A2Dominion Housing Group Limited (202207064)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202207064

A2Dominion Housing Group Limited

30 August 2023

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 the resident’s:
1. Reports of damp and mould in the property.
2. Concern that damp and mould issues had impacted on the health of her household.
3. Reports of silverfish in the property, as a result of damp and mould.
4. Reports of a blocked toilet.
The Ombudsman has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaint handling;
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.

The resident’s concern that damp and mould issues had impacted on the health of her household

After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme (the Scheme), the resident’s concern that damp and mould issues impacted on the health of her household is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
While the serious nature of the resident’s concerns is acknowledged, paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, “concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure”.
When the resident made her stage 1 complaint, in July 2022, she told the landlord that the issue of damp and mould in her property was affecting the health of her children. She also advised that the situation was having an adverse effect on her mental health.
The resident described the adverse effect the issue had on her children’s health as increased visits to the doctor due to chest infections. She also described that the damp and mould had impacted on her mental health. The Ombudsman was sorry to hear this and does not doubt the resident’s description. However, it is beyond the remit of this Service to make a determination on whether the landlord is liable for any direct link between the landlord’s response to reports of damp and mould, and the health of the resident’s household. The resident may wish to seek independent advice on making a personal injury claim, if she considers that her health has been affected by any action or lack thereof by the landlord.
Allegations of personal injury are serious legal complaints which must, ultimately, be decided by a court of law. The court can consider medical evidence, allegations of negligence, and liability. Because of that, the courts are the more effective and appropriate way in which to achieve a remedy in the face of the serious allegations in this aspect of the resident’s complaint. In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Scheme the Ombudsman cannot consider this aspect of the resident’s complaint.
This investigation has, however, considered the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports about the impact on her family’s health, and to any general distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced, as a result of any failings by the landlord.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of silverfish in the property, as a result of damp and mould.

The resident contacted this service on 7 July 2022, before she made a stage 1 complaint to the landlord. Within her correspondence/during the call, the resident said she had a problem with silverfish in her property, as a result of damp and mould. The resident was advised that she would need to raise her concerns with the landlord as a complaint, and exhaust the landlord’s complaints procedure, before we could investigate.
The evidence that is available does not suggest that the resident raised her concern about silverfish with the landlord, in either her stage 1 complaint, or her stage 2 escalation request. In addition, there is no other evidence demonstrating that the resident made the landlord aware of concerns about silverfish in her property. The landlord confirmed with this Service that it was not put on notice about the resident’s concern about silverfish until January 2023, which was after she had exhausted its complaints procedure.
Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion “are made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure”. As such, after carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of silverfish in the property, as a result of damp and mould is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
If the resident remains concerned about this matter, she may raise a new complaint with the landlord. Should she remain dissatisfied with the response at the end of the complaints procedure, the matter may be referred to this service as a new complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is an assured tenant of the landlord, in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. The landlord recorded the resident as vulnerable due to having a disability and mental health problems.
The resident first reported a blocked toilet in January 2021, and the landlord attended on 7 January 2021 and completed “pressure jetting” to the communal drains. The landlord found a “large amount” of wet wipes to be the cause of the blockage.
The resident reported an issue with “black mould” in her property on 5 October 2021. The landlord attended the property on 2 November 2021 and reported there was no mould on the walls, but there was some coming from the floor. It investigated and found a “split in the grout” in the neighbour’s bathroom that could be causing water to leak into the floor. It repaired the split, and washed the mould off the resident’s sofa. It recommended a surveyor attend to inspect the property, and it consider installing an “electric vented fan”.
The resident reported a blocked toilet again on 17 December 2021. The landlord attended on the same day to unblock the toilet and reported “tissue snagging” in the pipe, and recommended a CCTV survey of the drain system in the block. It completed a CCTV survey of the drains on 12 January 2022, and found no issues with the pipe and cited “misuse” from the “block”, as the cause of the blockage.
The landlord attended to complete an inspection on 31 March 2022, and recommended the following works:
1. Remove vinyl floor in the bathroom and replace with a new mastic seal;
2. Install “new trickle vents” to all windows in the property;
3. Do a “mould wash treatment” in the main bedroom and living room, and then apply an anti mould paint;
4. “mould wash” the back wall of the second bedroom;
5. “rake out” pointing on the external wall under the windows, apply a water seal and the repoint the wall.
On 5 May 2022 the landlord painted the living room with mould resistant paint, but the operative in attendance was unable to paint other areas due to “obstacles” of furniture and wall fittings. The landlord attended the resident’s property on 31 May 2022 and reported that “all UPVC windows” were replaced in the last 12 months and all “trickle vents” were fitted and working correctly.
The landlord’s repair log shows that it attended the resident’s property on 28 July to unblock the toilet, and reported there was a “root from a tree in the pipe” which was contributing to the blockages. It is unclear what action the landlord took following this.
The resident contacted the landlord in July 2022 to make a complaint. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a copy of the complaint correspondence. However, the landlord recorded that the resident was unhappy as:
1. She had experienced issues with damp and mould since moving in to the property a year ago;
2. The damp and mould had “ruined” some of her possessions;
3. She had been told in March that the landlord would do works to resolve the issue. Someone had attended in May, but only done 1 coat of paint in one room;
4. She had repeatedly been told it would call her back to rebook the repairs, but she had not been called back;
5. Her toilet had overflown “many times” in the last year;
6. Her flooring had “rotted away” due to the damp and mould under it, and she had been told “5 months ago” that it was going to inspect her floor, but she was still waiting;
7. She asked the landlord to complete the necessary repairs, or move her to a “more suitable” property.
The landlord sent the resident its stage 1 complaint response on 29 July 2022 and said:
1. It wanted to apologise for the “poor service” the resident had received and the “unbearable conditions” she had been “left to live in”;
2. After the repair for damp and mould was raised “all the recommended jobs” were either “not done or not fully done” with the exception of the window replacement;
3. It had failed to return to complete the decoration works;
4. 6 different repairs were raised for the toilet issue, but it had “ignored all the recommendations for the repair”, and apologised for this failing;
5. It confirmed that its contractor had approved the quotes for the outstanding repairs, and the contractor had “committed to completing all the repairs by 26 August 2022”
6. Its contractor had appointed a single point of contact for the resident to “oversee the remaining work” and to ensure it was completed on time;
7. It wished to offer £335 in compensation for its handling of the matter, and would pay the resident within 10 working days of receiving her bank details;
8. It did not consider liability for damage to personal property, as part of its complaint process. It advised the resident that she could make a claim for damage to her personal property to its insurer on the form attached to the complaint response;
9. If she remained unhappy, the resident could take her complaint to a stage 2 complaint.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 and 22 August 2022, and said that she had been told the repairs would be completed by 26 August 2022. She was concerned that it had not yet made any appointments for the repairs. The resident said that she had not received the compensation payment offered, and the landlord had not responded to her emails about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 23 August 2022 and said that the earliest it could book the repair for was 27 September 2022, due to its contractor being “short staffed”. It said it had asked the contractor to bring the appointment forward, as this was too long to wait. The resident responded on the same day and asked it to confirm what repairs the landlord had booked.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2022 and asked her complaint to be considered as a stage 2 complaint and said:
1. The landlord had not been in touch to book the agreed repairs;
2. She was offered compensation, but had not received it.
The landlord emailed the resident on 31 August 2022 and confirmed the repair was booked for 14 September 2022 and it was to complete “mould painting”. The resident responded on the same day, and asked it if was going to replace all of the flooring in her property, as she had been told by an operative for the landlord that it would all be replaced. The landlord responded on the same day and said that it would only replace the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom, and other flooring was not its responsibility to replace.
The resident emailed the landlord on 27 September 2022 and asked her complaint to be “taken higher”, as she was unhappy with how the landlord was dealing with her case. The resident said:
1. She had been waiting 7 months for further investigations into the cause of the damp;
2. She would replace the flooring with the pay out she was due to receive from the landlord’s insurer. But, she was concerned that if the issue with damp and mould was not resolved, her flooring would just get damaged again;
3. An operative for the landlord had told her that the floor needed “sealing” to prevent damp and mould damaging her floor.
The landlord commissioned a surveyor to inspect the resident’s property to find the cause of the damp and mould. The surveyor issued a report on 14 October 2022, which recommended the following works:
1. Remove wall plaster in affected areas of damp;
2. Insert a damp proof course to the inner brickwork;
3. Render the exterior walls of the property;
4. To address condensation within the property it should install new extractor fans in the kitchen and bathroom, and a ventilation unit in the living room.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint and said it would issue its response by 15 November 2022.The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 10 November 2022 and said:
1. On 28 July 2022 it had done a CCTV drain survey and found “toilet wipes” blocking the drains but “tree roots found inside” were making the issue worse. It had made an appointment to clear the roots on 27 September 2022, but had failed to attend due to staff sickness. It rescheduled the appointment for 10 October 2022, but didn’t attend, again due to staff sickness. It confirmed it had booked another appointment to complete the works on 29 November 2022. It apologised for the missed appointments, and acknowledged the inconvenience caused;
2. The surveyor had made a number of recommendations, and these were set out within the letter. It said that it had been agreed, due to the nature and length of time it would take to complete the works, it would accommodate the resident temporarily elsewhere;
3. “At the moment [its] stance” was that it would only replace the flooring in the kitchen and bathroom. It said the resident was told an inspection would take place to see if the flooring needed to be replaced elsewhere in the property, but “no promise” had been made;
4. It was sorry that it had been unable to keep to its promise of completing the works by 26 August 2021, and this was due to the “incorrect diagnosis of the blockage issue”. It advised that the toilet could “potentially be the source of the damp issue, but without looking into it further” it was unable to confirm this;
5. As a result of the complaint, the landlord had spoken to its contractor to remind it of the level of service it expects. It said it had addressed the need to communicate effectively with residents about their repairs;
6. Further to the compensation offered at stage 1, it offered:
  1. £25 for the delay in escalating the resident’s complaint to stage 2;
  2. £75 for “poor quality of work resulting in prolonged works”;
  3. £40 for 2 missed appointments.
The resident emailed this service on 16 November 2022 and said that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s final complaint response. The resident said that she would rather be “moved permanently” by the landlord, and was unhappy that the landlord had not committed to replacing her flooring.
The landlord’s repair log indicates that it attended the resident’s property on 13 December 2022, to remove the tree roots from the drain.
The landlord informed this service, on 8 February 2023, that it had not yet been able to progress with the agreed works, as it had been unable to agree the “size and location of decant accommodation” with the resident. The resident contacted this Service on 15 May 2023 and said she had been decanted for “4 weeks”, and works had not yet been started at her property.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s obligations, policies, and procedures

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 obliges the landlord to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.
The resident’s tenancy agreement states the landlord is responsible for keeping the internal walls, external walls, and windows in good repair. It also states that the resident is responsible for repairs to fixtures and fittings that she has installed with or without permission.
The landlord’s responsive repairs policy states that it has two repair categories: ‘urgent’, which it will attend to within 24 hours, and ‘standard’ which it offers the “next available appointment that is convenient with the customer”. Its repairs matrix categorises a blocked toilet as an ‘urgent repair’, and repairs to walls and floors (that it is responsible for) are categorised as ‘standard’ repairs. The landlord’s repairs matrix states that it is responsible for floor coverings in the bathroom and kitchen of the property.
The landlord’s complaints procedure states that a stage 1 complaint acknowledgment will be sent to the resident within 2 working days. The procedure states that if a resident is unhappy with a stage 1 complaint response they should let the landlord know and the “complaint should be escalated automatically” to stage 2.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out amounts for different levels of failures in service. For detriment (including stress and inconvenience) the amounts are: low: £50; medium: £75; high: £100.
For length of time (time and trouble) the amounts are: Low: £25; £50; £75 (one to three months). Medium: £85; £95; £110 (four to six months). High: £150 (over six months). The policy states that landlord can offer £20 per missed repairs appointment.

Reports of damp and mould in the property

After the resident raised a concern about damp and mould on 5 October 2021, the landlord attended on 2 November 2021. The landlord’s repair log shows that its target for attending to the repair was 12 November 2021, it attended before this date and complied with its own targets for attending such repairs. The repairs visit found that the mould appeared to be emanating from the floor, and the operative’s notes suggest that a surveyor was needed to investigate the matter further. The operative washed the mould away. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances. The landlord identified more investigation was needed, and did what it could, at the initial visit, to reduce the impact of the damp and mould on the resident.
However, according to the repair log, it appears the landlord did not reattend to investigate the cause of the damp and mould until March 2022. This was 4 months after the landlord identified that further investigation was needed, and was an unreasonable delay. The landlord was not proactive in following up on the recommendations of its visit of 2 November 2021. The impact on the resident was the distress of living in a property experiencing damp and mould, and the inconvenience of being advised by the landlord it would investigate the matter, but it not doing so.
After the landlord attended, on 31 March 2022, to investigate the damp and mould it identified works that were needed to address the issue. According to the repair log, it then attended to complete the decoration works on 5 May 2022, but was unable to do so due to obstacles. The notes suggested it needed more time and operatives to complete the proposed work. The landlord has accepted that this was not followed up with the resident, and no appointment was rebooked until after she had made her stage 1 complaint.
This was a failure on the part of the landlord to appropriately carry out repairs it had agreed with the resident. The resident experienced the inconvenience of works in her property only being partly completed. It was then necessary for her to complain as the landlord failed to indicate when the works would be completed. This cost the resident time and trouble of needing to follow up on repairs, that the landlord could reasonably be expected to have booked. It is noted that the landlord completed the proposed work to the windows in a reasonable timeframe.
The landlord’s stage 1 complaint response, appropriately, identified several failings in its handling of the matter up to that point. It apologised that it had not followed up on repairs appointments, appointed a single point of contact for the resident’s repairs, and gave the resident a deadline (26 August 2022) for when it would complete the repairs. This was a reasonable approach in the circumstances, and is evidence that the landlord, in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles, sought to learn from the outcomes of the matter.
The landlord, appropriately, appointed a single point of contact to ensure the repairs were followed up. However, this failed to improve the experience for the resident. Following the landlord’s complaint response, the resident was required to contact the landlord to ask why an appointment for the outstanding repairs had not yet been booked. This contact from the resident was on 20 and 22 August 2022, less than a week before the landlord’s self imposed deadline. It is reasonable to expect the landlord to have booked the repairs appointment before this date, given it had given assurances it would complete the repairs by 26 August 2022. The resident experienced disappointment of the landlord not abiding by assurances it made in its complaint response, as well as further time and trouble of needing to chase the landlord to book the repairs appointment.
When the landlord responded to the resident’s concern about its failure to book the appointment, it failed to acknowledge or apologise that it had not met its deadline for the repairs. It advised the resident that it could not book an appointment until the end of September. This is further evidence the landlord had not been proactive in booking the repairs appointment, despite assuring the resident it would do so in its complaint response. This is also evidence of the landlord failing to consider the impact the situation had on the resident. Its complaint response appropriately acknowledged its failings of not following up on the repair, and the inconvenience that had caused. However, it then allowed the resident to experience further inconvenience and left it up to her to follow up on the repairs. This demonstrates that the landlord had not learned from the initial complaint and that it had not taken steps to ensure that the repairs were completed without further delay and inconvenience being caused to the resident.
The landlord commissioned a damp expert to conduct a survey of the resident’s property, which was completed on 14 October 2022. Given its repairs visit of November 2021 identified further investigation was needed, it is not clear why the landlord waited nearly a year to conduct such a survey. It is noted that the landlord’s own operative identified the need for ventilation and works to the exterior of the property. However, the works recommended by the report of October 2022 evidently went further to address the issue, by suggesting a ventilation system and the installation of a damp proof course. The delay in completing a survey by an expert in damp and mould was unreasonable, as the resident was waiting for nearly a year for the landlord to propose appropriate solutions. It is reasonable to conclude that if the landlord had commissioned the expert, when it first identified further investigation was needed, the matter may have been resolved sooner for the resident.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, of 10 November 2022, indicated that the issues with the toilet were a possible cause of the damp issues under the floor. However, it was unable determine this “without looking into it further”. This approach failed to manage the resident’s expectations and was unclear. Given it identified the issue as a possible cause, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to set out what it intended to do to investigate the matter. It may have been the case that the landlord intended to investigate this when completing the other works, but it would have been reasonable to communicate this to the resident. The result for the resident was further distress of an ongoing issue in her property, without the landlord clearly setting out what it was going to do to investigate the matter.
The landlord’s approach to whether it would replace parts of the resident’s floor, that it was not responsible for, was inconsistent. The resident maintained throughout her complaint, that an operative for the landlord had said it would replace her whole floor. The landlord was of the view that the advice given by its operative was not correct and sought to put this right in an email on 31 August 2022. This was reasonable in the circumstances, as the tenancy agreement and its repairs policy are clear that it is only responsible for the floor coverings in the bathroom and kitchen.
However, its comment in relation to the matter in its stage 2 complaint response was ambiguous. The landlord appeared to suggest it may consider replacing the resident’s floor, by saying that the resident has been told it may complete a survey to decide if it would replace the floor. It added that “no promise” was made. It is not clear whether the landlord was referring to the advice issued by its operative, which it later advised was incorrect. Or, whether it was suggesting it would complete a survey after it had completed the works in the resident’s property. The lack of clarity in relation to the matter would have been confusing for the resident. It would be reasonable for the landlord to clearly set out its position in relation to the resident’s flooring, after it has completed the proposed works in her property.
Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was proportionate and reasonable. The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles are to be fair (follow fair processes and recognise what went wrong), put things right, and learn from outcomes.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response did identify learning it had done from the outcome of its handling of the matter, which was in line with the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles. The landlord apologised and acknowledged its failings in relation to its handling of the matter. It offered the resident £335 for its handling of the matter in its stage 1 complaint response, and a further £75 for “poor quality of work resulting in prolonged works” at stage 2. It is not clear if the additional £75 related to the landlord’s handling of damp and mould or the toilet issue.
The landlord’s compensation policy states that it can offer up to £150 for delays of over 6 months and up to £100 for distress and inconvenience. The landlord used its discretion and offered £335, which is over the amounts set out in its compensation policy. However, there was a delay of over a year to even identify appropriate works to resolve the damp and mould. And, at the time of the stage 2 complaint response, the matter was still outstanding, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to exercise its discretion and offer an amount that was proportionate in the circumstances. The resident had also suffered a significant amount of distress, as a result of the delays. It would therefore also have been reasonable for it to offer significantly more for the distress the resident had experienced. The £335 the landlord offered did not fully put it right for the resident, and has been taken into consideration in the orders made below.

Reports of a blocked toilet

The landlord’s repair log shows that each time the resident reported that her toilet was blocked and backing up, it attended promptly to unblock the toilet. This was in line with its repairs procedure, as it correctly identified the toilet blocking as an ‘urgent’ repair.
However, when the landlord attended to unblock the toilet in July 2022, it identified tree roots in the drainage pipe, which was contributing to the leak. The repair log indicates that the landlord set itself a target of 7 September 2022 to complete the repair, but the job was not marked as completed until 13 December 2022. The landlord accepted that it missed appointments, which was a failing. The repair log suggests there were further missed appointments, as its complaint response indicated the works would take place in November 2022, but were not completed until 13 December 2022.
It is unclear from evidence available, why there were further missed appointments, and whether the landlord sought to manage the resident’s expectations about the appointments. The lack of information available on the repair log, and lack of evidence of correspondence with the resident about the further missed appointments, is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping. As part of our investigation, we asked the landlord for further information about the repair and missed appointment on 26 June 2023, so that we could consider its handling of the repair further. However, the landlord failed to respond to the request.
The repair appears to have been completed 2 months after the target date the landlord set itself. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, and the resident suffered a detriment as a result. The resident had told the landlord she was distressed by the toilet repeatedly backing up and leaking sewage into her bathroom. The repeated missed appointments and delay in fixing the substantive issue likely increased the distress the resident experienced. It is noted that some of the missed appointments were due to staff sickness, which was somewhat outside of the landlord’s control. However, given the distress the resident had said the matter was causing her, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have expedited the repair rather than waiting a month after the last missed appointment.
The landlord accepted a failing in its handling of the matter, and offered the resident £40 in compensation for the 2 admitted missed appointments. This was an appropriate application of its compensation policy, in terms of missed appointments. However, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have outlined learning it had done about the inconvenience caused by the missed appointments. As outlined above, it appears there were further missed appointments after it issued its stage 2 complaint response. Given the accepted delays, it is not clear why the landlord did not offer the resident compensation for time and trouble, and the delay, in line with its compensation policy. It is also unclear why the landlord did not award compensation for distress and inconvenience, in line with its compensation policy. As outlined above, it is not possible to determine which issue the £75 the landlord offered was for. The £40 the landlord offered for its handling of the matter did not fully put it right for the resident, and has been taken into consideration in the orders made below.

Complaint Handling

This investigation has been unable to determine the timeframes in which the landlord responded to the resident’s stage 1 complaint. As part of this investigation, we asked the landlord to supply the resident’s stage 1 complaint, and its stage 1 acknowledgement. The landlord did not respond to this request, which should reasonably have been made available, and it was not.
As a result of the landlord failing to provide the information requested by this Service, it is not possible to determine when the complaint was made. It is noted that the resident contacted this Service in early July 2022, and was advised to raise a complaint with the landlord. The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 28 July 2022. It therefore appears that the landlord’s complaint response was timely, in line with its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code).
Within the stage 1 response, the landlord offered £335 in compensation. It advised that this would be processed within 10 working days of the resident providing her bank details. The evidence available suggests that the landlord did not adhere to timeframe set out in the response. It is not clear exactly when the resident provided her bank details, but that she sent the landlord an email on 22 August 2022 stating it had been 16 working days since she had provided them. The resident experienced time and trouble in needing to ask it to pay the compensation in her email of 20 August 2022. This was another instance of the landlord not adhering to timeframes set out in its stage 1 complaint response. It is not clear, from the evidence available, whether the landlord has paid the resident the compensation it offered in its stage 1 complaint response. If it has yet to do so, it should ensure that the payment is now processed without further delay.
The resident emailed the landlord on 26 August 2022 and asked it to escalate her complaint to stage 2. It is evident that the landlord did not acknowledge the resident’s stage 2 complaint, following this email. This was a failure comply with its complaints procedure, which states that it will escalate stage 2 complaints “automatically” when a resident expresses dissatisfaction with a stage 1 complaint response. The resident experienced an inconvenience of not having her complaint escalated to the next stage, when she first asked for it to be escalated.
The resident sent a second email, on 27 September 2022, asking her complaint to be considered at stage 2. This is evidence that the resident experienced a protracted complaints process, and the time and trouble of needing to contact the landlord again to ask it to take her complaint to the next stage. This was a further failing in the landlord’s complaint handling, and led to further delays for the resident.
The landlord has supplied no evidence that it acknowledged the resident’s stage 2 complaint, despite this Service requesting it as part of our investigation. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 10 November 2022, which was 52 working days after the resident’s stage 2 escalation request. This was a failing on the part of the landlord, as its response was 32 working days later than stipulated in the Ombudsman’s complaint handling Code (the Code). This was a further delay and the cause of additional inconvenience to the resident.
The landlord offered the resident £25 for the delay in escalating her stage 2 complaint. However, the landlord’s complaint response did not specifically apologise for this delay or acknowledge what learning it had done from the admitted failing. The landlord’s compensation offer did not acknowledge the time and trouble the resident experienced in sending multiple escalation requests, or the inconvenience caused by the delay. An offer of compensation for time and trouble, as well as the inconvenience caused by its complaint handling, would have been reasonable in the circumstances. It would also have been in line with its own compensation policy, and it is unclear why the landlord did make such offers of compensation. The compensation it did offer did not fully put it right for the resident, and has been taken into consideration in the orders made below.
The resident raised a concern that she suffered a personal injury, as a result of the landlord’s handling of the substantive issues in her complaint. This Service has seen no evidence that the landlord provided the resident with information on how she could make a personal injury claim, through its insurer. Given the resident raised this concern as part of her complaint, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to provide such information as part of its complaint response. That it did not was a failing in its complaint handling, and relevant orders have been made below.
The landlord’s complaints procedure, provided for this investigation, does not set out timescales in which it will respond to stage 1 and 2 complaints. The Code states that stage 1 complaints should be responded to within 10 working days. It states stage 2 complaints require a response within 20 working days. As outlined above, the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response fell outside of this timeframe. It is not known whether inclusion of the appropriate timescale, in its procedure, would have prevented the delays in the handling of this complaint. However, the omission of timescales does not demonstrate that the landlord is operating a complaints procedure in compliance with the Code, or that it is managing residents’ expectations appropriately. It is noted that the landlord has since completed a self assessment against the Code, and has told this Service that an updated procedure will be live from June 2023.

Record keeping

The landlord’s record keeping in relation to the toilet repair, and the associated complaint, was poor. The evidence indicates that this contributed to the failings in this case. As outlined in detail above, this included:
1. The repair log failed to accurately record the further missed appointments or the reasons for them. We sought clarification from the landlord about the issue as its repair log appeared to contradict the information it gave the resident in its stage 2 complaint response. The landlord failed to respond the request for information. It has therefore been concluded that the landlord did not provide said information, because it was unable to, and is evidence of poor record keeping on the part of the landlord.
2. The landlord was unable to supply evidence of the stage 1 complaint correspondence sent by the resident, or its stage 1 complaint acknowledgment.
3. The landlord failed to supply evidence of a stage 2 complaint acknowledgment. It is reasonable to conclude that it did not supply the information requested about its complaint handling because it did not have the information, which was a further failing in its record keeping.
Given the failures identified in this case, an order has been made to ensure that the landlord improves its record keeping practices to prevent the reoccurrence of similar issues in the future.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 42(g) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concern that damp and mould issues impacted on the health of her household are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of silverfish in the property, as a result of damp and mould are not within the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction to consider.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord failed to complete works it had identified, and failed to follow up appropriately. It failed to adhere to the timeframe it committed to in its stage 1 complaint response. There was an unreasonable delay, of nearly a year, in commissioning an expert to identify the cause of damp and mould, which resulted in a further delay in resolving the matter. At the time of issuing its stage 2 complaint response the matter remained unresolved, but it had agreed a plan with the resident. While compensation was appropriately offered, it did not go far enough in putting things right.
There were delays and missed appointments in response to the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet. The landlord attended to unblock the toilet in line with its repairs policy, but the repair associated with the issue was completed 2 months after the target it set. The compensation it offered did not address the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the matter.
The landlord failed to comply with the timeframes of 2 commitments made in its stage 1 complaint response. It failed to escalate the resident’s stage 2 complaint, and the resident needed to ask for it to be escalated multiple times. Its stage 2 complaint response was issued well outside of the timeframes set out in the Code, and lacked clarity about its position in relation to substantive issues. The compensation it offered for its complaint handling failed to put things right for the resident.
Poor record keeping limited the landlord’s ability to respond effectively to the blocked toilet. The landlord’s repair log indicates that it missed further appointments, but did not properly record these or communicate effectively with the resident about the matter. The landlord was unable to provide this investigation with basic information from its handling of the complaint, which indicates its complaint handling record keeping was also poor, and contributed to the delays in its handling of the complaint.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Apologise for the failures identified in this report;
2. Pay the resident £1,275 in compensation, made up of:
  1. The £335 it offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould (if it has not already done so);
  2. The £75 it offered for “poor quality of work resulting in prolonged works” (if it has not already done so);
  3. A further £150 in recognition of the time and trouble experienced by its delay in responding to the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  4. A further £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould;
  5. The £40 its offered for its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet (if it has not already done so);
  6. A further £150 in recognition of the time and trouble experienced by the delay in its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet;
  7. A further £150 in recognition of the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of a blocked toilet;
  8. The £25 it offered for its handling of the resident’s complaint;
  9. A further £200 for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the resident’s complaint;
3. Inform the resident about how she can make a personal injury claim, through its insurer;
4. Remind its complaint handling staff about when it is appropriate to provide information on how resident’s can make a personal injury claim through its insurer.
Within 8 weeks of this determination the landlord is ordered to complete a review into its record keeping in relation to the blocked toilet and the resident’s complaint. The landlord should identify lessons it has learnt and how it will improve its record keeping in the future. The outcome of the review should be shared with this Service, also within 8 weeks.