Amplius Living (202212607)

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202212607

Longhurst Group Limited

1 May 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reports of:
1. Repairs to the property.
2. Damp and mould.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident lives in a two-bed bungalow under a weekly periodic tenancy which the resident was assigned on 15 September 2016.
The resident and her daughter are vulnerable.
The customer was paying rent of £116.96 per week on 17 October 2022, which was increased to £125.15 on 3 April 2023.
The resident’s complaint centres around damp and mould within the property which she says has impacted her health, her daughter’s health and their pet dog. Additionally, she said that there are various repairs outstanding in her property, including:
1. Unsafe electrics.
2. Issues with the porch roof.
3. Damage to the windows and replacement of the front and rear door.
4. A faulty timer on the boiler.
5. Insufficient loft insulation and missing tiles from the roof.
6. A dangerous garden footpath.
The resident first raised the repairs and presence on black mould on 9 September 2021. She later raised a formal complaint on 15 November 2022 which the landlord responded to on 13 December 2022.
The resident escalated her formal complaint on 23 December 2022 as she felt that many issues were still outstanding or had not been fully addressed in the landlord’s response. The landlord issued its stage 2 complaint response on 22 May 2022.
The resident remained dissatisfied and escalated her complaint to the Ombudsman on 15 March 2024 seeking completion of all the outstanding works in the property and additional compensation.

Scope of investigation

From the evidence presented in this case, the resident first notified the landlord of defects within the property and the presence of black mould on 9 September 2021.
Paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme states that “the Ombudsman may not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.”
We believe it is important that complaints are raised as quickly as possible. It becomes more difficult for both parties to present information and recall events accurately as more time passes since the issue occurred. For this reason, the Ombudsman has set timescales in which we expect a complaint to be referred to a landlord and to this Service.
In this case, the resident’s formal complaint was not raised until 15 November 2022, which was around 14 months after the issues were first raised. On this basis, this investigation will only consider matters raised by the resident since 15 May 2022, as this is 6 months prior to her formal complaint being raised.
The summary of events below includes some actions and correspondence prior to 15 May 2022, along with actions the landlord took after completion of its complaint procedure for context only.

Summary of events

The resident wrote a letter to the landlord on 9 September 2021 setting out a number of repairs needed to the property and advising it that there was black mould. She was having to clean it constantly. She believed that the problem was the guttering. Some works were undertaken by the landlord in November 2021.
On 7 December 2021 the landlord generated a repair record for the resident’s reports of black mould, problems with internal doors, rotten porch, problems with the shower pump and concerns about asbestos.
A contractor attended the property to repair the shower on 21 December 2021. It noted that the shower required a new pump.
On 16 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord complaining that on Sunday she had experienced a high-risk situation because the kitchen door would not open and she was unable to access her diabetic medication. She had complained about the repairs needed “for many months”. There were a number of repairs needed, including that the shower had stopped working. She complained about the damp and mould which she said was a serious issue. She stated that it had been an issue for the previous tenant. She said that it was due to the gutters that needed to be replaced. The walls and ceilings were “black with mould”. She was concerned about her and her daughter’s health. She also referred to problems with the garden path and the front porch. She told the landlord that her doctor had referred her to the crisis team as the mould and lack of repairs was having such an impact on her.
On 17 February 2022 the landlord called the resident and told her that the contractor was attending the following day to repair issues with the lounge and kitchen doors. It told her that she would get a response about the damp and mould issues and the problems with the garden path within two days. She would have to wait for the contractor to get back to her about the crumbling porch. The landlord raised a job to repair the porch roof and scheduled a visit for 18 February 2022 to look at the doors and shower.
An internal note from 17 February 2022 noted that the landlord had asked the resident about her wellbeing and had agreed that it should refer her to its safeguarding team to check in with her as she had been referred by her doctor to a crisis team. It gave the resident details of its wellbeing hub.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 February 2022 advising that following a visit from a contractor the shower was not working again, including not draining.
On 4 May 2022 an independent mould specialist commissioned by the landlord, emailed the landlord with its findings from a survey of the property. It set out that there were problems with the building, including that the gutters were causing thermal bridging and condensation, there were open vents that needed to be blocked and bathroom and kitchen extractor fans were needed. There was missing loft insulation. It confirmed that there was internal mould growth. It clearly stated that “the problem with this property is the finlock gutters”. It proposed a solution of applying a thermal skim. The report also recommended mould treatment. The report included photographs of extensive mould in the kitchen and bedroom.
On 6 May 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and told it that she was still waiting for a call about the damp and mould. She considered the property to be uninhabitable and her and her family were unwell. An appointment was scheduled for the landlord to visit on 11 May 2022, but this was cancelled because the resident had Covid.
On 20 June 2022 a task was raised to request a surveyor visit to the property, however it does not appear that this happened.
On 23 June 2022 the landlord’s Independent Living Advisor wrote to the resident stating that it had tried to contact her on several occasions to make an appointment but had been unable to reach her. It asked for her to contact her if she wished to proceed with an assessment.
The council’s Independence Program Team contacted the landlord on 18 August 2022 asking for an update about the damp and mould. The landlord said that one of its surveyors would call the resident in the next few days. It does not appear that any further action was then taken by the landlord to progress the matter.
The resident called and emailed the landlord on 17 October 2022 and raised a complaint. She also advised that she was bringing a complaint to this Service. The resident also raised an issue with the shower pump not working. She referred to previous written complaints on 9 September 2021 and 22 February 2022 about damp and mould and “numerous” phone calls and emails. She said that she was still unable to take a shower as it flooded and the pump had failed. She said that her daughter suffered from asthma and the damp and mould was a problem for her. The condition of the property was having a significant detrimental impact on her mental health. She set out a number of issues that needed to be attended to. She concluded the email stating that “this is an unhygienic, health debilitating place to live”.
On 28 October 2022 a Wellbeing Advisor from the council contacted the landlord advising it that the resident had still not heard about a surveyor visiting the property and that the resident had submitted a complaint to this Service.
On 15 November 2022, following a telephone call that day with the resident, the landlord acknowledged the resident’s stage one complaint. It recorded that the resident’s complaint was about:
1. Toilet keeps blocking and you’re constantly having to put a brush down it;
2. Shower pump is leaking, and you don’t have a rabbit tray anymore;
3. Damp and mould in the property has spread where the concrete guttering is, also mould all over the back hall and cupboard. You said a surveyor was out on 25 January this year, but you’ve heard nothing since;
4. Porch roof was repaired; however, a substance was left all over your path and pots;
5. Lino is coming away from the wall in the bathroom, when you use the shower, you must put a glass screen up to protect the wall;
6. Garden path is unsafe, it’s mud all the way down the garden from the house and your daughter fell and broke her ankle;
7. Window in front lounge has a crack and condensation is getting in;
8. When a surveyor was out looking at the mould, he said there’s tiles and insulation missing in the roof;
9. External door not insulated properly and can see daylight all the way up. Internal doors don’t match, and you’ve been advised when a door was repaired previously that they’re not regulation standard.
As an outcome the resident was seeking compensation and for the repairs to be done.
The landlord and a representative from the council attended the property on 8 December 2022. The landlord prepared an Action Plan for a number of repairs, including external repairs to the roof. It recommended that the gutters be flushed and monitored. With respect to the garden path it recorded that “the perimeter garden path is in good order with no trip hazards, the area of concern is by the shed which is sloped and muddy but would be identified as gardening rather than an LG repair”. It concluded no action required by the landlord re the garden path. It recorded that there was black mould and recommended mould treatment. It noted that a blown window needed to be replaced. It said that the shower was “in working order” but noted that the shower pump had been changed but there was no improvement and there were issues with the shower.
On 12 December 2022 the landlord circulated internally a report following the inspection. It proposed a number of structural repairs to address the mould problem.
The landlord wrote a stage one complaint letter to the resident on 13 December 2022. It apologised for the service the resident had received. It set out that the resident’s complaint had been about:
1. Toilet keeps blocking;
2. Shower pump not working properly;
3. Damp and mould within the property;
4. Blocked drains;
5. Issues with porch roof;
6. Lino in the bathroom coming away;
7. Garden path is unsafe due to being mud all the way down.
The landlord acknowledged that it had no record of its contractors raising jobs for the issues the resident raised. Despite the resident reporting a number of issues on 17 February 2022 and contacting it on a number of occasions, directly and indirectly, a surveyor had not visited the property as promised and no jobs had been raised to deal with the repairs. It confirmed that the landlord and a member of the council had attended the property on 8 December 2022 and prepared an Action Plan for a number of repairs. It told the resident that it would be in touch after 21 December 2022 to check appointment dates.
The landlord offered the resident £700 compensation. This was made up of: £200 for the toilet, shower and drain issues; £100 for the bathroom lino issues; £300 for the damp and mould issues.
On 16 December 2022 an internal note recorded that the bathroom works were planned for the next week and windows had been ordered. It also stated that after this had been done “need to look at getting the roof tiles and guttering sorted and also new loft insulation”.
On 20 December 2022 the landlord texted the resident about undertaking a mould wash.
An internal landlord record from 22 December 2022 sets out that a mould was conducted throughout the property and “all mould works completed”.
On 23 December 2022 the council’s housing technical officer wrote to the landlord advising that it needed to bring forward works on the resident’s bathroom facilities so that she was not left without being able to wash for an extensive period. It advised that failure to comply may lead to enforcement. The landlord had proposed that the shower would not be switched back on until 23 January 2023.
The resident wrote a letter to the landlord dated 23 December 2022 asking for her complaint to be escalated to stage two. It appears that this was received as an email by the landlord on 3 January 2023. She stated that there were a number of discrepancies in the stage one complaint response. She noted that her complaints had started in September 2021 and some of the issues went back to September 2016. She set out that there were problems with the shower, damp and mould, the path to the rear garden. She noted that she had been advised to investigate whether a bath would be more suitable in the bathroom given her health conditions. She referred to a number of repair issues needed, including the electrics. She advised that the bathroom repairs that had been done were inadequate and were leaking.
The landlord reinstated the resident’s shower on 28 December 2022.
On 4 January 2023, in an internal communication, the landlord acknowledged that the works that had been done by the contractors in the bathroom was not acceptable.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 18 January 2023 noting that she had not received a response to her email of 24 December 2023 (sic), which she had resent. She observed that there had been no progress, with two appointments having been cancelled. She said the work done on the bathroom before Christmas was poor and would need to be redone. However, she noted that the shower was working and was safe to use, following remedial works on 3 January 2024. The resident sought clarification on when the outstanding works would be carried out and an assurance that it would be to an acceptable level.
On 23 January 2023 the landlord confirmed in writing that it had received the resident’s stage two request on 24 December 2022 and had spoken to the resident that day. It confirmed that following its stage one investigation, the resident wanted it to review:
1. Dates for the outstanding work to be carried out;
2. The work to be carried out to an acceptable level;
3. The whistle on the shower to be fixed; and
4. The bathroom window to be repaired or replaced.
It said that it aimed to provide an outcome call and resolution letter within 20 working days, by 20 February 2023.
Plumbing works in the bathroom were undertaken on 2 February 2023.
On 7 February 2023 the resident emailed the landlord complaining about the lack of information she was being given on the repairs. Bathroom repairs had been done the week before, however the contractors who were supposed to look at the damp and mould had not turned up on the arranged appointment days and then turned up at a not prearranged time. The window contractors did not turn up when they said they would. She was still waiting for dates for further works.
On 14 February 2023 windows were fixed and some of the damp issues were dealt with, but not all. A surveyor attended the property and added a number of repair items to the outstanding list of repairs, such as installation of fans, the fitting of draught seals and further mould treatment.
On 20 February 2023 the landlord and the resident had a telephone call. The resident was not happy about the delay to works being done. The notes record that the resident “agreed to extend the complaint” but said that she did not want to close the complaint until the repairs were done. the landlord wrote to the resident telling her that it had extended its deadline to resolve the complaint. It told her that it aimed to get a response to her by 6 March 2023.
The landlord told the resident on 6 March 2023 that it had further extended the deadline to resolve the complaint, following a call with her to agree this. It advised the resident that it aimed to respond to her by 20 March 2023.
On 15 March 2023 representatives of the landlord and the local authority attended the property to discuss outstanding repairs. The landlord told the local authority that it would act on the repairs urgently. It recorded all the internal and external repairs needed and agreed to appoint a third-party contractor. The survey notes included a record that there was damp and mould in various areas. It also noted that the garden pathway required upgrading. It noted that it would need to get three different quotes for the work. It appears that the landlord did not meaningfully progress this with the contractor until 24 April 2023.
On 20 March 2023 the resident agreed to extend the stage two deadline in a telephone call on the basis that the landlord would give dates of when the works would start.
An internal meeting was booked for 23 March 2023 to discuss progressing the matter.
On 4 April 2023 an internal note recorded that the landlord was “still to appoint contractor for this job no date yet”.
A report on General Repairs was prepared on 20 April 2023. It identified 20 issues with the property.
The landlord contacted the resident on 21 April 2023 to arrange an asbestos survey.
On 24 April 2023 an external mould specialists told the landlord that it had been booked in to look at the property on 12 January 2023 but the appointment was cancelled. An agreed scope of works was circulated internally on 25 April 2023.
Adult Social Care contacted the landlord on 27 April 2023 asked that an asbestos survey booked for that day be moved by two weeks as the resident was anxious. It asked the landlord to reassure the resident.
An external mould expert emailed the landlord on 4 May 2023 with its findings. This quote and a quote from another expert were circulated by the landlord internally on 4 May 2023.
On 12 May 2023 the resident wrote to the landlord complaining that she had worked very hard to make sure everything was ready for the contractors to attend but they had not shown up for the arranged appointment that day. She had not been advised that they were not attending. She also told it that she had not been contacted about a survey as promised. She confirmed that there was still mould in the property and what had been treated was coming back.
An internal note from 16 May 2023 records that there was a meeting that confirmed that the works have been scoped and quoted for.
The landlord arranged for an asbestos survey to take place on 28 April 2023 however the resident was unable to keep to the appointment. It was rebooked for 18 May 2023.
On 22 May 2023 the landlord wrote a stage two complaint response to the resident. It noted that some repair works had been on done on 2 and 14 February 2023, but not all. It set out that a surveyor had attended the property on 14 February 2023 and identified further works needed. However, no further appointments were booked after this visit. It set out that on 15 March 2023 representatives of the landlord and the local authority attended the property to discuss outstanding repairs. The landlord told the local authority that it would act on the repairs urgently. It recorded all the internal and external repairs needed and agreed to appoint a third-party contractor. It noted that it would need to get three different quotes for the work. It explained that there was a delay in appointment of a contractor as it was setting up new arrangements with its contractors. It confirmed that a third party contractor had now been appointed and once the asbestos report came back it would set up an appointment time. It told the customer that a member of the complaints team had been appointed to monitor the progress and would be in contact weekly. It told the resident it would send through a copy of the scope of works.
The landlord acknowledged that there had been a “clear failure in service”. It had not completed repairs “in a timely manner” and had not “maintained [the resident’s] home to an acceptable standard”. It apologised and offered the resident £800 compensation, in addition to £700 it had paid to the resident at stage one. This was made up of £150 for not resolving the complaint sooner, £250 for the continued delays in completing the works and £400 for distress and inconvenience.
The resident called the landlord on 25 May 2023 setting out a number of concerns with the stage two complaint letter. A number of repair issues had not been referred to. The landlord attempted to call the resident on 6 June 2023 but there was no answer.
On 8 June 2023, the resident responded to the landlord with her concerns about its response. The resident set out the following concerns:
1. She was concerned that not all of the repairs had been addressed, including a number of issues that she had raised in her stage one complaint response that had not even been referred to.
2. She was unhappy with the time being taken and that new jobs were added every time a surveyor attended.
3. She believed that the landlord was only doing works when Environmental Health instructed it to do so.
4. She described the amount of inconvenience she had endured and the emotional and financial impact the situation had on her and her family.
5. She emphasised that “the biggest issue remaining is mould and damp”. She set out that the contractors quote did not address the mould issues in a number of areas of the property, including black mould in some areas. She stated that, given the mould, the concrete gutters needed to be replaced as there were leaks.
6. She said that the landlord had not addressed concerns that she had raised, including about the electrics. The landlord responded to this on 23 June 2023 saying that it would be passed on and the landlord would “update you further when I can”. Internal notes record that a meeting was not arranged to discuss the matter internally until 21 July 2023.
The landlord responded to a query from the council on 28 June 2023, updating it that the contractor and the resident were to meet that week to confirm when scaffolding could go up and when the digger could access the garden.
The resident sent another letter to the landlord on 28 July 2023. She wrote to the landlord telling it that hardcore left in the garden had not been removed and the replacement doors that had been installed were not satisfactory. She said there were large gaps under the doors and the filler and redecoration was of a poor standard. The landlord responded saying that the letter the resident had sent previously was “being reviewed at senior management level” and that she would be updated “as soon as possible”. The landlord said it had raised the recent issues the resident referred to with its contractors.
Repairs were undertaken by the landlord on the back garden path in July 2023.
On 28 July 2023 a “stock condition survey” was undertaken which found “slight damp and mould” and recommended cleaning the identified areas.
The contractors sent a report to the landlord on 1 August 2023 setting out that all the works were complete.
The landlord attended the property to inspect progress and review the internal doors on 10 August 2023 but the resident declined access.
On 24 August 2023 there was an internal email to the contractors asking it to confirm that the works have been completed.
On 28 September 2023 the landlord emailed the resident stating that the works had been completed. It had asked for an inspection. It also noted that “the team have attempted to contact you on a couple of occasions to arrange the surveyor visit to assess damp and mould reported in your home […] following these works to the damp and mould and insulation this will be all the works completed”. The resident responded saying that the works were not completed. She set out a number of outstanding issues.
The resident emailed the landlord on 29 September 2023 telling it that the damp and mould was returning. She noted that her view was that it would reoccur until the concrete gutters were replaced.
The loft insulation was upgraded/replaced on 5 October 2023.
On 17 October 2023 the resident told the landlord that she disputed that works had been completed.
A surveyor was booked to attend the property on 23 October 2023. An internal landlord record of 25 October 2023 recorded that:
1. The works to the gutters was poor. There were cracks showing and water was still leaking through.
2. The contractors had left waste and gravel in the garden.
3. The new internal doors did not fit properly.
4. The report recorded that there were 41 issues identified in total.
Internal landlord notes from 7 November 2023 noted that there was render missing on roof tiles and water ingress above the rear windows in the property.
An internal meeting to discuss outstanding issues and “raise any works required additionally” was arranged for 13 November 2023.
The resident wrote to this service on 15 March 2024 with an update. She stated that there were still issues with the property, including mould. She listed a number of repairs that had either not been done, or had been done poorly. This included resolving the damp and mould. She emphasised the negative impact the situation was having on her and her daughter’s mental and physical health.

Assessment and findings

Repairs

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a legal obligation on landlords to maintain the structure and exterior of its properties, along with the facilities for electrics, heating and water. Once notified of a defect, the landlord must complete a lasting and effective repair within a reasonable period of time.
The landlord’s repairs and maintenance policy divides repairs into three categories:
1. Emergency repairs – which the landlord states it will attend to within 4 hours and make safe. These repairs include any which put the health, safety of security of the resident at risk or could cause harm to the property.
2. Appointed urgent repairs – which the landlord states it will complete within a maximum of 7 calendar days.
3. Appointed routine repairs – which the landlord states it will complete within a maximum of 28 calendar days.
The Ombudsman starts from the position that, as a general principle, we would expect the landlord to undertake repairs within a reasonable timeframe. What is reasonable will depend on the nature of the repair and the impact on the resident. In this case, the landlord was clearly on notice of the multiple vulnerabilities of the resident and her daughter, and the significant detrimental impact that the matter was having on them. The Ombudsman would expect these vulnerabilities to be taken into account when determining a reasonable timeframe for repairs.
Damp and mould was one of the resident’s key complaints and the Ombudsman acknowledges that damp and mould issues may sometimes be the responsibility of both the landlord and resident to resolve. However, where residents report damp and mould the landlord has an obligation to undertake a meaningful expert inspection to determine the cause. Where it is found to be because repairs are needed to the fabric of the property, the landlord must undertake such repairs. Where the tenant’s use of the property may cause or contribute to the mould and damp, the landlord should work with the resident to find reasonable solutions. Given the resident’s multiple vulnerabilities in this case, including her daughter’s asthma, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to prioritise these damp and mould concerns.
There have been a number of significant failings by the landlord over a protracted period of time in its handling of repairs to the property, including damp and mould. The resident has stated that there have been problems with the property since she first moved. The evidence shows that she clearly reported problems to the landlord in September 2021. Some works were undertaken in November 2021. However, many of the issues were not resolved for a significant period of time. The resident has advised this Service that some issues, including the damp and mould, are ongoing.

Shower and bathroom repairs

The resident reported problems with the bathroom, including the shower, in September 2021. The landlord attempted a repair on 21 December 2021, and recorded that a new pump was needed. The repair note recorded that the shower had not been functioning properly for 18 months. The evidence indicates that a new pump was not installed at that time. Another repair was undertaken on 18 February 2022. The repair note again recorded that shower and pump were “not functioning”. It noted that “the pump seems to be a problem and repairs have been unsuccessful, consider replacing.”
A repair record from 19 December 2022 recorded that the issues with the electric shower were “a danger to life”. It recorded that the shower job was an emergency. A new electric shower was fitted on 28 December 2022.
Notably, a letter from the council telling the landlord that enforcement action would be taken if it was not repaired to working order within 14 days was apparently a factor in the landlord completing the works at this time. Whilst the safety issue was resolved, the landlord identified on 4 January 2023 that other works in the bathroom were done poorly and further remedial works were needed.
This was an unreasonable amount of time for the shower to be repaired. The Ombudsman is particularly concerned that a “danger to life” issue with the shower arose. The technical evidence does not clearly set out that this was a direct result of the landlord’s failure to undertake repairs earlier, however this seems possible. It was also a failing that the other works to the bathroom were done poorly and required remedial works.
The resident has also raised with the landlord whether a bath may be more appropriate given her health issues. The evidence does not show that this has been considered by the landlord. If this remains an outstanding issue for the resident, the Ombudsman requires that the landlord undertake an appropriate Occupational Health Assessment for the bathroom in light of the resident’s, and her daughter’s needs, and take such steps it considers to be reasonable as recommended by this assessment. If requested by the resident, the landlord should undertake the Occupational Health Assessment within four weeks of the date of this Determination.

Repairs to the garden path

The resident was unhappy with the condition of the garden path in the backyard and told the landlord that her daughter had slipped and injured herself. The problems with the back path were included in her communication to the landlord about repairs in September 2021.
An internal landlord note from 9 December 2022 recorded that “garden path not our responsibility.” However, subsequent delays in repairing the path do not appear to have been completed because the landlord’s position was that it was not responsible for the garden path.
The landlord’s repairs policy outlines that it would be responsible for “external brickwork” and “paths (including steps, footpaths and ramps) – communal and main paths to property only.” Whilst this policy causes some ambiguity on the responsibility for the garden path, the Ombudsman notes that the landlord’s policy also highlights that resident vulnerabilities should be factored into decisions regarding repairs. As the resident was known to have mobility issues, the landlord should have ensured that the hardcore garden path was safe and in reasonable condition, in a timely manner once this was reported by the resident.
The garden path was repaired in July 2023. This is an unreasonable amount of time. There is no evidence that there were extenuating factors for this delay. Once the repairs were completed, there were issues with waste and gravel being left in the garden. It is not clear from the evidence whether this outstanding debris clearance work has been completed.
Overall, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property due to:
1. The time taken to complete repairs, particularly in cases where these posed a risk to life.
2. Third-party intervention being required to progress repairs in a timely way.
3. Its failure to consider the resident’s vulnerabilities when applying its repairs policy.

Other repairs

The Ombudsman notes that there have been a number of other repair failings. For example, the landlord failed to repair the internal doors in a timely manner which meant that the resident was understandably distressed on 16 February 2022 when she was unable to open the kitchen door and access essential medication. Even when the doors were replaced, there were significant gaps. The resident has provided a photograph of the sink cupboard for the bathroom which shows that the doors and skirting are bent. She states that the unit was left outside “for a number of days in the rain” and she had thought it was being replaced. This clearly reflects the poor standard of the work done.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord took some safeguarding steps given its knowledge of the resident’s vulnerabilities. The Ombudsman also acknowledge that there are limits to the support role of the landlord for individual vulnerabilities. However, the resident’s own engagement of support from other entities to advocate for her indicates that these steps were inadequate and that the resident did not feel that her concerns and fears were being acknowledged or addressed. It reflects poorly on the landlord that the council advised it that it would issue an enforcement order if it did not take action to fix the bathroom.

Damp and mould

The resident told the landlord in September 2021, and several times after that, there was black mould in the property which was causing physical and mental health problems to her and her family.
The landlord told the resident on 17 February 2022 that it would contact her about the damp and mould within two days. There is no evidence it did so within this timeframe, however a report was provided to the landlord from an independent mould expert on 4 May 2022. The evidence does not show that the landlord took steps in response to receiving this report. A further survey was booked for the property on 20 June 2022 but it is not clear why that did not go ahead.
The council’s Independence Program Team contacted the landlord about the damp and mould in August 2022, but it does not appear that the landlord progressed the matter in response to this contact. A Wellbeing Advisor then contacted the landlord on 28 October 2022 about the damp and mould. The Ombudsman considers that the need for these interventions by the council is clear evidence that the landlord failed to manage the repair, and communications with the resident, in a reasonable and appropriate manner.
Following a survey at the property, undertaken with the council, on 8 December 2022 the landlord circulated internally a report setting out a number of repairs. Some works to address damp and mould were completed on 14 February 2023.
After another survey on 15 March 2023, where the council was also present, a further repair report and schedule of works was generated. The landlord did not meaningfully progress this within a reasonable timeframe. A further quote from an external mould expert was not received until 4 May 2023. A number of external and internal works were undertaken during June and July 2023 and contractors emailed the landlord on 1 August 2023 stating that the works were all complete. The landlord did not follow up with its contractors to confirm the completion of works until 24 August 2023. It was not until 5 October 2023 that the loft insulation works were completed.
A further survey conducted on 23 October 2023 found that the works that had been done were poor and several outstanding repair issues remained. The landlord did not meet to discuss this internally until 13 November 2023. The Ombudsman considers that this timeframe is indicative of the landlord’s failure to treat the matter with the appropriate urgency and priority. It is not clear that all the repairs recommended in the October 2023 report have been undertaken. The resident has told this service that issues with damp and mould continue.
The Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s mishandling of the damp and mould has been significant. There have been multiple unreasonable delays in identifying the repairs needed, and then technical failures in carrying out these repairs to an appropriate standard. The landlord has failed to act with appropriate urgency and has not prioritised the matter. It has failed to maintain a reasonable level of communication with the resident. This has understandably had a significant detrimental impact on the resident, particularly given the lack of any mitigation such as the provision of dehumidifiers.
Taking these factors together, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.

Complaint handling

The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaint process. Its policy says that it aims to respond to stage 1 complaints within 10 working days and stage 2 complaint escalations within 20 working days. Where it cannot meet these timescales, the landlord’s policy allows for this to be extended by a further 10 working days, provided this is clearly explained to the resident.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (‘the Code’), which is available on our website, sets out a number of key principles that landlords must adhere to when managing complaints. This includes:
1. Responding to complaints within the published timescales.
2. Resolving complaints at the earliest possible stage.
3. Escalating the complaint when this is requested by the resident, unless there are valid reasons not to do so.
4. Addressing all parts of the complaint raised by the resident.
The resident clearly made a formal complaint to the landlord on 17 October 2022. The landlord did not contact the resident about this until 15 November 2022, after being contacted by a Wellbeing Advisor from the council. This was an unreasonable delay in acknowledging and starting the formal complaint process.
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response on 13 December 2022, which was 41 working days after the resident’s initial complaint. This was another significant delay outside of the landlord’s policy timescales and the requirements of the Code.
The resident’s letter requesting that her complaint be escalated to stage two is dated 23 December 2022, however it appears that it was not recorded as received by the landlord until 3 January 2023. It is not clear why there was a delay in the landlord recording receipt of the email and it is not clear that this was due to a failing by the landlord. Nonetheless, the landlord did not respond to the resident upon receiving the email and the resident contacted it again on 18 January 2023 to follow it up. The landlord did not confirm by telephone and in writing that it had received the stage two escalation until 23 January 2023. This was an unreasonable delay.
The landlord did not then provide its stage two complaint response to the resident until 22 May 2023. This was 100 working days after the resident had escalated her complaint.
The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord sought consent for an extension from the resident several times. Where a resolution for a complaint is still being worked on, it can be reasonable for a landlord to seek consent to an extension of up to 10 working days. However, in this case (as set out above) the delays in working out a schedule needed for the repairs was due to failings by the landlord. When the landlord sent the stage two complaint response, its position was that it was still working out the scope of works and timetable. The Ombudsman considers that it was unreasonable for the landlord to delay issuing the stage two response.
Delays in acknowledging and responding to the complaint caused additional time, trouble, distress and inconvenience to the resident and prolonged the period of time before she could refer her complaint to the Ombudsman. This also demonstrates a poor complaint handling culture which is not focussed on resolving the resident’s issue at the earliest opportunity.
Within the correspondence between the landlord and resident, there is also repeated evidence of the resident stating that the landlord had not fully addressed all of the complaint points she had raised. In order for a complaint process to be effective, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to carefully assess all concerns raised by the resident and provide a substantive response. The landlord’s failure to do this, in this case, extended the matter and caused additional avoidable distress and inconvenience to the resident.
Overall, there has been severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling due to:
1. The delays in acknowledging complaints.
2. The delays in issuing substantive complaint responses.
3. Extending the timeframe for complaint responses beyond what was permitted in its policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
4. Extending the timeframe for responding to the complaint but failing then to provide the action it was relying on the extension to complete.
5. Failing to use the complaints process to fully address all complaints raised by the resident.
6. Delaying the resident’s ability to progress her complaint to the Ombudsman.

Redress

The landlord offered the resident £700 compensation in its stage one complaint response. This was made up of: £200 for the toilet, shower and drain issues; £100 for the bathroom lino issues; £300 for the damp and mould issues. In its stage two complaint response, the landlord offered the resident an additional £800 compensation. This was made up of: £150 for not resolving the complaint sooner; £250 for the continued delays in completing the works; £400 for distress and inconvenience.
In assessing an appropriate level of compensation, the Ombudsman takes into account a range of factors including any distress and inconvenience caused by the issues, the amount of time and trouble expended on pursuing the matter with the landlord, and the level of detriment caused by the landlord’s acts or omissions. We consider whether any redress is proportionate to the severity of the failing by the landlord and the impact on the resident. The Ombudsman also considers the evidence that has been provided and ultimately what would be fair and proportionate. The aim of compensation is not to be punitive but to provide redress for the impact of any failings by the landlord on the resident. In the case of compensation for distress and inconvenience, we are not able to quantify a definitive loss and the intention of such an award is to recognise the overall distress and inconvenience suffered by the resident.
In considering what is reasonable the Ombudsman has referred to our remedies guidance, which is available on our website. This sets out that amounts of between £100 to £1000 are generally appropriate for maladministration and above £1,000 for severe maladministration.
The Ombudsman considers that the total compensation of £1,500 offered by the landlord is inadequate. The matter has had a significant impact on the resident and her family for over two years and is ongoing. The Ombudsman requires that the landlord pay the resident directly compensation of £3960 within four weeks of the date of this Determination. It appears that the landlord has already paid the resident £1,500 compensation. It may deduct any compensation payments it has already made for this matter from the £3960 payment.
The compensation amount is made up of:
1. £2,660 as compensation to the resident for the loss of the full and proper enjoyment of the property. Whilst the resident has been able to access all the rooms and the outside in the property, her enjoyment of the property has been significantly compromised, including an extensive period where there were ongoing issues with the bathroom facilities. Since reporting the issues in September 2021, the resident continued to pay full rent for the property of £116.96 per week, which was increased to £125.15 per week on 3 April 2023. The compensation amount reflects an amount of £20 per week for 133 weeks between 9 September 2021 (when the resident first notified the landlord of the issues) to the date of this Determination. The landlord must pay this directly to the resident within four weeks of the date of this determination.
2. £1,000 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience time and trouble the resident has spent in pursuing matters. The distress caused by the condition of the property itself was particularly exacerbated by the communication failings and the failing to adequately acknowledge and prioritise the matter given the vulnerabilities of the resident and her daughter.
3. £300 for complaints handling failings.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with section 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there has been:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of outstanding repairs to the property.
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
3. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to take appropriate steps to identify necessary repair works within a reasonable timeframe. When it did undertake repair works, many of these were completed to a poor standard. The landlord was also aware of the resident’s vulnerabilities but failed to prioritise the matter accordingly. The landlord did not communicate with the resident in a reasonable and timely matter. Repair issues, including the damp and mould, remain unresolved and this was worsened by the lack of any meaningful mitigation whilst repairs and investigations were carried out.
The landlord failed to acknowledge the resident’s complaint in a timely manner. It was unreasonable to seek extension to the stage two complaint response.

Orders and recommendations

Within 28 days of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Arrange for its Chief Executive Officer to provide an apology in person to the resident.
2. Pay the resident compensation of £3960, comprised of:
  1. £2,660 for the resident’s loss of the full and proper enjoyment of the property.
  2. £1,000 compensation for the significant distress and inconvenience time and trouble the resident has spent in pursuing matters to completion.
  3. £300 for the complaint handling failures identified in the determination.

The landlord may deduct any compensation payments it has already made for this matter from this sum. The compensation must be paid directly to the resident and not applied to her rent account unless she requests this.

Undertake a comprehensive survey of all outstanding internal and external repairs to the property. The resident may invite the council to attend this survey if she wishes. The landlord must provide the survey report and a schedule of works to this Service, showing how it will complete all outstanding works within a period not exceeding ten weeks.
Appoint an independent damp and mould surveyor to inspect the property. The landlord must provide the survey report and a schedule of works to this Service, showing how it will complete all outstanding works or recommendations within a period not exceeding eight weeks.
Appoint a single point of contact to the resident, who will provide weekly updates to the resident of the progress of the matter.

Within eight weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Undertake a case review of its complaint handling in this case. The review must specifically address:
  1. The reasons why it extended the complaint response timescales.
  2. The reasons why it did not fully address all of the complaint points raised by the resident.
  3. The reasons why the complaint acknowledgement and responses were delayed.
  4. What learning the landlord has identified and how it plans to implement this across its service operations in a period not exceeding twelve weeks.
2. Review this determination and consider it as part of its work in progressing its action plan in response to this Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould. The landlord must share this action plan with its governing body and this Service.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Undertake directly or facilitate a request to the local council an occupational health assessment of the resident’s bathroom and its suitability, given the health needs of the resident and her daughter. This assessment should specifically assess whether a bath is more suitable than a shower. The landlord should then complete any recommended actions from the assessment within a period not exceeding eight weeks.