The new improved webform is online now! Residents and representatives can access the form online today.

Birmingham City Council (202213968)

Back to Top

 

A blue and grey text Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202213968

Birmingham City Council

22 January 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s handling of:
    1. The resident’s concerns relating to the energy efficiency of the property, and reports of high heating costs.
    2. The resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom.
    3. The resident’s reports of repairs in the kitchen, and the request for a kitchen replacement.
    4. The resident’s reports of repairs to the bedroom window.
  2. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaints handling.

Background

  1. The resident has occupied the property since May 2019 under a secure tenancy. The tenancy was terminated on 15 October 2023.
  2. From April 2022, the resident reported multiple repairs to her toilet, a leak in the bathroom, electrics and bedroom windows from. All were attended by the landlord and either completed or no access was gained. Follow on works were required after the bathroom leak, namely a carpenter to replace the bath panel, a plumber to reseal the bath and shelving and an electrician to assess for an extractor fan.
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 19 August 2022. She advised that repairs had been ongoing for months leaving damage to three rooms within her property. She stated her kitchen and bathroom were dysfunctional and outdated and enquired about an upgrade. She advised that multiple operatives had attended her property regarding leaks and she had been advised not to use her bath for two weeks while awaiting a repair meaning she would be unable to wash, she had to contact the landlord and provide personal information to have the appointment brought forward. She stated that an operative had attended and advised her that the bathroom was covered in mould and condensation and suggested an extractor fan and sealant. The resident stated she had ripped up her living room carpet due to a leak and her replacement laminate flooring was now warped and her living room ceiling was brown.
  4. The resident further stated that she had to remove her bathroom flooring and the floor underneath was soft and damp. The resident stated she had reported broken windows within her property multiple times but had no response. She stated that she had reported a long list of repairs months prior and never heard anything back. The resident advised of her poor mental health and stated that the constant chasing of repairs leaves her with anxiety. She further advised that the cupboards in her kitchen were hanging off and the shelving was unstable. She stated the kitchen cupboards were damp and rotting.
  5. The resident chased a response on 13 September 2022 as did her local councillor. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 October 2022. It stated that the resident’s property was not part of the programme for bathroom and kitchen upgrades during that financial year and signposted the resident to report any outstanding repairs.
  6. The resident approached the Ombudsman for assistance with escalation of the complaint. The Service wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2022 advising of the escalation and requesting a response by 22 December 2022. The Service wrote to the landlord again on 3 January 2023 asking for a response by 10 January 2023. The Service wrote to the landlord for a final time on 11 January 2023 with a final deadline of 18 January 2023.
  7. The landlord provided its stage two response on 18 January 2023. It acknowledged that the stage one response had failed to address all of the relevant issues brought within the initial complaint. It apologised for the lack of information provided and continued delays. The landlord acknowledged that it had tried to call the resident to discuss the issues but she had been unwilling to have a conversation at that time. It stated that this was understandable given her recent experiences with itself. The landlord confirmed that the resident’s property was not part of that years investment programme and as such no kitchen or bathroom upgrade would be considered. It stated that this did not deny any refurbishment work to the existing kitchen units if this was necessary. The landlord confirmed that it had no reports of repairs needed to the resident’s kitchen since March 2020.
  8. The landlord went on to confirm that multiple visits had been made to the resident’s property to rectify bathroom leaks. It stated records show a plumber attended on 10 June 2021 and being unable to identify a leak under the bath, basin or toilet. The plumber did site use of a shower adapter which was leaving water residue on the bath sealant and wall and advised the resident to discontinue use of the apparatus. The landlord stated the bath was inspected on 16 August 2022 and it was identified that the sealant on both the bath and nearby shelving needed replacement, the bath panel needed replacement and a further inspection was required to consider installation of an extractor fan.
  9. The landlord acknowledged an administration error had prevented completion of these works following the plumbers visit on 24 August 2022. The landlord apologised for this “inexcusable error”. It confirmed that work orders had been raised in an effort to rectify this error. On 16 October 2022 a leak to the kitchen sink was rectified and there had been no reports of any leak to a kitchen pipe since September 2021. The landlord confirmed it had been unable to gain access to fit the new bath panel. It stated it was unclear as to whether the resident’s laminate flooring in the living room had been damaged due to a leak or if the damage was being anticipated.
  10. Regarding the bedroom window, the landlord had attended on 13 October 2022 and completed the repair. The landlord stated it was concerned about the lack of progress made in the installation of an extractor fan. It stated it was unclear at this stage as to whether mould growth had been identified within the resident’s property but it would need to apply preventative measures to ensure no reoccurrence of damp to the bathroom. The landlord stated this would be discussed with senior management and feedback provided to the resident. The landlord stated the resident’s experience had led to a breakdown in communication.
  11. The landlord acknowledged that the resident’s experience with it’s call centre had been degrading. Regarding the list of reported repairs and no response, the landlord stated that had the resident not received an automated response it is likely the information was not uploaded correctly. The landlord stated the resident was due a sincere apology for its failure to not provide her with a satisfactory response at stage one. The landlord concluded that it would like to inspect the resident’s property to assess the extent of disrepair and would instruct its repair team as required. It asked the resident to confirm, via email, that she would be happy to allow access for an inspection.
  12. The resident remains dissatisfied with the outcome of the complaint and by way of resolution had requested repairs to the bathroom and kitchen along with compensation. As the resident is no longer living in the property the resolution of repairs is no longer viable.

Assessment and findings

Jurisdiction

  1. What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint, or part of a complaint, will not be investigated.
  2. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the following aspect of the complaint sits outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
    1. The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the energy efficiency of the property, and reports of high heating costs.
  3. Paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme states that will not investigate complaints that are made prior to having exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure. It is noted that the resident’s concern regarding the energy efficiency and heating costs of her home did not form part of the initial complaint. As such, the landlord has not been given a fair opportunity to respond to the matter. Therefore, the Ombudsman will not be investigating this matter as it has not exhausted the landlord’s complaints procedure.

Scope of Investigation

  1. The resident has reported that repairs have been ongoing for a significant period of time. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate matters that are not brought to the attention of a landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within six months of the matter arising. Therefore, this investigation will focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs issues from 19 February 2022, that being six months prior to the resident’s initial complaint, and the final complaint response, issued 18 January 2023. However, actions taken by the landlord outside of this period may be referred to in this report for context.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom

  1. The landlord’s repairs policy classifies emergency repairs as repairs where there is a danger of injury or damage to the property, these types of repairs are completed within 2 hours. It classifies urgent repairs as repairs that are concerned with protecting the health and safety of the tenant and their family or the security of the property, these types of repairs are completed within 1, 3 or 7 days. All other repairs are classed as routine and completed within 30 days unless specialist materials are required.
  2. On 24 April 2022 the resident reported damage to her toilet cistern. The landlord attended on the 16 May 2022 but was unable to gain access. A card was left asking the tenant to make contact to reschedule but no contact was made. As such the job was cancelled on 19 May 2022. The landlord attended the reported repair 22 days following the initial report, this is within the timeframe set out in its repairs policy. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman does not make clear whether the resident was made aware of the no access appointment on 16 May 2022. As the resident did not make contact with the landlord to rearrange the appointment it would be unfair to expect the landlord to have taken any further action.
  3. The resident reported a leak to the toilet pan on 22 July 2022. The landlord classed this as an emergency repair and attended same day. Parts were needed so a follow up appointment was required. The landlord called the resident on 25 July 2022 to arrange an appointment on 27 July 2022. As the resident did not answer, a voicemail was left. The landlord was unable to gain access on 27 July 2022. A card was left asking the resident to make contact however no contact was made. As such the job was cancelled on 1 August 2022. Again, as the resident did not make contact with the landlord to rearrange the appointment it would be unfair to expect the landlord to have taken any further action.
  4. On 11 August 2022, the resident reported a leak within the toilet. The landlord classed this as an urgent repair and attended the following day. The job was completed at the first appointment. This was appropriate action and in line with the landlord’s repairs policy.
  5. On 16 August the resident reported a leak coming from the shower. The landlord attended same day and reported that follow up work would be required, namely a plumber to reseal the bath and nearby shelving unit, a carpenter to fit a new bath panel as the current one was damp and an electrician to assess for an extractor fan due to condensation.
  6. The resident has advised the Ombudsman that she was told not to use the bath until the plumber had attended to re-seal it. The plumbing appointment was made for 5 September 2022,  20 days following the initial report. The resident advised the landlord that she needed to wash, so the appointment was brought forward to 24 August 2022. This type of repair would be expected to be considered as an urgent repair, as the resident’s ability to clean herself was compromised. As such, the landlord’s initial appointment of 5 September 2022 was not appropriate. It was brought forward by 12 days which was the appropriate action to take, however the resident should not have needed to request this change. Similarly, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, a wait of 8 days is still significant when use of bathing facilities are limited.
  7. The resident raised a formal complaint on 19 August 2022. She advised that numerous operatives had attended her property to look at her leaking bath. An operative had attended that week and advised that there was mould and condensation so an extractor fan should be installed and the sealant be renewed. The resident was unhappy that she had to provide personal information in order to have the bath repair works brought forward. An appointment was made to have a new bath panel fitted but there was uncertainty surrounding the extractor fan. The resident stated she had removed the bathroom flooring and the underneath was soft and damp, she feared this may collapse. She also stated she had ripped up her living room carpet due to a leak and her replacement laminate flooring was now warped.
  8. When a report of disrepair is made, the landlord is expected to act on said report. If the extent of disrepair is not known, the landlord is responsible for conducting an adequate investigation to assess any damage and complete any appropriate repairs. As such, the landlord would be expected to investigate the issue surrounding the resident’s living room flooring. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord may not be responsible for the repair of flooring installed by the resident. However, if the resident suggests damage may have been caused due to the landlord’s inaction, it would be expected to assess this.
  9. The Ombudsman had seen no evidence to suggest the landlord attempted to investigate the issue regarding the resident’s living room. In its stage two response, it stated it was unclear as to whether the resident’s laminate flooring in the living room had been damaged due to a leak or if the damage was being anticipated. While this may have been true, it was the responsibility of the landlord to confirm this. It was not appropriate to simply say it did not know.
  10. An appointment to have the bath panel fitted was made for 16 September 2022. That being said, the landlord has advised of an administrative error that affected both this appointment and the assessment for an extractor fan. The appointment went ahead on 20 September 2022, the landlord was unable to gain access. A card was left asking the resident to make contact however no contact was made. As such the job was cancelled on 26 September 2022. Again, as the resident did not make contact with the landlord to rearrange the appointment it would be unfair to expect the landlord to have taken any further action.
  11. Landlords must ensure that the accommodation they provide is free from serious hazards, including damp and mould, and that homes are fit for habitation. They must treat cases of damp and mould with the utmost seriousness. Furthermore, the landlord has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS), introduced by the Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth pose a health risk to residents and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a health hazard that may require prompt remedy.
  12. The evidence seen by the Ombudsman would suggest that the first report of damp and mould made by the resident was within her initial complaint on 19 August 2022. The resident then reiterated her report of damp and mould within the bathroom during a phone call with the landlord’s repairs team on 13 September 2022.
  13. In its stage two response, the landlord advised it was unclear as to whether mould growth had been identified within the resident’s property but it would need to apply preventative measures to ensure no reoccurrence of damp within the bathroom. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord’s own officers had not reported mould within the resident’s property, however the resident had made the landlord aware of damp and mould twice and an officer of the landlord had reported damp within the bathroom. As such, the landlord would have been expected to investigate the reports of damp and mould as soon as they were made aware and apply preventative measures if necessary.
  14. It is equally of concern that the installation of an extractor fan was proposed as a means of overcoming condensation and damp within the bathroom. The Ombudsman is aware of an administration error that prevent this from going ahead. However, the resident contacted the landlord on numerous occasions to request an update and was repeatedly not provided with one. This gave the landlord numerous opportunities to recognise its error and correct it. The Ombudsman acknowledges that an electrician did attend the resident’s property after the landlord became aware of the error, however the extractor fan recommendation was not processed as a result of this visit. This was not appropriate.
  15. As the landlord took no steps to assess the damp and mould, the Ombudsman is not aware of it’s extent, however the resident advises that it was significant. The landlord’s repairs policy does not stipulate whether a report of damp and mould would be classed as routine, urgent or emergency. As a minimum the landlord would be expected to investigate within the routine repair timeframe of 30 days. The Service has seen no evidence of the landlord acting on the resident’s reports of damp and mould or it’s officer’s report of damp. This was not appropriate.
  16. On 23 December 2022 the landlord raised a job to have the bath panel replaced. This was cancelled on 16 January 2023. The evidence seen by the Service does not provide clarity as to why the job was cancelled and no other jobs were raised for the resident’s bathroom between the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses.
  17. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the landlord had raised and completed numerous jobs to the resident’s bathroom in the six months prior to her original complaint. Even so, with the resident’s reports of disrepair through her initial complaint, it would have been appropriate for the landlord to investigate this. The Service has seen no evidence of any form of investigation into the disrepair as a response to the resident’s initial complaint.
  18. The landlord provided its stage two response on 18 January 2023. It apologised for failing to address all relevant issued within its stage one response. The landlord confirmed that numerous visits had been made to rectify bathroom leaks. It stated records show a plumber had attended on 21 June 2021 and was unable to identify a leak under the bath, basin or toilet, they had, however, stated that the resident was using a shower adaptor that was leaving water residue on the bath sealant and wall and was likely to be the cause of water pooling in the area. The resident had been advised to discontinue use of the apparatus.
  19. The landlord confirmed that a later inspection of the bath on 16 August 2022 had identified a need for sealant replacement to both the bath and  a nearby shelving unit along with a replacement bath panel as the current one was damp. At the same inspection it had also been recommended that a further inspection took place to assess for an extractor fan due to condensation. The landlord confirmed a plumber attended on 24 August 2022 and following this visit it, explained it had suffered an administration error which had prevented completion of the remaining works. The landlord apologised for what it classed as an “inexcusable error”.
  20. The landlord went on to state that “in what appears to be an effort to rectify this error” repair orders had been raised to check electrics within the property, rectify the bath panel and fix a kitchen sink leak. It confirmed the electrician had attended on 20 September 2022 and provided no feedback regarding the installation of an extractor fan. It confirmed that it had been unable to gain access to fit the new bath panel in September and it had received reports that the resident was refusing access and requesting further works. The landlord went on to state that it was concerned with the lack of progress made in the installation of an extractor fan. The landlord suggested an inspection of the resident’s property to assess the disrepair reported and asked the resident to confirm, via email, if she would allow access for this.
  21. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest an inspection of the property given the extent of the reported disrepair. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have arranged said inspection once it become aware of this disrepair, this would be when the initial complaint was made.
  22. Ultimately, the landlord responded to repairs reported via usual channels, either within an appropriate timeframe or no access was given and the jobs were cancelled, this was appropriate. The landlord did not respond appropriately to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. It did not conduct any investigation into the extent of the problem and failed to follow up on recommendations made to mitigate the issue. The landlord also did not respond or take any appropriate action upon the resident’s initial reports of disrepair to the property.
  23. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have provided some sort of redress as a result of the failings it recognised during the internal complaints process, however, no redress was forthcoming.
  24. The Ombudsman is aware that further repair works were completed to the resident’s bathroom after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been completed. These included repairs to the floorboards and bath panel. It is not clear to the Ombudsman, if any further repair works were outstanding to the bathroom when the resident ended her tenancy.
  25. The Service acknowledges that the resident is no longer a tenant within the property. As such no orders or recommendations will be made regarding further repair works or inspections to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the kitchen, and the request for a kitchen replacement

  1. Social housing landlords are required to ensure their properties meet the Decent Homes Standard. A property fails to meet the Decent Homes Standard (and therefore the Regulator of Social Housing’s ‘Home Standard’) if it lacks three or more of the following facilities:
    1. A kitchen which is 20 years old or less;
    2. A kitchen with adequate space and layout;
    3. A bathroom which is 30 years old or less;
    4. An appropriately located bathroom and WC;
    5. Adequate external noise insulation; and
    6. Adequate size and layout of common entrance areas for blocks of flats.
  2. Given the circumstances of this case, the Ombudsman has sought to determine whether the landlord responded to the resident’s reports of problems with the kitchen in a reasonable manner. In deciding whether a kitchen should be replaced, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to take into account:
    1. The condition of the kitchen;
    2. Whether the kitchen meets the Decent Homes Standard (in relation to its age, space and layout).
  3. The resident made a formal complaint on 19 August 2022. She advised that her kitchen was dysfunctional and outdated and enquired as to whether it could be updated. She stated the kitchen cupboards were broken and hanging off and the shelves were held up by tins. She advised that tiles were missing from the wall behind the cooker and live electrical wires ran next to the pipe for the washing machine. The resident stated that the kitchen cupboards were damp and rotting due to leaks under the kitchen sink. She advised of a hole in one of the kitchen cupboards which led directly outside which was causing her utensils to become dirty.
  4. On 16 October 2022 the resident reported a leak under her kitchen sink. The landlord responded and completed the repair same day. This was the only repair within the kitchen that was logged prior to the landlord’s stage one response.
  5. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 October 2022, it advised that the resident’s property was not on the capital investment programme for 2022/23 meaning a kitchen upgrade would not take place. It advised that it had a large stock of over 60,000 properties and a limited budget so it was not possible to invest in the full housing stock in a single year. It explained that it had a team who were carrying out stock condition surveys and at present they were prioritising inter war properties a these had the poorest layouts. Following this it planned to survey pre-war properties, then early to late post-war properties. It stated that it understood this would be frustrating to the resident however it aimed to upgrade the properties in most need. It advised that all properties would eventually be surveyed, and the resident would be contacted to arrange an appointment for said survey when her property entered the programme. It advised that in the meantime all repairs should be reported through usual channels and provided the appropriate contact number. The landlord did not address any of the reported disrepair.
  6. No repairs were logged for the kitchen between the landlord’s stage one and stage two responses.
  7. In its stage two response, dated 18 January 2023, the landlord apologised for the lack of information provided in its stage one response. It confirmed that although the resident’s property was not on the list for upgrade this did not deny any refurbishment works to the kitchen units if this was needed. The landlord stated that while the resident had reported her kitchen to be “falling apart” in her initial complaint she had not reported any issues with the kitchen units since March 2020. The landlord suggested an inspection of the resident’s property to assess the disrepair reported and asked the resident to confirm, via email, if she would allow access for this.
  8. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident had not reported any kitchen defects to the landlord in the six months prior to her original complaint. As such it would have been appropriate for the landlord to accept her initial complaint as a service request for repairs to the kitchen. The Service has seen no evidence of any repair works to the kitchen being raised as a response to the resident’s initial complaint.
  9. It was appropriate for the landlord to suggest an inspection of the property given the extent of the reported disrepair. However, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to have arranged said inspection once it become aware of this disrepair, this would be when the initial complaint was made.
  10. Regarding the resident’s request for a kitchen upgrade, given that the resident’s kitchen did not meet the age for a replacement, it was not inappropriate for the landlord to initially refuse the request. However, the Service would expect the landlord to confirm the condition of the kitchen during the suggested inspection, to ensure it met the Decent Homes Standard.
  11. Ultimately the landlord did not initially take any practical measures in its response to the resident’s reports of disrepair to her kitchen. It acknowledged this in its stage two response but did not provide any redress for delays. This was a missed opportunity to put things right.
  12. The Ombudsman is aware that further repair works were completed to the resident’s kitchen after the landlord’s internal complaints process had been completed.
  13. The Service acknowledges that the resident is no longer a tenant within the property. As such no orders or recommendations will be made regarding further repair works or inspections to the property.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bedroom window

  1. In the resident’s initial complaint, she stated that she had reported broken windows within her property multiple times but had no response.
  2. During the considered period, the resident made one report of window repairs. On 16 August 2022 the resident reported two windows that did not open in each of her two bedrooms. The landlord classed this as a routine repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to class this as a routine repair as it did not concern the health and safety of the tenant or security of the property.
  3. The repair was completed on 13 October 2022, 58 days following the initial report of the repair. This is outside of the 30 days period set out in the landlord’s repairs policy and was not appropriate.
  4. At stage two the landlord confirmed the window repair had been completed. The landlord should have used this opportunity to acknowledge the delay in the repair and provide appropriate redress. This would have shown the resident that it had taken her complaint seriously and was looking to put things right.

The landlord’s complaints handling

  1. The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code is a guidance document that sets out the Ombudsman’s expectations for how landlords should handle complaints. It states landlords must respond to a stage one complaint within 10 working days and a stage two complaint within 20 working days, with any delays communicated and not exceeding an additional ten working days without good reason.
  2. The resident raised her initial complaint on 18 August 2022. The resident then chased a response on 13 September 2022. The landlord provided its stage one response on 18 October 2022, 42 working days following the initial complaint. This is not in line with either landlord’s complaints procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  3. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord on 24 November 2022 requesting an escalation to stage two. The Ombudsman contacted the landlord again on 3 January 2023, chasing a response. The Ombudsman made contact with the landlord once again on 11 January 2023 as no response had been received. The landlord provided its stage two response on 18 January 2023, 36 working days after the request for escalation. This is not in line with the landlord’s complaint procedure or the Ombudsman’s complaint handling code.
  4. The Service has seen no evidence of the landlord making the resident aware of any delays, to either the stage one or stage two response. Had it done so it would have let the resident know the complaint was being taken seriously and would have saved her the time and trouble of having to chase a response.
  5. The Service expects landlords to conduct a full investigation into all formal complaints in a timely and concise manner. By failing to do this the landlord not only added to the resident’s distress, inconvenience and time and trouble, but also delayed the process of allowing the resident to escalate their complaint to the Ombudsman.
  6. The complaint handling code states “Landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate”.
  7. At stage one the landlord did not acknowledge or provide any response to the resident’s reported disrepair within her property. This is not in line with the complaints handling code. Had the landlord provided a full response at stage one, it may have prevented the resident from having to raise the complaint to stage two and could have allowed for early resolution.

Determination

  1. In accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns relating to the energy efficiency of the property, and reports of high heating costs is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the bathroom.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs in the kitchen, and the request for a kitchen replacement.
  4. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs to the bedroom window.
  5. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within four weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord is;
    1. To pay the resident £500
      1. £250, in recognition of the landlord’s failure in handling the resident’s reports of repairs to the bathroom.
      2. £100, in recognition of the landlord’s failure in handling the resident’s reports of repairs to the kitchen.
      3. £50, in recognition of the landlord’s failure in handling the resident’s reports of repairs to the bedroom window.
      4. £100, in recognition of the landlord’s complaint handling failures.

Recommendations

  1. It is recommended that the landlord review the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould and ensure that its staff are aware of it’s procedures when handling reports of damp and mould within properties.