Birmingham City Council (202114214)

A picture containing logo Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202114214

Birmingham City Council

16 March 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 response to:

a. Damp and mould reported in the property.

b. Concerns about the conduct of the landlord’s staff during a meeting with the resident on 15 September 2021.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a tenant of the landlord in a two-bedroom ground floor flat, owned by the landlord. It is understood that they lived alone.
The complaint has been brought to this Service by a representative, who is an acquaintance of the resident and acts as a carer for the resident.
The representative has reported that the resident has a history of mental health conditions and has been diagnosed with mental health conditions, including a personality disorder, PTSD, severe anxiety and depression.
The landlord has confirmed that it has no known vulnerabilities on its record for the resident.
The representative reports that in April 2021, the resident left the property due to the damp and mould and the impact this was having on their wellbeing. The resident went to live with their representative. The resident did not return to the property and in September 2022, issued a notice to quit to the landlord. The tenancy ended on 9 October 2022.
The representative reports that before the resident left the property, they had an incident with their neighbour where the neighbour allegedly, threatened to damage the resident’s property and subjected the resident to intimidation. The representative has not provided the date that this incident took place.
The resident has not raised a complaint about the alleged incident with their neighbour. Therefore, this investigation will not consider this event. Any reference to the incident with the neighbour within this report is for context only.

Summary of events

The landlord’s repair records show that the representative reported on 13 May 2021, that there was damp and mould growth in all of the rooms in the property. When the report was made, the landlord was not notified that the resident was not living in the property.
The landlord’s contractor attended on 14 June 2021 however, the visit was recorded as a no access and a card was left at the property for the resident to rearrange the appointment.
The representative reported the repair again on 21 June 2021. There is no evidence that they made the landlord aware at the time of this report, that the resident was not living in the property. An appointment was scheduled for 6 July 2021 but this was rescheduled to 20 July 2021, because the resident was admitted to hospital.
The landlord received a letter from the representative, on 24 June 2021, following a tenancy breach letter that it sent to the resident in April 2021, concerning reports it received about rubbish in resident’s back garden.
The representative reported that the resident’s neighbour was responsible for the rubbish mentioned in the tenancy breach letter that it sent. The representative reported that the resident’s neighbour, had verbally abused the resident’s son and, subjected the resident to intimation and threatened to damage the property. The representative did not provide a date as to when the incident took place in the letter.
In addition to this, the representative explained that they were acting as a carer for the resident, who they said had been diagnosed with mental health conditions. They said that they had previously reported to the landlord that there was mould in the property but had not heard anything back from the landlord. The representative did not confirm in their correspondence when this was but the repair records, we have been provided show that the earliest report about damp and mould in the property, was raised on 13 May 2021.
The representative stated in the letter, that they attempted to clean and remove the mould themselves, which included throwing away the resident’s belongings that had been affected by mould. They said that a week after doing this, the mould returned and so they reported the issue to the landlord again. The representative confirmed that due to the condition of the property, they decided to have the resident leave the property and temporarily live with them, as the environment the resident was living in was impacting their wellbeing.
On 20 July 2021, the contractor missed the appointment scheduled for the report of damp and mould, made on 21 June 2021. The repair records evidence that the representative contacted the landlord on the day, to report the missed appointment. They followed up with the landlord on 11 August 2021, as they had not heard by that date about another appointment. Around 24 August 2021, the landlord arranged for an inspection of the property to be carried out on 3 September 2021.
Undertaking the inspection was the landlord’s Contract Works Officer and they attended to the property with the Housing Officer. The resident was not at the property at the time of the inspection but the representative was.
A Protimeter, a meter used to measure moisture, was used on several walls of the property during the inspection. In the feedback the inspecting officer provided following the inspection, they confirm a finding of damp and mould in the property. This Service has been provided with images that were taken during the inspection. The images confirm the inspecting officer’s finding that there is damp and mould, and specifically show:

a. Significant mould to the kitchen and bathroom of the property. There was also mould in other rooms in the property however, this Service could not identify what rooms these were from the images provided.

b. That the Protimeter identified dry and wet walls throughout the property. This Service could not identify what rooms the respective readings related to, from the images provided.

c. That as well as the damp, throughout the property is generally in poor condition. There is:

Significant damage to the plaster wall in the bathroom.
A large hole in a wall in one of the rooms (the specific room could not be determined from the image provided).
A missing smoke alarm.
Damaged floor tiles (the specific room the tiles are located could not be determined).

The contemporaneous notes from the day of the visit, state that the representative wanted to record the inspection but the landlord did not consent. During the inspection, the representative notified the officers that the resident was not living in the property and had not lived there since April 2021. The contemporaneous notes from the visit, confirm that the inspecting officer advised that as no one was living in the property, adequate ventilation was not being provided to the property and this would have an impact on the condition. The officer explained that they could raise the repairs to address the damp and mould, but if no one was going to live there, the damp and mould would re occur.
The notes also indicate that the representative informed that the resident felt scared to return to the property following the incident with their neighbour, which they confirmed took place before the resident moved out although, the date of the incident was not disclosed. The representative confirmed that the incident was not reported to the police but, the landlord and nothing was done. The Housing Officer explained to the representative that if the issue occurred more than three months ago, it could not do anything, but if it received a complaint, it would decide what to do.
The Housing Officer reports that the representative said in response to this, that it could cause further issues if the landlord spoke with the neighbour they complained about. The representative asked the landlord if it could move the resident or refer them to another local authority. The officer’s response to this was that the landlord could not rehouse the resident due to ASB, but the resident could approach another local authority directly. The Housing Officer confirmed within their notes that they checked the landlord’s record after the visit, and found no record of a report about the alleged incident with the resident’s neighbour.
The Housing Officer asked the representative if they could speak with the resident about the findings of the inspection and the reported incident with the neighbour. A meeting took place on 15 September 2021 with the resident, their representative and the two officers who attended to the inspection. The meeting took place at the representative’s home.
The detail provided to this Service about what was discussed during the meeting, does not clarify what was discussed about the repairs. But it is understood from the feedback from the meeting, that the resident stated during the meeting, that they were recording it and the landlord asked that they stop doing so. The meeting was terminated because the resident refused to stop recording.
On 20 September 2021, the representative approached this Service with a complaint about the landlord’s response to the damp and mould reported in the property and the conduct of the landlord’s staff during the meeting on 15 September 2021.
They said that the resident was recording the meeting for evidence and safety and when the resident tried to explain the reasons for recording the meeting to the landlord, they were called ‘animated’ and ‘aggressive’. The representative said that the resident had a hearing impairment which caused them to speak at a louder volume. They said that the hearing impairment was why they wanted to record the meeting, so they could refer back to the recording at a later date. The representative stated that the landlord refused to review the evidence the resident had in relation to the damp and mould in the property and persisted that the camera be turned off. The representative stated that the meeting left the resident unwell and they believed that the landlord had discriminated against the resident because of their mental health.
Following advice from this Service, the resident submitted the complaint to the landlord on 27 September 2021.
The landlord responded to the complaint via a letter to the resident’s address, on 18 October 2021. It said that the meeting took place at the resident’s sister’s house and was arranged to discuss the resident’s return to the property so that the repairs to the damp and mould could be completed and also, discuss the alleged threats that the resident’s neighbour had made.
The landlord acknowledged that the resident had not been living in the property due to fear of repercussions. When addressing the meeting on 15 September 2021, it said that the resident behaved aggressively from the onset and did not give its staff members the opportunity to discuss concerns or explain the findings from the inspection. It said that the resident notified that they were recording the meeting and was asked to stop recording several times but refused therefore, the staff member exercised their right to terminate the meeting.
On 9 November 2021, the representative contacted this Service as they had not received a response from the landlord. The representative advised that the resident wanted the repairs to be completed and for compensation to be issued for the items they said had been damaged by the mould. They also informed that the resident was willing to be moved to another property. Following the call, this Service contacted the landlord and relayed the resolution sought by the resident. We asked that if the complaint had not finalised its complaints procedure, the landlord should contact the resident and provide a response to their complaint.
The landlord issued its stage two response on 16 November 2021. It advised that as part of its consideration of the stage two complaint, it reviewed its repair records and found that no repairs had been reported since June 2021. It stated that no repairs remain outstanding.
It said the Contract Works Officer had explained during the meeting on 15 September 2021, that the resident not living in the property was directly contributing to the damp and mould conditions being complained about. It explained that this is because, the property was not being ventilated or heated. The landlord stated that that the resident’s failure to occupy the property, was a breach of the tenancy conditions and in addition, as a result of the resident’s ‘direct action’ damage to the property, any repairs to make the property fit for occupation would be subject to a charge. It confirmed that it would not consider compensation for any claim as it did not consider there to be any legal liability.
On 6 January 2022, the representative referred the complaint to this Service. They explained that they remained unhappy with the final response because:

a. The landlord attributed the damp and mould issue to the resident not living in the property since April 2021, but they believed that the issue had been ongoing for five years and was unhappy that the landlord had not considered compensation for this period.

b. The landlord described the resident as being aggressive during the meeting on 15 September 2021 and the landlord’s staff allegedly, called the resident names.

c. The landlord’s response referred to the representative as the resident’s sister even though it had been informed on a previous occasion, that this was not correct.

d. The landlord had booked appointments and had failed to attend.

e. The landlord had said that the resident would have to pay for repairs to the property.

f. The resident had a stoke due to the stress of trying to get the matters sorted.

The representative said that they wanted compensation to be considered for the condition of the property and for the way the resident had been treated. The representative also stated that the resident wanted different staff members, to those who they had previously met with, to deal with their case.

Events after the complaints process

In January 2022, the landlord contacted the resident who remained living with the representative. It spoke with the representative, informed that it was looking to start the repair works and enquired about the resident’s intention to return to the property. The resident confirmed in the call that they were not returning to the property and would remain living with the representative. The landlord, therefore, sent the resident a notice to quit to complete.
The landlord was informed in March 2022, that the resident no longer wished to give up the tenancy but wanted to be rehoused. Throughout March 2022, the parties remained in contact and the landlord provided advice to the representative about the resident’s options to pursue rehousing.
In September 2022, the resident issued a notice to quit to the landlord and their tenancy for the property ended on 9 October 2022.

Assessment and findings

Landlord obligations and policies

Under section 11 of the landlord and tenant Act 1985, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the landlord will (in summary):

a. Keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property.

b. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the property for the supply of water, gas and electricity and for sanitation; and

c. Keep in repair and proper working order the installations in the dwelling-house for space heating and heating water.

The conditions of the tenancy explain that the landlord cannot accept responsibility for a repair until it has been reported. The landlord’s repairs policy also confirms that the resident is responsible for reporting to it, any repair that is required to the property for which it is responsible. Once the landlord has notice of a repair, they should carry out the repair within a reasonable time (this is set out in case law).
Under the Homes (Fitness for Human Habitation) Act 2018, there is an implied term in the tenancy agreement that the property is fit for human habitation when the tenancy is granted and for the duration of the tenancy.
In determining whether a property unfit for human habitation under the Act, the key question is whether a property is “not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition” because of various factors, which include repairs, freedom from damp and ventilation.
The landlord’s Repairs policy states that:

a. Urgent repairs are repairs that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family or the security of the property. The completion period for these repairs shall be one, three or seven working days based on the requirements of The Secure Tenants of Local Housing Authorities (Right to Repair) Regulations 1994.

b. Routine repairs are targeted to be completed within 30 days of them being reported. There are some larger repairs that may need special materials and arrangements to be completed. In these cases, the tenant shall be advised what timescale to expect.

c. In the cases where an inspection to diagnose the repair is required then an appointment for this inspection shall be given at the time of call.

In terms of compensation, landlord has a self-contained compensation claims policy with its own appeal and re-appeal stages. This policy considers claims for the alleged damage to property or belongings, personal injury and negligence. The policy sets out definitions for negligence and liability. It explains that liability can only be accepted if:

a. The landlord was informed of the disrepair prior to the claim (or could reasonably been expected to be aware of the need for repair).

b. Work that had been done was not sufficient to remedy the problem or proved to be faulty.

c. The landlord has a statutory duty.

The landlord’s response to the damp and mould in the property.

The representative has reported that damp and mould has existed in the property for at least five years before the complaint was raised. However, there is no evidence of any report of damp and mould in the property before 13 May 2021. So, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary the landlord was therefore, made aware of the damp and mould from the report made on 13 May 2021.
The landlord did not attend to inspect the property until 3 September 2021, nearly four months later. Although its policy does not provide completion target timeframes for inspections, four months is a significant amount of time. It is evident that the delay was not entirely due to service failures on the landlord’s part. In the two months after the report, the resident missed the first appointment scheduled for 14 June 2021 and the representative rescheduled the second appointment that was booked for 6 July 2021 to 20 July 2021.
The delay in the inspection taking place between 20 July and 3 September 2021, however, was due to the landlord. Its contractor missed the appointment on 20 July 2021 and it was a month before it arranged another appointment for 3 September 2021. In the month before the missed appointment was rearranged, the representative had to follow up with the landlord on 11 August 2021 for an update.
The overall delay was due to actions of both parties but after the landlord became aware that its contractor missed the appointment on 20 July 2021, it was unreasonable that it did not take steps to ensure attendance to the property within a reasonable time after this missed appointment.
The representative’s letter, received by the landlord on 24 June 2021, confirmed that the concern about the condition of the property was so significant that the resident moved out of the property. In light of this information, the landlord was expected to have prioritised an inspection of the property as soon as reasonably possible so that it could assess the condition of the property and confirm whether or not, the property was fit for habitation.
The inspecting officer’s findings from the inspection on 3 September 2021, confirm that there was damp and mould throughout the property. The images taken during the inspection show that the extent of the mould was significant. We have only been able to identify the bathroom and the kitchen from the images provided, but the other images confirm that the mould spread to the extent that it was on the window fixtures (window blinds).
In addition to the pictures showing the mould, the images of the Protimeter readings, provide confirmation that high levels of moisture were detected in some walls in the property although, we could not confirm what rooms these walls were in, from the images provided. The evidence also shows that other repairs were required to the walls, floors and a smoke alarm in the property.
During the inspection and within the response to the complaint, the landlord said that the resident not living in the property was contributing to the damp and mould conditions, because the property was not being heated or ventilated while the resident was absent. It is known that a lack of ventilation and heating to a property can contribute to the presence of mould due to condensation but, it is evident from the extent of the mould shown in the images and the moisture readings found to some of the walls, that the resident having not lived in the property since April 2021 is unlikely to be sole cause of the damp and mould.
The coverage of mould to the kitchen and bathroom specifically, indicates that the mould has existed for an extensive period of time. In addition to this, the moisture readings found in the walls of the property would indicate that there is likely a need for a repair to the structure and/or exterior of the property, which the landlord has a responsibility for.
This Service can see from the notes, that the landlord was notified when it completed the inspection on 3 September 2021, that the resident did not wish to return to the property, was fearful of going back due to the incident with their neighbour and was wanted to move from the property.
Following the inspection, the landlord’s decision to meet with the resident was appropriate because this provided the opportunity for it to explain its findings from the inspection and the remedial repairs required. It also would have provided the opportunity for the landlord to clarify the resident’s position on returning to the property. This was especially necessary given that the landlord had concerns that if repairs were carried out to the damp and mould, and the resident did not return to the property after this, the damp and mould would return if the property was not adequately ventilated and heated. In the event the resident confirmed that they were not willing to return to the property, the landlord could also provide further information about how they could end their tenancy or pursue a move elsewhere.
It is confirmed by both parties’ accounts that the meeting was ended as the resident refused to stop recording after the landlord had asked them to. The landlord’s response to the complaint raised about the staff member’s conduct during this meeting will be assessed separately in this report.
There are no notes to confirm whether the parties had the opportunity to discuss the repairs and the resident’s intentions in returning to the property, as intended during the meeting. Following the meeting, the landlord did not get back in touch with the resident again to progress the repairs until 19 January 2022, four months later. There is also no evidence of the resident or the representative initiating contact with the landlord in this four month period.
The landlord has confirmed that it did not raise repairs for the property because it understood that the resident would not be returning. While its concerns about the resident not returning to the property having an impact on the effectiveness on any repairs it would carry out to address the damp and mould were reasonable, it also had an obligation to repair the property within a reasonable period of time from when it received notice of the issue on 13 May 2021. It was not appropriate that the landlord did not take action to progress the repairs for such a significant period of time after the meeting. This is because, by the time it had the meeting, it had been aware of the repairs for four months and had confirmation that the property was in a poor condition and required extensive repairs.
The landlord also has a duty to enforce the terms of the tenancy, which confirms that a resident must use the property as their principal home and provide access for the landlord to undertake repairs. On being made aware that the resident would not be returning, it is expected that the landlord would have taken reasonable steps to enforce the terms of the tenancy so that it could gain access to the property in order to fulfil its repair obligation. This is particularly because the landlord’s reason for not doing the works, was because it had notification that the resident would not be returning, which would be a breach of their tenancy conditions.
The landlord also did not take the opportunity to take any informal action to work with the resident, to see whether they were willing to change their position on going back to the property. The reason for the resident leaving was due to the condition of the property and the reason given for them not wanting to return, was due a previous alleged incident with their neighbour. Both issues, the landlord may have been able to work with the resident and offer them reassurances as to how it may assist with these issues. The landlord accepted that repairs were required in the property and was willing to do these repairs on the condition that the resident was going to return to the property. In respect of the reported issue with the neighbour, the landlord may have been able to offer the resident support in relation to this including, clarifying the reporting process for any incidents and details about what actions it could offer to assist in the event of any further incidents.
In addition to this, the representative highlighted within their correspondence to the landlord that the resident had mental health vulnerabilities. The landlord did not take steps within the four month period, to seek support from any relevant third party agency.
The landlord was first notified of the damp and mould in May 2021 and after its inspection in September 2021, it found that there was significant damp and mould throughout property. The findings from the inspection in September 2021 as well as the information provided by the representative, confirmed that the damp and mould in the property had been present for a long period of time before the report was made to the landlord on 13 May 2021.The landlord’s lack of proactiveness in progressing the repairs following the meeting on 15 September 2021, was unreasonable.
In its response to the formal complaint, the landlord failed to recognise the delay in it completing the inspection following the report about the damp and mould on 13 May 2021 and the factors which contributed to this. Specifically, the missed appointment on 20 July 2021, and the failure to reschedule the appointment within a reasonable time.
The response recognised that the meeting on 15 September 2021 did not result in any progress regarding the repairs but it offered no proposal as to how the parties could get in touch again so that the repairs could be addressed and the landlord could get confirmation on the resident’s intentions on returning to the property.
In the final response, the landlord said that it had reviewed the history of the repairs and found that no repairs had been reported to it since June 2021. On this basis, it determined that no repairs remained outstanding.
In the same response, it goes on to contradict this as it acknowledged that there was damp and mould in the property. It said that the staff member who inspected the property had explained that the resident’s actions were contributing to the damp and mould conditions, because they were not heating and ventilating the property.
While the explanation that the lack of ventilation and heating to the property was contributing to the conditions, was likely true, the response failed to acknowledge that the inspection found that repairs were required. Specifically, the response dismisses the fact that damp readings were recorded during the inspection, which is an indication that there is possibly, disrepair to the structure or exterior of the property. Given this, it is expected that the landlord would have provided a way forward so that it could resolve these issues.
The response stated that as a result of the resident’s ‘direct action’ damage to the property, any repairs to make the property fit for occupation will be subject to a charge. The landlord did not clarify what damage it was referring to but looking at the images provided there is evidence that other significant repairs were required in the property.
By the time it provided its final response on 16 November 2021, it had been six months since the landlord was first made aware of the damp and mould. Its failure to propose a resolution to the outstanding repairs, take steps to end the tenancy or, offer the resident assistance with a move, is a failure given there is evidence that the damp and mould was a longstanding issue and there were other repairs required to the property. It is clear that the property would not reasonably be considered suitable to occupy with the damp and mould alone so it expected that the landlord would have taken the opportunity within the complaints procedure to propose actions to address this as a matter of urgency.
It is noted that after the resident left the property in April 2021, they were no longer directly impacted by its condition. After the meeting on 15 September 2021, the resident or the representative also did not make any attempt to pursue the landlord regarding the repairs and they did not take action to end the tenancy themselves despite confirming that the resident was not planning to return.
This Service has been made aware by the landlord that when it contacted the resident in January 2022, to progress the repairs it was notified that the resident was adamant that they would not be returning to the property. On receipt of this, it sent the resident with a notice to quit form. Two months later, the representative informed that the resident no longer wished to end their tenancy but wanted assistance with a move. There is evidence that following this, the landlord did provide information on what options the resident had to pursue a move and also managed their expectations on the likelihood of this being successful, as the resident had rent arrears. It was appropriate that the landlord did this at the time however, it missed the opportunity to do so at an earlier stage.
The resident’s reluctance to return to the property, whilst understandable, has been a contributory factor in the repairs not progressing but the landlord also did not take the appropriate action to address this. I therefore find that there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the report of damp and mould.
As part of the complaint, it was noted that the resident was seeking compensation, including for their personal belongings which they said had been damaged from the mould. The landlord did not consider compensation as it did not consider there to be any legal liability.
While the Ombudsman cannot establish liability or calculate damages for damage to the resident’s damaged belongings or their health, the Ombudsman does take into account a resident’s particular circumstances including health conditions when assessing the landlord’s handling of repairs and other complaints and considering appropriate compensation. The Ombudsman has made an order of compensation, set out below, taking in to account the service failures in dealing with the damp and mould repair and the Ombudsman’s own Remedies Guidance.
The representative has indicated that the compensation sought, is in relation to the resident having to live in the damp and mould conditions for at least five years before the complaint was raised. In addition to this, compensation is sought for the resident’s personal belongings that the representative said they threw away when they had tried to clean the damp themselves.
There is no evidence of any reports being made about the damp and mould before 13 May 2021. The representative’s letter to the landlord on 24 June 2021, confirms that they threw away the resident’s belongings prior to 13 May 2021. As there is no evidence that the landlord was made aware of the damp and mould issue before 13 May 2021, it is not reasonable to expect it to assess compensation for the period prior to this.
In addition to this, the resident moved out of the property in April 2021, before the report of damp and mould was made to the landlord. From April 2021 onwards, the resident was not directly impacted by the conditions of the property as they were no longer living there.
Taking this into account, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord should pay compensation for its overall handling of repairs, which contributed to the repairs being outstanding for a total of six months by the time it provided the final response to the complaint. This includes the delay in inspecting the property, as a result of the missed appointment on 20 July 2021 and its failure to progress the extensive repairs as a matter of urgency following the meeting on 15 September 2021.

The response to the complaint about the conduct of the landlord’s staff during the meeting on 15 September 2021.

This complaint relates to the conduct of the landlord’s staff who attended the meeting with the resident on 15 September 2021. To respond to this aspect of the resident’s complaint, the landlord considered information it received from the members of staff who attended to the meeting.
The meeting was terminated by the landlord’s staff because the resident refused to stop recording the meeting after they confirmed that they did not give consent for the meeting to be recorded. It is not disputed by the representative that the resident refused to stop recording when they were asked to.
If the resident wanted to record the meeting, they would be expected to have sought consent in advance from the landlord’s staff as they have a right to privacy. From the evidence provided from both parties, it clear that the resident did not request permission before they started recording.
The representative has explained that the reason for the recording was for evidence, safety and so that they could refer back to the video due to the resident’s hearing impairment. While the reasons given for recording the meeting are not unreasonable, the resident was expected to inform the landlord’s staff in advance so they could discuss the request and offer an alternative to video recording the meeting such as minutes or a summary of what the parties discussed, as necessary.
The landlord responded to the concerns raised about the conduct of its staff during the meeting appropriately. It relied on the feedback from the members of staff and clarified why the decision was made to end the meeting. In addition to the resident’s refusal to stop recording, it noted that the resident’s behaviour was considered unreasonable, because they behaved aggressively from the outset and did not give staff the opportunity to discuss the concerns.
The representative’s account of events state that the resident was talking loudly due to a hearing impairment. They also reported that the housing officer referred to the resident as being animated and aggressive. This Service is not able to determine whether or not the resident behaved in unreasonable way.
Whilst the landlord’s response to the complaints about the staff conduct during the meeting offered clarity on the reasons why the meeting was terminated, the response did not provide any resolution to the relationship breakdown between the landlord’s members of staff, the resident and the resident’s representative. This was not reasonable. The landlord acknowledged that what transpired during the meeting meant that the parties were not able to agree a way forward on the outstanding repairs or the resident’s wish to leave the property permanently. The complaints procedure was the landlord’s opportunity to restore a more positive landlord and resident relationship, so that they could progress toward a resolution with the matter. The landlord did not take the opportunity within the complaints procedure to do this, by way of offering support to the resident in how they could work together in the future to address the repairs and the resident’s query about moving.
The impact of the landlord not offering a proposal within its response, to move matters forward after the meeting, is significant. The repairs were not addressed urgently as they should have been, the resident continued to be in breach of their tenancy as they were not using the property as their principal home and they made it clear that they did not want to return and the landlord did not contact the resident again until four months after the final response. Therefore, the response failed to provide any resolution to the outstanding matters.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s response to the complaint about the conduct of its staff members.

Reasons

When the landlord was made aware of the repair on 13 May 2021, it took four months to inspect the property. Part of this was due to the landlord missing an appointment which it did not acknowledge in its response to the complaint. After it terminated the meeting on 15 September 2021, it did not take any steps to reconcile with the resident so that it could progress matters until four months later. By the time it got in contact with the resident on 19 January 2022, the repairs were outstanding for a total of eight months.
The landlord recognised that there was significant damp and mould to the property and it noted that the resident was in breach of the tenancy, but it offered no resolution to progress significant repairs the property required nor did it take any action address the fact that the tenant was breaching the conditions of their tenancy. Given the landlord’s obligation to address the severity of the property condition and the fact that it offered no resolution within its complaint response, so that the matters could progress, the landlord’s overall actions were unreasonable.
In regard to the landlord’s response to the complaint about the conduct of its members of staff during the meeting on 15 September 2021, the landlord relied on information from the staff members involved and provided a reasonable explanation for why the meeting was terminated.
The finding of maladministration in its response the complaint is due to the landlord not providing any resolution to restore its relationship with the resident after the meeting was terminated. It was aware that the meeting that took place was terminated due to tension between the parties, and that communication between the parties after the meeting had reached an impasse. Despite this, the landlord offered no way forward, for it and the resident to get back in touch so that it could address the repairs it had identified and the issue of the resident not wishing to return to the property. The lack of effort by the landlord to restore the relationship compounded the maladministration in the landlord’s overall handling of the repair matters.

Orders and recommendations

In light of the failings identified in this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident a total of £550 comprising of:

a. £50 in recognition of the delay in completing the inspection of the property as a result of the missed appointment.

b. £300 for the landlord’s failure to take action so that it could progress the repair to the damp and mould within a reasonable period of time, following the termination of the meeting on 15 September 2021.

c. £200 for the maladministration in its response to the complaint about the staff members.

The landlord is to confirm to this Service once the payment has been made to the resident.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord review the Special Report that the Ombudsman published about it in January 2023 and consider the recommendations made within that report relative to this case. Specifically, the recommendations that the landlord:

a. Take a pro-active approach to repairs, making best use of void periods and intelligence to tackle problems before they arise.

b. Undertake a new self-assessment against the Code explaining the actions it intends to take to address areas of non-compliance.

It is understood that the landlord is already currently working with the Ombudsman in the implementation of the recommendations made, including those noted above.