
6. attempts to access the property to conduct an electrical installation, condition report.
The Service has also considered the landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Policies and Procedures

The landlord’s Electrical Safety Policy states that Citizen Housing Group are “committed to routine checks, Inspection and Testing of both domestic and communal areas. We operate on a 5-year domestic cycle or change of occupancy which falls in line with current BS7671: IET wiring regulations.” An Electrical Installation Condition Report (EICR) certificate will be produced.
The landlord’s Repairs Policy (May 2023) states that:
1. the landlord will comply with all legal and statutory requirements for the identification and treatment of damp and mould and follow guidance from the Housing Regulator and Housing Ombudsman. … It has “in place specific procedures to deal with reports of damp and mould which include considerations of vulnerabilities that may make the impacts of damp and mould more acute and require a faster response.”
2. Citizen will respond to reports of damp and mould in customers’ homes in a timely way that takes a holistic approach to diagnosing and treating the causes of damp and mould.
The landlord’s Self-Assessment against the Housing Ombudsman – Damp and Mould 2023 states “A specialist team has been set up to investigate and address reports and assessments. Works are prioritised according to vulnerability and severity… Careful monitoring of each case also assists in ensuring that delays are minimized and communication with the customer is maintained.”
The Planning Portal confirms that under Building Regulations, “The means of escape should be considered for any new window installed to an extension or existing dwelling… It is also generally good practice to replace any window on the first floor that is not used as an escape window with an escape window.” The criteria for egress windows are:
1. Width and Height – Either of these are not to be any less than 450mm.
2. Clear Openable Area – No less than 0.33m².
3. Cill height – The bottom of the openable area should be no more than 1100mm above the floor area.
Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) landlords should remove and reduce hazards from Falls between Levels – Falls from one level to another, inside or outside a dwelling where the difference is more than 300mm. This includes falls outside windows.
The landlord’s ASB and Hate Crime policy states that:
1. “When addressing ASB and Hate Crime we will work in partnership with customers, the Police, Local Authorities and other agencies…”
2. It “will adopt a victim centred, problem solving approach to talking Hate Crime. We will do this by:
  1. Agreeing a clear and transparent action plan with the reporter, advising what we can to and what the reporter can do to resolve things. Keeping all parties informed of any progress but also expecting our reporters to keep in contact with us until the case is resolved.”
3. “On some occasions other agencies may have the best tool to address the problem and we will therefore work with our partners to support their action … The action we take will be decided on the circumstances of each case in turn and will be proportionate to the behaviour exhibited.”
4. “In some circumstances and if the situation is appropriate we may be unable to progress an ASB case if a complainant refuses early intervention actions or does not work with partnership agencies. Whatever, the reason for closing the case this will always be recorded fully and explained.”
The landlord’s Compensation Framework (January 2022) confirms it can make discretionary payments, taking into account the level of impact. The guidance provided states:
1. Awards of £0 – £250 can be made in cases of Low Impact – where the customer has suffered no significant detriment.
2. £250 – £699 -can be made in cases of Medium Impact – where there has been some inconvenience or distress to the customer through the service being below the standard that Citizen would expect to deliver.
3. £700 or above in cases of High Impact where there has been significant inconvenience or distress to the customer through poor service or persistent failure leading to significant delay.
The landlord’s Complaints Policy confirms that it will not normally consider complaints when the problem happened more than 6 months before the complaint being made. The policy confirms that the landlord has a two-stage procedure.
1. It will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 10 working days of the complaint being logged. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond withing a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.
2. It will respond to a stage 2 complaint within 20 working days of escalation. If it cannot respond within this timeframe, it will send an explanation to the resident and respond withing a further 10 working days. A further extension should be agreed by all parties.

Background and Summary of Events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, and her property is a 3-bedroom house. The resident was originally a tenant of the local authority at the address before a Large-Scale Voluntary Transfer in 2000. Documentation from the landlord shows that the resident became the sole tenant on 8 August 1983 although the landlord has advised the Service that her tenancy began on 12 May 1980. The resident has provided a signed tenancy agreement with the landlord formed after the stock transfer. This confirms the resident became an assured tenant with the tenancy starting on 25 September 2000.
The resident lives with her adult son who the landlord accepts as a representative. The landlord’s records notes that the resident has mental health issues and that her son has dexterity issues while both are dyslexic. The resident and her next-door neighbour share use of an entryway between the properties which is owned by the landlord. The next-door neighbour (Ms X) is an owner occupier.
On 13 May 2016, the landlord carried out electrical testing of the resident’s property.
In February 2020, after carrying out a heating survey, the landlord offered to upgrade the resident’s heating system so that the radiators could have thermostatic valves. The landlord stated it needed to first carry out a survey so that it could plan and design the installation. The resident declined the works at that time due to the weather.
In November 2021, the landlord inspected following a report that Ms X had installed a gate in the entryway and did not provide the resident with a key. At the time, the landlord incorrectly thought the entryway was for Ms X and another neighbour whereas the resident shared a separate entryway with a different neighbour.
At a home visit on 22 March 2022, the landlord observed that Ms X had installed a gate halfway down the entryway and another gate at the front facing the road. It noted that this was to make their property more secure after a home invasion. The resident and her son said that, aside from access, they did not want the gates in place as they were attached to the side elevation of the resident’s property.
Although there is not a contemporaneous record, the parties do not dispute that at the visit of 22 March 2022 the resident, through her son, raised repair issues. The resident’s son asked the landlord to replace a window in the front bedroom with a window with a fire escape function. He also stated that as part of any heating system upgrades, he wanted the landlord to relocate the boiler from an upstairs airing cupboard to the kitchen. The landlord agreed to follow up on the issues but did not do so at the time.
Regarding the gate, the landlord updated the resident during April 2022 stating that it was awaiting the deeds to Ms X’s property. It then agreed with the police, the resident and the neighbour to resolve the issue by Restorative Justice in the form of mediation. However, on 22 June 2022 the resident’s son advised the mediator that he and the resident would withdraw as he overheard Ms X and other neighbours talking about them which he considered to be harassment. The landlord advised him to report the matter to the police which would decide whether the incident constituted harassment. The landlord opened an ASB case and also tried to complete an action plan, but the resident asked it to call back another time.
On 5 July 2022, the landlord completed a Vulnerability Matrix with the resident by talking to her son. It also completed an action plan which was for the resident to complete diary sheets and to contact the police if she was the victim of crime in relation to the ASB. The landlord was to continue to liaise with the police and provide monthly updates.
There is no evidence that the landlord received further reports of ASB or completed diary sheets after June 2022. In phone calls to the resident’s son on 10 August and 14 September 2022, the landlord advised that it was still considering how to resolve his concerns about Ms X’s gate and waiting to hear from the police.
At a home visit on 3 October 2022 the landlord confirmed to the resident it would erect two gates independent of her property and provide keys for access. It advised that the police were taking no action in respect of her two outstanding reports of harassment from her neighbours. This was because she had provided no “credible evidence” to allow for an investigation and she and her son would not partake in Restorative Justice. (The landlord’s records of its contact with the police confirm that the second report of harassment was from March 2021 and related to an incident of dog’s mess).
After the landlord left several messages for the resident’s son by phone in November 2022, it wrote to the resident on 25 November 2022 advising that it had closed the ASB case. It explained this was because the police were not taking action in respect of the two allegations about the neighbours and because it had not received details of further incidents since June 2022.
On 8 December 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that following another inspection in November 2022 it was still in the process for putting a specification for the gates.
On 20 January 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident advising that its contractor, specialist metal fabricators, had visited the site and that it was waiting for the contractor to provide designs for review. On 25 January 2023, the contractor advised the landlord that it could not design gates that could not be attached to the properties.
On 31 January 2023, the resident sent a letter of complaint in which she stated:
1. The landlord had not provided an update about the works to Ms X’s gate from her wall and replace them as freestanding as agreed or provide clarification on access rights. She also wanted surveillance equipment installed by the neighbour in the entryway to be removed.
2. The landlord had not acted on, or discussed further, the repairs reported on 22 March 2022. These included cold, condensation and damp caused by failing double glazing and rotten wooden windows and contaminated water due to a deteriorated heating system.
3. She was unhappy that the landlord was prematurely carrying out a 10-year electrical installation.
Following receipt of the resident’s complaint, on 20 February 2023 the landlord raised an order for “temporary damp treatment”. This included applying solutions to walls and ceilings. However, it was noted that a damp and mould “inspection [was] required to property asap.”
On 21 February 2023, the landlord sent the resident its stage 1 response.
1. It offered £100 compensation in relation to delays in responding to the resident’s requests.
2. With regards to the reinstallation of the gates between the properties the landlord noted the outcome of the inspection of 3 October 2022. It noted that its specialist gate fabricator advised that it may not be possible to not attach the gates to the resident’s property. However, it was drawing up gate designs and aimed to provide a further update by 1 March 2023. It apologised for the delay.
3. The landlord clarified that it owned the entryway between the resident and Ms X’s property, therefore the resident, Ms X and another neighbour had access rights. It noted that it had written to the parties about an agreement not to affect the use of or access to the entryway.
4. The landlord confirmed that if CCTV surveyed the entryway rather than the property boundary, the request to record activity within the entryway would require an application to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). Furthermore, a mutual agreement would require signage from all parties that had access rights to the entryway regarding usage of the CCTV, and signage would need to be installed. It was speaking to Ms X to ensure the CCTV did not affect the resident. It apologised for the delay in responding to this issue.
5. It accepted that it had discussed outstanding repairs at the visit of 22 March 2022 but understood it had asked the resident to log outstanding repairs with the customer service centre. It had committed to follow up on the wooden window at the front of the property and apologised for not doing so. It confirmed that its maintenance team would now consider a repair or replacement. The landlord advised that it did not receive a report of damp or mould until the stage 1 complaint so intended to carry out an inspection on 24 February 2023.
6. The landlord advised that the electrical inspection was necessary as the testing period had been reduced from 10 years to 5 years.
7. The landlord noted the resident’s reports of March 2021 and June 2022 against the neighbours and summarised the action it had taken. It found that it had acted in line with its ASB procedures, supported the resident and liaised with other agencies. It did not consider that it undermined the resident’s rights under the law to allow for any criminal investigation to take place.
The landlord attended on 24 February 2023 to carry out mould treatment works, but the resident’s son did not provide access. The landlord noted that he advised its operative he had cleaned the mould himself and was waiting on the inspection to clarify whether it would install new windows. On the same day, the resident’s son wrote to the landlord noting that he had raised the issue of damp at the visit of 22 March 2022. He stated he had advised the landlord that he believed the damp was caused by rotten wooden windows, lack of insulation and a lack of ventilation in the soffits.
On 2 and 21 March 2023, the resident refused access for an electrical inspection appointment stating that it was not necessary as there had been a check in 2016.
On 3 April 2023, the resident’s son sent a stage 2 complaint on the resident’s behalf which detailed the history of her tenancy. Within the letter he stated:
1. They had asked for 20 years for the landlord to replace a window in the front bedroom with a window with a fire escape function as it was above a lawn area. They also wanted the other window in the room replaced as it was the wrong way round. However, the landlord had only agreed to install one new window.
2. To remedy damp and mould, they wanted the landlord to replace the window or seals in the large bedroom, replace the windows in the small front bedroom, remedy a cold spot by installing an Oriented Strand Board and insulating an exposed area next to the entryway, install plastic soffit vents along the length of the front and rear of the property and arrange for the waterboard to replace a water pipe.
3. They had asked for the landlord to install a new and reconfigured kitchen. This included the landlord installing a new combi-boiler in the kitchen.
The resident’s son reiterated that they believed that the water supply to the loft-based water tank was contaminated with iron oxide rust from the interior of radiators and that he wanted the landlord to carry out a full chemical flush and install an inline heating water filter. They also wanted replacement radiators with thermostatic valves.
The resident’s son also stated that they were unhappy with the handling of the situation with Ms X, including the handling of the issues with the gates and CCTV, as well as action by the police.
On 4 May 2023, the landlord wrote to the resident proposing to carry out an inspection of her property on 18 May 2023. On 10 May 2023, the landlord sent the stage 2 response, confirming that it would not respond to points arising 6 months before the resident’s complaint.
1. The landlord advised it had sought to inspect the property due to the number of repairs the resident had reported. If it could not speak to the resident or a representative, it would send an appointment date in writing at least 3 weeks in advance of the date.
2. The landlord upheld the outcome of the Stage 1 response with regards to electrical safety and test inspection.
3. The landlord reiterated the action it had taken on the resident’s ASB case, noting that it had liaised with the police and offered its mediation service. It noted that it had carried out a risk assessment and agreed an action plan which it sent with a set of diary sheets. It had sought to speak to the resident before closing the ASB case. It offered the resident again the opportunity of mediation.
4. The landlord apologised for initially providing incorrect advice about the resident’s access rights when the neighbour initially erected the gate. It sought an acceptable solution to all parties and had consulted with the resident. It was considering the final designs and intended to visit the resident on 23 May 2023 to discuss further.
5. The landlord confirmed the resident and two other neighbours had rights to use the entry way. It would contact Ms X about the need to consult with affected parties over her use of CCTV and instruct the other neighbour to move their CCTV so that it did not view the resident’s garden.
6. The landlord offered a further £100 compensation making the total award £200.

After the complaints procedure

After the resident cancelled a full property inspection scheduled for 18 May 2023, the landlord rescheduled it for 28 June 2023. On 14 June 2023, the resident cancelled the planned appointment for 28 June 2023. The landlord attended the appointment on 28 June 2023 but after no access was given, it wrote to the resident rescheduling the appointment for 21 July 2023. On 17 July 2023, the resident wrote to the landlord asking it to rearrange the appointment for 10 August 2023 as she was decorating.
The landlord has provided evidence that it advised Ms X, by visiting and writing to her in July and August 2023, about the use of CCTV and what her obligations were under General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) and the Data Protection Act 2018.
The landlord inspected the resident’s property on 10 August 2023. Its notes confirmed it agreed:
1. a glazier would ease and adjust the windows so that they shut tight.
2. to replace a bedroom window which was in poor condition. It noted the resident requested that the opening casement be positioned over a pathway as opposed to the grass.
3. to revisit with a gas inspector to decide whether a new combi–boiler could be located in the kitchen as part of a heating upgrade as requested by the resident’s son.
4. to check the loft for condensation and fit soffit vents if required.
5. to check the immersion heater tank and the header tank for the cold-water supply in the loft to ensure there was no rust or debris.
The resident’s son advised that he did not want any works completed at that time, but until warmer weather in 2024, and in afternoon appointments.
On 28 September 2023, the landlord provided an update in respect of the issues of the entryway and CCTV. It advised that it had decided to ask Ms X to remove the first gate facing the road at the front of the entryway but would allow the gate halfway down the alleyway to remain in place. This was because it did not want the entryway to be used as a throughfare which could lead to ASB. The landlord also stated it had asked the neighbour to remove the CCTV or re-position it, so it only viewed land within their own property boundary, and this included both the entryway and the camera that was partially viewing the front garden.
The landlord has provided evidence to the Service of further correspondence with Ms X about her gate and CCTV during October 2023 although for reasons of confidentiality details cannot be disclosed in this report.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The Service notes that that the resident in her complaint has detailed repairs issues and issues with her neighbours going back many years. This investigation has primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. This is because residents are expected to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner so that the landlord has a reasonable opportunity to consider the issues whilst they are still ‘live,’ and while the evidence is available to reach an informed conclusion on the events that occurred. As the substantive issues become historic it is increasingly difficult for either the landlord, or an independent body such as the Ombudsman, to conduct an effective review of the actions taken to address those issues.
Furthermore, in the interest of fairness, the scope of this investigation is limited to the issues raised during the resident’s formal complaint. This is because the landlord needs to be given a fair opportunity to investigate and respond to any reported dissatisfaction with its actions prior to the involvement of the Service. The investigation has considered events occurring after the end of the complaints procedure insofar as they relate to the outcome of the complaint and also to place the complaint in its current context.

The landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour; including CCTV and a boundary dispute

The resident initially reported in 2021 that she was unhappy that her next-door neighbour had installed gates in the shared entryway. The landlord failed to address the matter at this time as it incorrectly thought that the resident did not have access rights to the entryway. It is important that landlords seek to resolve disputes between neighbours at the earliest opportunity to prevent relations between the parties escalating. However, due to the landlord’s error this did not happen in this instance.
After the landlord noted that a second gate had been installed in March 2022, it took steps to confirm which party owned the land by seeking to obtain the neighbour’s deeds for the property. It was, in any case, required to act on the resident’s report of the gates as they were fixed to the resident’s property without permission. The landlord initially suggested mediation. It was appropriate that the landlord explore this option as mediation is a commonly used tool for resolving low-level neighbour disputes, including boundary issues. Mediation allows the parties to understand the position of the other side and reach mutually agreed solutions.
The landlord opened an ASB case after the resident withdrew from mediation. It carried out a risk assessment of the resident’s vulnerability which was in line with good practice such as that set out in the Home Office’s Statutory Guidance for professionals dealing with ASB cases, ‘Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014: Anti-social behaviour powers. The landlord also followed its ASB Policy by formulating an action plan that made clear the action both parties needed to take. It was appropriate that the landlord asked the resident to complete diary sheets as entries would help it ascertain the nature, frequency and impact of incidents which in turn would inform it of what further action, if any, to take.
The landlord closed the ASB case in November 2022. It provided good reason for doing so by noting there had been no further incidents reported for several months. Moreover, while the police operate to a different evidential threshold and have a different role, it was in line with its multi-agency approach to resolving ASB cases that the landlord liaised with the police. It was therefore reasonable for the landlord to take into account that the police had also closed its case as there were no grounds for it to investigate.
While the landlord had reason to close the registered ASB case, the underlying issue of the gates that the neighbour had installed remained a source of dissatisfaction for the resident. The landlord demonstrated a lack of urgency as it did not reach a decision on how to resolve the matter until October 2022, 11 months after it received the first report. During this period, the resident and her son could not access a path they were entitled to use. The resident’s son has further advised the Service that he cannot install a satellite dish as a result although it is not evident that he has asked the landlord for permission for this.
On 3 October 2022, the landlord decided to erect new gates that were not fixed to the resident’s property, and give keys to all parties, which was a reasonable and practical solution. These works would be over and above its repair obligation. However, the landlord then delayed in providing regular and substantive updates to the resident and her son to manage their expectations about the proposed works. While the landlord advised that it was not possible to install gates without fixtures to the resident’s property it did not provide a further update by 1 March 2023 or on 23 May 2023 as stated in its complaint response. It ultimately confirmed its decision that the front gate should be removed in its letter of September 2023. This was 11 months after it had originally agreed to install 2 gates which was an unreasonable length of time to reach a decision on this matter and again demonstrated a lack of urgency. The resident remained without access to the entryway therefore the further delay exacerbated his distress and inconvenience.
In her stage 1 complaint the resident raised the issue of CCTV cameras that her neighbours had installed. As the neighbours were reported to be filming land owned by the landlord including the resident’s garden and the entryway, it was appropriate for the landlord to intervene.
The landlord in the stage 1 response confirmed the obligations of the neighbours thereby managing the resident’s expectations about how the matter could be resolved. The landlord in the stage 2 response then committed to speak to the neighbours about the appropriate use of CCTV. It has provided evidence that it has done so. The landlord has also provided evidence that it has taken further action to ensure that Ms X meets her obligation although to preserve the confidentiality of that neighbour details cannot be disclosed in this report. By providing information to the resident and the neighbours on their obligations regarding the use of CCTV and taking further action to ensure that the obligations are met, the landlord has taken reasonable steps to resolve this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s request for works to the heating and hot water system including for a replacement boiler to be located in the kitchen

The parties do not dispute that repair issues were raised at the meeting of 22 March 2022. The resident, according to her complaint, understood that the landlord would then consider and act on her repair requests. Whereas the landlord advised it referred the resident to log the repairs herself. The landlord has not kept a contemporaneous record of the visit of 22 March 2022. pHhThis is a failing on the part of the landlord. Clear record keeping and management is a core landlord function. The landlord can refer back to its records when investigating what matters were discussed and what actions were taken or agreed, at any point in time. Detailed records also allow landlords to track and monitor requests for repairs and other services.
The resident has stated her son raised their request for the landlord to install a new boiler in the kitchen at the visit. Regardless of any misunderstanding over whether the resident needed to log a repair with the Customer Services Team herself, there is no evidence that the resident pursued her request for a new boiler until her stage 2 complaint a year later. However, the landlord had previously agreed, in 2020, that the resident’s heating system should be upgraded and that she would benefit from thermostatic valves. Therefore, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in contacting the resident about the works and in arranging necessary surveys.
Following the stage 2 complaint the landlord sought to carry out a property inspection of the various repairs raised by the resident. With regard to the heating and hot water system the landlord has confirmed to the Service that a survey will allow it to plan and design the installation of a heating upgrade. This will include deciding whether a new combi-boiler can be installed in the kitchen, as the resident has requested. Although the landlord inspected on 8 August 2022, a gas inspector with the necessary expertise to make decisions on heating system was not present. This was a missed opportunity, and the landlord has not carried out the necessary survey required to reach a decision on how heating system upgrade should be carried out. There is no good reason for the landlord not arranging for a gas inspector to carry out this survey sooner, especially as a heating upgrade and the need for a survey was originally identified in 2020. As a result, there has been a further delay in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for works to the heating and hot water system. Consequentially there has been a delay the installation of thermostatic valves on radiators which is to be completed as part of the works.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows in one of the bedrooms

The parties do not dispute that the landlord at the visit of 22 March 2022 agreed to look into the replacement of a window in the front bedroom with a fire escape window. The landlord did not take any further action on the request at the time which was a failing.
The resident pursued the request in her stage 1 complaint. In the response to the complaint the landlord advised that that it was considering whether to repair or replace the window. However, there is no evidence that the landlord took any action to reach an informed decision on what works to carry out to the window(s) in the resident’s front bedroom until seeking to inspect in May 2023. This was 4 months after the complaint and therefore represented another unreasonable delay. It was not until 10 August 2023 that the landlord inspected the resident’s property. The further delay was due to the resident not providing access and therefore not due to a failing by the landlord.
At the inspection, the landlord agreed to replace one window in the front bedroom. However, the landlord did not confirm whether it would install a fire escape window as the resident had requested. There is no evidence that the landlord considered whether a fire escape window was required in line with building regulations or HHSRS guidance. The landlord also did not consider the resident’s request for the other window in the room to be replaced or refitted on the basis of being the wrong way round. Therefore, while the landlord has now inspected and agreed to replace a front bedroom window, it has not addressed the particular details of the resident’s complaint. The resident in her complaint said this issue was long-standing therefore it was important that the landlord provide a definitive response.

The landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould

The resident has stated that she first raised the issue of damp and mould at the visit of 22 March 2022. The landlord denied that the issue was raised at the visit. In the absence of contemporaneous evidence, it is not possible to confirm which version of events is more accurate. However, as noted there is an onus on the landlord to maintain records of matters discussed and actions taken when visiting residents.
There is no evidence that the resident made a further report of damp and mould until the stage 1 complaint of 31 January 2023. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021), highlights the general need for landlords to adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions, to review their strategies, and consider whether their approach will achieve this. It was therefore necessary for the landlord to now take prompt action to investigate and eradicate the damp and mould reported, in particular as the resident was vulnerable due to her age. The landlord’s Repair Policy and Self-Assessment recognised the need to diagnose damp and mould and expedite actions if residents are particularly vulnerable to the impact of damp.
Following the stage 1 complaint the landlord sought to carry out a temporary damp treatment. This was reasonable insofar as this would alleviate the mould problem. However, an inspection was needed in order to identify the underlying cause of the damp and mould reported. In fact, the resident had attributed the presence of damp and mould to particular repair issues. There is no evidence that the landlord sought to carry out a damp inspection until May 2023, 4 months after the resident’s complaint. This was a particularly unreasonable delay given the potential impact of the damp.
When the landlord inspected in August 2023 it agreed to investigate condensation in the loft and replace the soffits if it considered this to be beneficial. It also agreed to carry out works to ensure windows shut tightly to prevent draughts. However, it did not keep an appropriately detailed record of the visit that confirmed it had assessed the extent of dampness and mould within the property and identified possible reasons. The landlord did not record whether it looked for the presence of damp and mould in each room. It did not evidence any testing for dampness and moisture, such as protimeter readings. Nor did the landlord consider whether further insulation was required, as suggested by the resident. Also, there is no evidence to suggest why the landlord thought that easing and adjusting the windows would be sufficient when the resident had stated windows were rotten and had defective seals. Therefore, there is no evidence that the landlord’s damp inspection, as well as being delayed, was adequate and could reasonably be relied on.

The landlord’s response to reports of water contamination

The resident in his complaint of January 2023 stated that she had raised concerns about contaminated water from the heating system at the visit of 22 March 2022. The landlord has advised the Service that the resident did not raise this issue until her formal complaint of January 2023. Again, it is not possible to confirm if this issue was discussed at the visit, and if so, what was agreed due to the landlord’s failure to keep a record of the visit.
The landlord did not respond to the resident’s water supply following the stage 1 complaint. It was not until the resident escalated her complaint and the landlord inspected on 8 August 2022 that the landlord acknowledged her concern about the water supply.
According to the landlord’s records, at the inspection it advised the resident that the water tank provided hot water for the heating system while the cold water was mains fed and supplied by the water board. The hot water for the heating system did not come out of the taps. There is no good reason why the landlord did not clarify how the heating and water system operated earlier to reassure the resident.
At the inspection, the landlord decided to carry out an inspection of the resident’s water tanks. This was prudent and served to further reassure the resident given that she explicitly stated that she understood the water tank was contaminated with iron oxide rust from radiators.

The landlord’s attempts to access the property to conduct an electrical installation condition report

The resident in her complaint expressed dissatisfaction that the landlord was seeking to carry out an inspection and testing of the electrics in her property at that time. She thought that the inspections should be at 10-year intervals therefore the test was not due until 2026. The landlord addressed this point and informed her of the current timeframe for electrical tests in its complaint responses. It advised that it in fact carried out electrical tests of its properties every 5 years. This response was consistent with its Electrical Safety Policy which had regard to the Institute of Engineering and Technology Wiring Regulations (BS 7671). Therefore the landlord’s response was appropriate.

Record Keeping

Clear record keeping and management is a core function of a repairs service, not only so that a landlord can provide information to the Ombudsman or otherwise justify its decisions on repair cases when requested, but also because this assists the landlord in fulfilling its repair obligations.
Clear record keeping and management is a core landlord function. Detailed records also allow landlords to track and monitor service requests. The landlord can refer back to its records when investigating what matters previously were discussed and what actions were taken or agreed. With regards to repairs, accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the condition of the structure and its fittings within the property over time, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. Staff should be aware of a landlord’s record management policy and procedures and adhere to these, as should any contractors undertaking work on behalf of the landlord.
As noted, the landlord did not keep a record of its visit of 22 March 2022 at which repair issues were discussed. It also concerning that the landlord did not keep an appropriately detailed record of the visit of August 2023, in particular as a key reason for the visit was to diagnose and resolve damp and mould in the property. For these reasons, the Service has found maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping and made an order accordingly.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of ASB, including CCTV and a boundary dispute.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to her request for works to the heating and hot water system including for a replacement boiler to be located in the kitchen.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to her concerns about the windows in one of the bedrooms.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its response to reports of water contamination.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration by the landlord in respect of the resident’s complaint about its attempts to access the property to conduct an electrical installation condition report.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord followed its ASB procedure by opening a ASB case. However, there were underlying reasons for difficulties in the relationship between the resident, her son and their neighbours, namely the gates that the neighbour had installed and the use of CCTV. The landlord delayed in addressing the resident’s concern about the gates, first failing to recognise that the resident had access rights to the entry, then in deciding what action to take to resolve the issue.
Regardless of any misunderstandings at the meeting of 22 March 2022, it was unreasonable that the landlord was not more proactive in contacting the resident about the works to her heating and hot water system and in arranging necessary surveys. After the resident raised her request again in her stage 2 complaint, the landlord delayed in arranging an inspection by a gas contractor. This has caused a delay in the landlord reaching an informed decision on the works.
The landlord delayed in inspecting the resident’s front bedroom windows. While it has agreed to replace one, it has not addressed all of the resident’s concerns. The landlord has now inspected and agreed to replace a front bedroom window but has not addressed the particular details of the resident’s complaint.
After the resident raised concerns about damp and mould in her stage 1 response, the landlord did not seek to carry out a damp inspection until May 2023, four months after the resident’s complaint. This was a particularly unreasonable delay given the potential impact of the damp. When the landlord gained access in August 2023, it did not keep an appropriately detailed record of the visit upon which it could justify its findings.
Although the landlord ultimately took appropriate steps to reassure the resident about the purity of her water supply at the inspection of 8 August 2023, its response was delayed given that the resident had raised the issue in her Stage 1 complaint.
The landlord’s decision to carry out electrical testing at the resident’s property and its advice that it carried out electrical tests of its properties every 5 years. was consistent with its Electrical Safety Policy.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next 4 weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Send an apology to the resident for the failures of service identified in this investigation.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £800 comprising:
  1. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in the landlord’s response to reports of antisocial behaviour, including CCTV and a boundary dispute.
  2. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in the landlord’s response to the resident’s request for works to the heating and hot water system including for a replacement boiler to be located in the kitchen.
  3. £100 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failing in the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the windows in one of the bedrooms.
  4. £300 for the distress and inconvenience caused by failings in the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould.
  5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the delay in responding to the resident’s report of water contamination.
3. Provide an update on the action taken to ensure appropriate use of CCTV by neighbours and the removal of the front gate in the entryway.
4. Contact the resident to arrange completion of all outstanding works identified at the inspection of 10 August 2023.
5. Contact the resident to arrange a survey by a gas engineer so that the details of the heating upgrade, including the position of the combi-boiler can be decided.
6. Contact the resident to arrange a further damp and mould inspection. After the inspection, the landlord should record the presence of damp and mould in all parts of the property and what action it will be taking to eradicate the damp and mould. It should notify this Service of the outcome of the inspection and the intended action.
7. Confirm to the resident whether it will be installing an escape window in the front bedroom. It should also confirm whether it will be replacing the other window in the room, and if not, why not.
8. Review its record keeping practices for repairs and maintenance, in particular for cases where damp and mould is reported. This is to ensure that accurate and accessible records are kept and maintained, both of inspections and surveys carried out, and of works raised and completed. As part of its review, the landlord should consider whether a record management policy and staff training are required. The landlord should write to the Ombudsman confirming this has been completed and detailing the outcome. All identified actions should be accompanied by a timescale for completion.