South Kesteven District Council (202330587)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202330587

South Kesteven District Council

23 August 2024

Our approach

The Housing Ombudsman’s approach to investigating and determining complaints is to decide what is fair in all the circumstances of the case. This is set out in the Housing Act 1996 and the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme). The Ombudsman considers the evidence and looks to see if there has been any ‘maladministration’, for example whether the landlord has failed to keep to the law, followed proper procedure, followed good practice or behaved in a reasonable and competent manner.

Both the resident and the landlord have submitted information to the Ombudsman and this has been carefully considered. Their accounts of what has happened are summarised below. This report is not an exhaustive description of all the events that have occurred in relation to this case, but an outline of the key issues as a background to the investigation’s findings.

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Repairs in the resident’s property and the resident’s request for improvements.
2. The resident’s complaint.

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord. The tenancy began in November 2021 and the property is a 2-bed bungalow. The landlord has various medical conditions recorded for the resident which affect both her physical mobility and mental health. The resident has also provided evidence that she has COPD which is exacerbated by damp and mould and said her daughter is neurodiverse and has asthma.
The resident had historically raised concerns in July 2022 which related to exposed wires, a fly and mouse infestation, mould in bedrooms and costs associated with running dehumidifiers, kitchen units, a crack across the width of the back door and kitchen floor and the impact of the issues on her and her daughter’s health. She also noted that there was a stock condition survey carried out in 2022 which recommended work to replace the wiring, toilet, kitchen, doors, windows, soffits and fascia, and the roof. She said that she was unable to safely access the loft where she heard mice, and that the kitchen floor was a tripping hazard due to her ankle mobility issues.
On 12 July 2022, the landlord identified damp in the corner of a bedroom in winter months but found none on the day of inspection due to dehumidifiers being used. It asked for an inspection of the cavity wall insulation with a borescope. In January 2023, the landlord asked internally whether elements of the resident’s property were on its planned programme of works.
The resident pursued her concerns in April 2023, noting the significant impact the issues were having on her health conditions. At the time, she asked that the landlord moved her or put her back on the housing register at her previous banding. She subsequently raised a complaint in May 2023 in relation to the landlord’s failure to complete repairs or improvements and the time and trouble she had spent communicating. She raised specific concerns about an ongoing mouse infestation due to a lack of maintenance to the soffits and facias, black mould in both bedrooms, gaps around windows and improvements that had previously been promised. She added concern that the ventilation unit (PIV) in her loft did not work.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the landlord responded to the complaint. However, the resident’s communication from 23 May 2023 suggests that she was dissatisfied with a response she had received.
A damp inspection was reported as complete on 1 June 2023. On 14 July 2023, the landlord’s internal records show that it asked for the floor tiles in the kitchen to be removed.
The resident raised a further complaint on 25 August 2023. The complaint included concerns related to numerous issues that had been ongoing since she moved in and the impact on her health both mentally and physically. She specifically raised concern about broken asbestos tiles in the kitchen and 2 failed attempts to complete works. She had needed to move kitchen appliances for no reason and had to move them back. She had also been promised improvements such as a re-wire, and new windows and doors. She noted that there were outstanding problems, including wiring issues, a mouse infestation, and ongoing damp and mould.
The tiles in the kitchen were removed on 25 August 2023. The landlord inspected the floor on 29 August 2023 and found that the damaged screed needed to be replaced, a crack in the floor needed to be filled, and an area of concrete levelled.
The landlord has provided a stage 1 complaint response which it has advised was sent to the resident on 31 August 2023. Within the response, the landlord said:
1. It had investigated the kitchen floor and works had been booked for 5 December 2023 to relay a new screed floor. The asbestos tiles had now been removed.
2. It had checked with its improvements team and confirmed that the property was not currently on any of its upgrade programmes.
3. It was the tenant’s responsibility to contact pest control regarding a mouse infestation. If there was a point of entry, she was told to contact its repairs team and it would log a job to close the access points.
4. An inspection was booked for 4 September 2023 for the mould.
5. It upheld the complaint, and the resident could escalate the complaint to stage 2 if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident asked for her complaint to be escalated on 13 September 2023 as she had not heard anything since her initial complaint. The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated on 14 September 2023. The landlord emailed a copy of the stage 1 complaint response to the resident on 4 October 2023. It asked whether she still wished to escalate the complaint. On 4 and 5 October 2023, the resident confirmed her reasons for escalation. She said:
1. She had not received the stage 1 complaint response previously and nothing had been done. She felt the property was not fit for purpose and was impacting her and her daughter’s mental health. She was dissatisfied with the amount of time she had needed to spend chasing and the poor management of repairs.
2. She had written proof her property was due to have upgrades to the windows and doors, soffits and fascia, a new roof, and new kitchen. There was a stock condition survey in 2022 and it had been confirmed that the property was on a 10-year improvement programme.
3. She added that the mouse infestation was due to the landlord’s lack of maintenance to the external wall and roof and was dissatisfied with the length of time she had been reporting the issue.
4. The stage 1 response said that an inspection would take place on 4 September 2023, but no one had come. There had been 5 mould inspections, including 1 with a camera that showed cold spots in the bedrooms where there was mould. They had also said that some areas of the loft insulation were not sufficient, and some was pushed up against the roof, causing the damp on her bedroom ceiling. She had been running 2 large dehumidifiers which needed to run constantly in winter which was causing higher electric bills.
5. She was unhappy that there had been multiple inspections, but jobs were not booked. She added that a repair was meant to be completed to her daughter’s external bedroom window sill but nothing happened. She had also needed to buy foam to seal the windows due to gaps and draughts and a window handle was broken.
6. She had needed to pack up the kitchen twice as she was not told the job to the floor was booked for December 2023, adding that there was a large void in the floor and most of the screed would fall through. She had asked that the crack was filled due to her mobility issues and instability around her ankles.
7. She had tried to work with the landlord and was promised actions which never happened. This had significantly impacted her mental health and had caused debt due to the money she had needed to spend to resolve issues.
Between October 2023 and January 2024:
1. The landlord asked if an operative could attend on 12 October 2023 to inspect the damp and mould. The resident said that this was inconvenient and maintained that the landlord had completed multiple inspections already.
2. The landlord explained that the staff member handling the complaint had been on leave and said it would respond to the complaint on 18 October 2023. It apologised for the delay.
3. In its communication on 18 October 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the resident had raised concerns about operatives attending on 12 October 2023 without identification and confirmed that they were working on its behalf. It said that it needed to reinspect the property to confirm the defects and an appropriate repair strategy. It apologised that this was the case and explained that it was not able to access the findings of the previous survey due to the staff member leaving the business. It acknowledged that this would delay its complaint response and it would take this into consideration when awarding compensation. It said it would arrange for the resident to be contacted once it had a report.
4. A work order related to the PIV unit in the property was reportedly completed on 18 October 2023.
5. The landlord has advised that the crack in the resident’s back door and window handles were attended to on 20 October 2023.
6. A survey of the property took place on 31 October 2023 and the surveyor recommended works to:
  1. Clear, realign and rectify leaks from the gutters.
  2. Renew concrete window sills at the front of the property and monitor cracking.
  3. Apply fungicide to visible mould in the bedrooms and bathroom, install dehumidifiers and apply thermal paint.
  4. Remove pullcords from extractor fans and reconfigure these for permanent background ventilation.
  5. Remove the defective screed, bind the crack in the flooring and apply new screed flooring.
  6. Bathroom repairs, including removing and replacing the tiles.
  7. Overhaul the openable sash windows throughout the property.
7. The notes from the inspection show that an infra-red camera was used which identified areas of poor insulation in the roof space and cold spots which could be in relation to high humidity or poor insulation. It noted that one of the bedrooms was not well ventilated. It also recommended that the kitchen and windows were referred to its planned maintenance team for renewal.
8. The landlord’s records show that a work order related to the mortar under the resident’s daughter’s window was reported as completed on 2 November 2023.
9. The property was attended to on 2 December 2023 in relation to the recommended works.
10. An operative who attended for the work to the kitchen flooring on 5 December 2023 noted that items had not been moved out of the way to complete work and the resident asked for 48 hours notice of appointments. The operative said they believed there was subsidence underground and that this needed checking before the flooring was completed.
11. The property was attended on 16 December 2023 in relation to the recommended works. The landlord’s records do not confirm if works were completed.
The landlord’s records from 12 January 2024 note that the resident had called as she had not heard anything further regarding her complaint. The landlord then issued its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2024 and said:
1. It apologised for the delay in responding and explained that this had taken longer than expected due to staff sickness.
2. It apologised that the resident felt she had not seen progress after repeated inspections and that it had not provided the level of service it expected. It hoped that the works following the most recent inspection on 31 October 2023, once complete, would resolve the issues.
3. The inspection did not take place on 4 September 2023 due to the agency contractor ending their contract with it. It apologised for the short notice cancellation which was rearranged to 12 October 2023 when a different staff member was able to visit. A further appointment was made for 31 October 2023 and following a request from the resident, a further appointment had been scheduled for 26 January 2024. Once the outcome of the inspection was known, work would commence.
4. It confirmed that:
  1. The resident’s daughter’s window was fixed on 2 November 2023.
  2. The broken radiators she had reported had been passed to its gas contractor who would be in touch with a date to inspect.
  3. It would attend on 24 January 2024 to fit kitchen floor tiles.
  4. The back door and broken window handles were fixed on 20 October 2023.
  5. It scheduled kitchen and bathroom replacements as part of a programme and confirmed that the kitchen was to be replaced in 2024.
5. It had also booked works to:
  1. The shower drain on 17 January 2024.
  2. Clear gutters, realign and rectify on 1 March 2024.
  3. Measure for aqua boarding in the bathroom on 23 February 2024.
  4. Inspect the draughty main bedroom window and mould on 26 January 2024.
6. It acknowledged that its service fell below standard and offered £300 compensation in recognition of the service failure in dealing with the repairs and the delay in responding to the complaint.
Following the complaint, works to:
1. Renew the screed floor and fill the floor void were recorded as completed on 24 January 2024.
2. Inspect the main bedroom was recorded was completed on 26 January 2024. The notes show that the operative was unable to complete a full inspection due to a kitchen replacement being undertaken. They suggested that the potential cause of damp on the ceiling could be a lack of air circulating in the loft, adding that the window sill under a bedroom window was still cracked and needed repairing.
3. Measure up for aqua boarding in the bathroom was completed on 17 January 2024.
4. Clear out and realign the gutters following the previous inspection was reported as completed on 30 July 2024.
The resident initially referred her complaint to the Ombudsman in January 2024. She said that her daughter’s window was not repaired and the mould in the bedrooms had not been resolved. She maintained that she had been told the mould affecting both bedrooms was due to the insulation in the loft and walls. She noted the impact the circumstances were having on both her and her daughter’s health and added that the damp in her daughter’s room was due to the size of the room being too small. She added concern that the mould treatment would not provide a lasting solution. She maintained that she wished to move from the property due to the impact of these matters.
The landlord advised the Ombudsman in August 2024 that all works were completed other than the radiators as operatives were unable to access the property for an appointment on 10 January 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

In her communication with the Ombudsman and the landlord, the resident has referenced how the condition of the property has impacted her and her family’s health and medical conditions. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, it is beyond our remit to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This is more appropriate for it to be dealt with through the courts as a personal injury claim. Nonetheless, consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident, and whether the landlord adequately considered the household medical conditions when responding to her concerns.
In her communication with the Ombudsman, the resident raised various other repair concerns that did not form part of the initial complaint made to the landlord. These included the garden flooding, a garage door which had collapsed, a pavement which had cracked, her shower and tray, a fly infestation, and wider underground investigative works following leaks from the property. It is noted that some of these issues were apparent prior to and alongside the complaint, and the landlord confirmed what it would do to address the shower tray in its stage 2 complaint response. However, these matters did not form part of the formal complaint.
In line with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, we may not consider complaints which, in our opinion, are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure. The Ombudsman is unable to adjudicate on these matters at this stage as the landlord needs to be given the opportunity to address these in the first instance. A recommendation has been made below for the landlord to contact the resident regarding the additional repair issues. If she remains dissatisfied with the landlord’s handling of those matters, she may wish to raise a separate complaint with the landlord.
It is noted that the resident has said that she first reported many issues with the property when she began the tenancy in November 2021. The Ombudsman may not consider matters that were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 12 months of the matters arising. In view of the time periods involved in this case, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, this assessment does not consider any specific events prior to July 2022. The assessment is focused on the landlord’s actions in responding to the more recent events and, specifically, to the formal complaint made in August 2023

Policies and procedures

The resident’s tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for repairs to the structure and exterior of the property. This would include gutters and external pipes as well as walls, roofs and floors. The tenancy agreement states that the resident is responsible for keeping the home and garden free from vermin and pests and must act to treat any infestation.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy states that it aims to attend to emergency repairs within 24 hours, urgent repairs within 5 working days, and routine repairs on a mutually agreed appointment. In some instances, the landlord may need to complete inspections prior to agreeing to works. Improvements such as fitting extractor fans or damp-proof work would be classed as planned works which are not subject to its responsive repair timescales and would be carried out over a given financial year.
The policy states that the landlord may undertake work which does not fall under its responsibility in exceptional circumstances, particularly in relation to vulnerable tenants or where there is a risk to a tenant’s health and safety.
The landlord’s damp and mould protocol confirms that following a report of damp and mould, it would carry out an inspection to assess the severity of the problem. This would be carried out within 14 days. Following this, initial works to clean the mould, if needed, would be carried out within 28 working days. Further works or inspections would be prioritised based on the severity of the problem.
In line with the Decent Home Standard, landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). To be decent, a dwelling should be free of category one hazards, and the existence of such hazards should be a trigger for remedial action unless practical steps cannot be taken without disproportionate expense or disruption. Landlords are expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified. 29 hazards are listed within the HHSRS, including damp and mould, asbestos, pests, and falls on level surfaces.
The landlord’s housing customer feedback policy states that it had a 2 stage formal complaints process. At stage 1, it would investigate and respond within 10 working days. At stage 2, it would respond within 20 working days. Where it is unable to provide a response within this time, it would contact the resident to explain why and provide a new repose date which should not exceed a further 10 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code sets out requirements for member landlords that will allow them to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. At the time of the resident’s complaint, the Code stated that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions. The Code adds that where something has gone wrong, a landlord must acknowledge this and set out the actions it has already taken, or intends to take, to put things right.

The landlord’s handling of repair issues within the resident’s property

In this case, it is evident that the resident needed to spend time and trouble pursuing various repair issues with the landlord and there was a lack of clear communication or follow-up despite her reports. There were also significant delays in taking action in response to her reports which was likely to cause inconvenience. Within its responses, the landlord has acknowledged delays and that its service fell below the standard expected. It offered a total of £300 compensation in recognition of service failure in dealing with the repairs and the delay in responding to the complaint. For the reasons set out below, this is not considered proportionate to resolve the resident’s complaint.

Record keeping

As part of this investigation, the landlord was asked to provide information relevant to the resident’s complaint, including repair records and contact logs. The landlord provided limited evidence of its contact with the resident outside of the communication related specifically to the complaint. Its repair records are also unclear, with various repairs said to have been completed not listed within the records provided. In its communication with the resident, the landlord also stated that it was unable to access previous records of inspections and surveys due to staff having left the business.
The Ombudsman would expect a landlord to keep a robust record of contacts and repairs, yet the evidence has not been comprehensive in this case. It is vital that landlords keep clear, accurate and easily accessible records to provide an audit trail. If we investigate a complaint, we will ask for the landlord’s records. If there is disputed evidence and no audit trail, we may not be able to conclude that an action took place or that the landlord followed its own policies and procedures.
The investigation has been able to reach a determination based on the information to hand. However, the omissions indicate poor record keeping by the landlord in that it was not able to provide the relevant information when asked, and did not have systems in place to retain information when staff left the business. An order has been made below for the landlord to review its current record keeping practices alongside the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) to identify points of learning and steps it can take to improve.

Mouse infestation

The Ombudsman has seen evidence that the resident reported a pest problem to the landlord in July 2022. At the time, she reported scratching sounds from her loft and noted that it was unsafe for her to enter her loft via a ladder due to her mobility issues. The Ombudsman has not seen any further evidence to confirm that this was raised to the landlord until May 2023, when the resident commented that there was an ongoing mouse infestation due to the integrity of the walls, soffits, and facias. The Ombudsman has not seen evidence of any response from the landlord at the time.
The resident raised specific concern about a mouse infestation within her complaint in August 2023. In response, the landlord said that it was the resident’s responsibility to contact pest control and that it could raise a job to close access points if any were found. This advice was reasonable as dealing with pest infestations would be the resident’s responsibility in line with the tenancy agreement and it also informed her that she would need to contact its repairs service if an access point was identified.
The landlord also has a responsibility to repair and maintain the structure of the property, and prevent hazards related to pests in line with the HHSRS. In view of this, the length of time the issue had been ongoing, and the resident’s reported mobility issues, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to act proactively to investigate her concerns and determine whether there were entry points in the property that would fall under its responsibility to resolve. There is no evidence to suggest that the landlord took into account the resident’s previous reports that she could not safely enter the loft via a ladder due to her vulnerabilities or acknowledged that this may have prevented her from locating entry points herself. In addition, it failed to offer any further assistance, or signpost her to its Environmental Health department which would have been appropriate.
Despite the resident raising specific concerns about a lack of maintenance to the external walls and roof within her escalation request on 4 and 5 October 2023, the landlord did not address her concern further within its subsequent stage 2 complaint response in January 2024 which amounts to a failing. Overall, the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about a mouse infestation was minimal. It was dismissive of her concerns and has not demonstrated that it adequately considered her vulnerabilities, the potential hazard, or its obligations.

Kitchen floor

The Ombudsman notes that the resident first raised concern in July 2022 about a crack running along the width of the back door and the kitchen floor being a trip hazard due to her mobility. The Ombudsman has seen limited records detailing the period following this but the resident reported in April 2023 that the crack in the floor had grown, and there was a gap between the floor and wall, suggesting that no work to resolve the issue had been completed in this time.
The Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that the kitchen floor was assessed at any stage prior to 14 July 2023, when an inspection found that the kitchen tiles needed to be removed by an asbestos management company. It is of concern that despite the presence of asbestos containing materials and a crack, suggesting that the tiles were damaged, there is no evidence to demonstrate that the landlord acted proactively in its handling of the matter.
The records show that the asbestos containing floor tiles were removed on 28 August 2023, the same day the resident raised her complaint. She noted that there had been multiple failed appointments to remove the floor tiles and she had needed to move the appliances in her kitchen on more than one occasion as a result. While the landlord confirmed that the tiles had been removed within its stage 1 complaint response, it failed to acknowledge any delay, the inconvenience that may have been caused to the resident, or the impact of needing to move appliances on multiple occasions in view of her mobility difficulties.
While the floor tiles were removed on 25 August 2023, the replacement screed flooring which was due to be installed remained outstanding. The flooring was inspected within a reasonable timeframe on 29 August 2023 and the required works were outlined which included filling cracks, levelling an area of concrete and addressing the gaps between the walls and floor.
Within its stage 1 complaint response, the landlord said that the works had been booked for 5 December 2023. This was 3 months later and an unreasonable timeframe, especially given the resident’s reports that the cracks in the flooring posed a tripping hazard to her due to ankle related mobility problems. The landlord failed to demonstrate it had considered the resident’s vulnerabilities or whether it would be safe for her to wait until December 2023 for the works to be carried out.
It is evident that there was a lack of planning for the appointment on 5 December 2023 as the operative noted that appliances needed disconnecting to allow the work to progress. There is also a lack of evidence to show that the resident had been reminded of the appointment which would have been appropriate given that it had made her aware of the date 2 months prior when it re-sent the stage 1 complaint response. During the visit, the operative noted that further work was required before filling the crack due to suspected subsidence. The resident has informed the Ombudsman that further investigative work was refused and it ultimately remains unclear from the evidence provided as to whether, or why, this was the case.
At stage 2, the landlord confirmed that the flooring works would be completed on 24 January 2024 and its subsequent records suggest that this was the case.
The landlord acted reasonably by somewhat acknowledging the delay in completing works, but failed to fully account for the impact on the resident as a result and the potential risk to her in view of her vulnerabilities. In addition, the landlord offered no reassurance to the resident as to how filling the void would resolve the issue long term. The onus would be on the landlord to show that it had effectively diagnosed the cause of the crack in the floor, took adequate steps to put things right, and provided a long-term resolution. This would have been appropriate in view of concerns raised about underground damage and possible subsidence. From the evidence provided, it remains unclear as to whether the issue was adequately diagnosed.

Request for improvements

Within her complaint to the landlord in August 2023, the resident said that she had been promised repairs and improvements, including a re-wire and new windows and doors. She had historically pursued her requests in July 2022 following a stock condition survey that year which she alleged recommended new wiring, toilet, kitchen, doors and windows, soffits and fascias, and roof. She continued to pursue her concern that this had not been actioned and notes from January 2023 show that the landlord had asked whether these elements were on its planned programme of work in the next 10 years. The resident also pursued this in May 2023 during her initial complaint.
Landlords are entitled to complete work to replace bathrooms, kitchens, windows, doors and roofs as part of a planned programme of work rather than on an ad hoc basis unless the item in question is beyond reasonable repair. Where a resident requests an improvement to the property, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider the age and condition of the element to determine whether it should be added to a planned programme, or whether it was in a condition that warranted a replacement before a planned programme date.
While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s assertion that she was told elements of the property were due to be upgraded following a stock condition survey, there is a lack of documentary evidence to confirm that this had been agreed. However, the Ombudsman has found failing in the landlord’s response to her requests. Despite the resident raising her concerns over a significant period, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that she was provided with a reply by the landlord until the stage 1 complaint response, which she received in October 2023. This was a significant time following her initial requests and the landlord failed to adequately acknowledge the time and trouble the resident had spent pursuing her concerns.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response stated that the property was not on any of its improvement programmes. This was dismissive and the landlord failed to consider why the resident was pursuing the improvements or its previous communication with her. It had made no reference to a previous stock condition survey. Nor did it provide this as evidence which suggests that it has not retained the findings of the survey.
There is no further evidence to suggest that the landlord inspected all of the individual elements raised to determine whether repairs were required at the time, whether any of the elements should be on its planned improvement programmes due to age or condition, or whether the condition of the individual element was good enough to last for an unspecified period of time over 10 years.
Following the inspection on 31 October 2023, the operative recommended that the kitchen and windows were referred to its planned maintenance team for renewal. The Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the wiring, soffits and fascia or roof were inspected. While the landlord stated within its stage 2 complaint response on 17 January 2024 that the kitchen was scheduled to be replaced that year, it failed to explain why this decision had changed or provide any clarity on the other elements the resident had raised. While repairs were raised for the bathroom, back door and windows, it failed to offer any clarity as to why these elements were not yet in a condition that warranted replacement.
It is noted that part of the resident’s reasoning for requesting replacement windows was due to her reports that these were draughty and the window sill on her daughter’s window was cracked. It was reasonable for the landlord to raise a repair for the window – following the inspection – alongside asking the windows to be referred for renewal. However, the landlord has not provided clear evidence that the work was completed. Its records show that the work was reportedly completed on 2 November 2023 but the resident disputed this and further records from 26 January 2024 show the work was outstanding. While the landlord has advised the Ombudsman that all works were completed, there is no documentary evidence to show that this is the case.

The resident’s reports of damp and mould

As set out above, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that its properties are free from category 1 hazards, including damp and mould. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report in October 2021 setting out recommendations for landlords when addressing a resident’s reports of damp and mould. Landlords are expected to take a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould in view of the potential risks. It remains unclear as to when the landlord introduced its damp and mould protocol, however, the evidence provided suggests that it had not acted in line with its published approach at any stage.
In this case, it is evident that the landlord was made aware of the resident’s concerns about how damp and mould was impacting her and her daughter’s health conditions in July 2022, as well as the impact this was having financially due to the need to run dehumidifiers. Despite this, there is limited evidence to suggest the landlord acted proactively in its handling of her concerns from the outset or throughout the complaint, and no evidence to show that it offered any form of support to her.
An inspection on 12 July 2022 identified damp in the corner of a bedroom and the need to complete further investigations to the cavity wall insulation. It noted that there was no mould present on the day of inspection due to dehumidifiers being used but failed to adequately consider the implications of needing to use dehumidifiers or progress its investigation further until April 2023, when it asked that a visual inspection was completed. Despite evidence that a survey was completed on 1 July 2023, the landlord admitted to the resident in October 2023 that it was unable to access the outcome of the survey due to a member of staff leaving the business.
As set out above, the landlord is expected to have adequate systems in place to prevent records being lost when staff members leave employment. This is to ensure that it has an audit trail of previous findings and actions taken to treat damp and mould in order to inform any future repairs. The landlord’s failure to keep adequate records of previous surveys and inspections directly contributed to the delay in resolving the problems reported. While the landlord apologised for this, it failed to fully acknowledge this within its complaint response.
In this case, there is a lack of evidence to suggest that any action was taken to address the resident’s concerns for a considerable period between her report in July 2022 and October 2023. In view of the lack of available records, it was reasonable to re-survey the property on 31 October 2023 in order to determine the repairs that were needed. However, there is a no evidence to show that the findings of the survey were shared with the resident, that she was provided with a clear explanation of what the cause was, or how it intended to resolve the problems. This would have been appropriate in order to reassure her that it had learnt from previous failures to follow through with works following inspections.
The survey indicated that there could be issues with the insulation or airflow within the loft. Despite the resident’s concerns that problems with the insulation of the property had previously been identified as a reason for the damp and mould, the landlord did not offer any explanation as to its position on the matter, which was likely to make the resident feel that the matter remained unresolved. The landlord’s records show that following a further inspection in January 2024, poor airflow in the loft was put forward as a possible contributing factor, however, there is no further evidence to suggest this was acted on.
The survey also highlighted high humidity in the property and noted that there was poor ventilation. Despite this, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence to confirm that any guidance was provided to the resident as to how she could improve the ventilation in the property. Alongside investigations and works to improve ventilation where needed, the Ombudsman would expect to see evidence that advice is provided to residents at the earliest opportunity.
Despite the survey on 31 October 2023 identifying that works were required to resolve possible contributors to damp, including clearing and resolving leaks from the gutters, overhauling windows, making the extractor fans within the property run automatically and carrying out mould treatments, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence that these actions were carried out within a reasonable timeframe. While the landlord’s records suggest that the property was attended in relation to the damp works on 2 and 16 December 2023, there is a lack of evidence to show works were completed.
The landlord confirmed within its stage 2 complaint response that works would be carried out following a further inspection on 26 January 2024 and the resident subsequently confirmed on 29 January 2024 that there was still black mould on the walls and ceilings in the bedrooms as well as around windows. Despite advising the Ombudsman in August 2024 that all works were completed, the landlord has not provided adequate evidence to show this was the case. The Ombudsman notes that the guttering works recommended in October 2023 were not carried out until 30 July 2024 which was unreasonable.
The landlord’s failure to demonstrate it has completed works following the survey in October 2023 strengthens the resident’s view that inspections are carried out by the landlord, but works are subsequently not completed in full. It remains unclear as to whether the damp and mould problems in the property remain ongoing and an order has been made below for the landlord to communicate with the resident and inspect the property in view of this.

Summary

In summary, the Ombudsman has found there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repair issues in the resident’s property. There were significant delays in addressing the resident’s concerns from July 2022 onwards and it remains unclear as to whether the reported repair issues have been resolved to date. The delays were contributed to by poor knowledge and information management. There was also poor communication by the landlord and a lack of oversight of the repair issues affecting the property. The evidence demonstrates that the landlord failed to adequately consider the resident or her daughter’s vulnerabilities when addressing the repair issues at any stage. This is a significant failing giving the potential hazards reported.
While the landlord acknowledged service failure and delay and offered a total of £300 compensation within its final complaint response, this is not considered proportionate or in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance. In view of the length of time taken to address the resident’s concerns and the impact on her in view of its failings identified above, the landlord has been ordered additional compensation. This is within a range considered reasonable in circumstances where there has been a significant, long-term impact on the resident and the redress needed to put things right is substantial.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint

The landlord’s records indicate that the resident initially raised a formal complaint on 10 May 2023. However, there is a lack of evidence to confirm that this was dealt with under its formal complaints process at the time. This would have been appropriate given the length of time the resident had been reporting the issues being complained about. The Ombudsman has not seen further evidence to confirm that action had been taken in response to her concerns by the time of her further complaint to the landlord on 25 August 2023.
The landlord has said that its stage 1 complaint response was sent to the resident on 31 August 2023. While this would have been within its published timescales, the resident disputed receiving any form of communication and there is a lack of evidence to confirm that the response was initially sent. Despite the resident asking for her complaint to be escalated on 13 September 2023 due to not receiving any communication, there is a lack of evidence of any further communication until 4 October 2023. This was 14 working days later, when the stage 1 complaint response was sent to her. This demonstrates that the landlord failed to act within a reasonable timescale once it was aware that the resident had not received its response.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response was poor. The Ombudsman expects adequate investigations that set out the reasons for any decisions, acknowledging where things have gone wrong and explaining the landlord’s position and steps it intends to take to put things right. While the landlord said the complaint was upheld and confirmed actions it was due to take, it did not acknowledge any failings or explain why the complaint was upheld. This was likely to make the resident feel that her concerns had not been listened to or taken seriously and contributed to her dissatisfaction with the landlord’s service.
The landlord confirmed that the complaint had been escalated on 4 October 2023. Following this, it failed to respond to the complaint until 17 January 2024, a period of 72 working days and significantly outside of its policy timescales. While the landlord initially acted reasonably by informing the resident that there would be a delay and that it aimed to respond by 18 October 2023, it subsequently failed to provide an expected response date within its further communication. Following the survey on 31 October 2023, there is a lack of evidence that the complaint was actioned until the resident chased a response on 12 January 2024. While the landlord apologised for the delay and explained that this was due to staff absence, it failed to account for the entirety of the delay, demonstrate that it had learnt from the failing, or explain what it would do to prevent similar failings in the future.
In addition, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response failed to address some concerns raised by the resident, including her request to be moved from the property, multiple inspections being carried out without works being booked, and matters related to specific repairs, including wiring, the soffits and fascia and roof as set out above. It also failed to demonstrate it had adequately investigated its handling of her concerns. While it acknowledged delays and service failure, it did not comment on why the service failures had occurred or the reason for the delay within its response.
It would have been appropriate for the landlord to have provided reassurance to the resident as to how it would prevent similar failings in future, and how it would monitor agreed actions through to completion given her concerns about it completing works that had been agreed. The landlord’s response to the complaint was likely to have caused additional inconvenience to the resident and further undermined the landlord-tenant relationship.
While it acted reasonably by acknowledging that compensation was warranted for the delay in issuing its response, the overall offer of £300 for that delay as well as the multiple failings in its handling of the repairs is not considered proportionate to reflect the inconvenience caused or time and trouble spent by the resident. An order has been made below in relation to compensation. The landlord has also been ordered to complete a management review of the resident’s case to identify points of learning and confirm any actions it will take as a result of the resident’s complaint to improve its service moving forward.

Determination

In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of repairs in the resident’s property and the resident’s request for improvements.
In line with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report. The apology should come from a member of staff in a senior position.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to pay the resident £1,450 compensation, comprised of:
1. £1,200 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience, and time and trouble spent by the resident, as a result of its failings in the handling of repairs and requests for improvement.
2. £250 in recognition of the inconvenience caused by its poor complaint handling.
This amount includes the landlord’s previous offer of £300 if this has not yet been paid.
Within 4 weeks, the landlord is to:
1. Contact the resident to determine whether there are any outstanding repair issues.
2. Provide relevant information regarding her housing options should she still wish to move from the property.
3. Assign a senior staff member to act as a point of contact for the resident and monitor works through to completion.
4. Inspect the property, having reviewed the repair history and complaint, to identify outstanding repair issues. This should include but is not limited to assessing:
  1. any ongoing damp and mould;
  2. whether there are any signs of subsidence as previously suggested;
  3. the loft and roof space (to identify potential entry points for pests) and the insulation.
Within 6 weeks, the landlord is to write to the resident, setting out the findings of the inspection along with a plan of action as to how it intends to resolve any identified repair issues. It should provide expected timescales for when it intends to complete works and confirm how it will monitor works through to completion.
In accordance with paragraph 54(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the landlord is to complete a management review of the resident’s case. It should provide a copy of the review to its senior leadership team, the Ombudsman and the resident within 8 weeks. The review should include, but is not limited to:
1. Considering evidence that was available or may have been available at the time of the complaint.
2. Considering its response in view of the resident and her daughter’s vulnerabilities.
3. Identifying failings and points of learning that can be taken from the complaint in relation to both its handling of repairs and the complaint.
4. Explaining how it would prevent similar failings occurring in the future along with any service improvements it has taken since the time of the resident’s complaint.
Within 8 weeks the landlord is to complete a self assessment against the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (available on our website) if it has not already done so). If it has already completed a self-assessment, it should review and update this with reference to the failures identified in this case and its findings from the case review. A copy of this should be provided to the Ombudsman.
The landlord is to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders within the specified timescales.