Bolton at Home Limited (202128095)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202128095

Bolton at Home Limited

29 November 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

1. The complaint is about the landlord’s:
   1. Handling of repairs including damp and mould throughout the resident’s property.
   2. Response to the damage caused to household items at the property, the impact on her health and an injury sustained.
   3. Response to reports of fly-tipping and pest infestations at the property.
2. The Ombudsman has also investigated the landlord’s complaint handling.

Jurisdiction

3. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. When a complaint is brought to us, we must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
4. After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(f) of the scheme, the following matter is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction:
   1. Response to the damage caused to household items, impact on her health, and injury sustained.
5. Paragraph 42 (f) of the scheme states that the Ombudsman will not investigate complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, concern matters where the Ombudsman considers it fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure.
6. When the resident raised her complaint, she had raised concerns about the damp and mould in the property affecting her health, causing damage to her furniture, and causing injury. The resident made a claim to the landlord’s insurer for the damage to her property. She was also provided with the opportunity to make a further claim to the landlord’s insurer for the injury she suffered.
7. The Ombudsman acknowledges that this situation has been distressing for the resident, however, these aspects of the resident’s complaint require a determination of liability by the landlord’s insurer or through the courts for personal injury. Claims of personal injury, including damage to health, can be considered via a landlord’s public liability insurance, or in a court of law. Such claims will take into consideration medical evidence and allegations of negligence. These matters fall outside of the Ombudsman’s remit, and the resident may wish to seek independent advice. Consideration has however been given to any adverse effect, including distress and inconvenience which the resident experienced as a result of any identified failures by the landlord.

Background and summary of Events

Background

8. The resident was an assured tenant in a 2 bedroom ground floor flat. Her tenancy began in August 2020 and ended in April 2022 following a management move to another of the landlord’s properties. The resident lives with Constructive Obstructive Pulmonary Disease (COPD), mental health conditions, and mobility restrictions which affect her right arm.
9. The tenancy agreement states that the landlord will keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property (including gutters and external pipes), the installations for supply of water and for sanitation (including baths which it installed), in line with section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It also states that the resident is responsible for keeping her garden tidy and free from rubbish. It advises that she is responsible for the contents of her home and that she should consider taking out content’s insurance. It also tells her that both her or any visitors must make every reasonable effort to keep the home free from vermin, not fly-tip, and keep the communal area clean and reasonably tidy.
10. The landlord’s repairs policy states that the landlord will respond to emergency repairs within 24 hours where there is risk to property or welfare. It would respond to urgent repairs within 7 days and routine repairs within 21 days. Responsibility for repairs to water and drainage services, external pipes and gutters is placed on the landlord. It is also responsible for external windows including fittings. It will make the window secure, but residents are responsible for re-glazing. It states the resident is responsible for providing access to the property to both it and its contractors for completing repairs, maintenance, and other works. It states residents are responsible for keeping the interior of the property and gardens in good, clean condition.
11. The repairs policy states that it may recharge residents for some works but does not detail when works will be refused due to outstanding charges. It mentions that the landlord has a damp and condensation policy. A copy of this was not provided to us, but a search of the landlord’s website states that it aims to prioritise the removal of risk for damp and mould by cleaning mould on its first visit and gathering information for follow-up work to resolve the underlying causes. It is unclear if this was in place when the resident initially raised her complaint to the landlord.
12. The landlord’s complaints policy states it will aim to provide an acknowledgement of receipt within 5 working days. It states it will provide a response to residents within 10 working days at stage 1 and 15 working days at stage 2. If additional time is required at either stage, it would contact the resident and request an extension of no longer than 10 working days.

Summary of events

13. In August 2020, the resident raised repair issues with the property. She requested new doors for every room and explained she had a leak in the bathroom which had damaged the flooring and bath panel. It had also caused mould to the walls and flooring. She raised health and safety concerns with the condition of the garden as it was overgrown at the front and back. The landlord discussed her repair requests internally and identified it had attended her property for a prearranged appointment but could not gain access. During an internal discussion on 14 August 2020, it commented and said if she did not like the property, she should not have accepted it. It then attended again on 19 August 2020, assessed the leak, and agreed with the resident to return when it had the materials to complete repairs to the bathroom the following day. The landlord has not provided this service with any information about what issues were identified, or what works the materials were required for. Upon returning, it could not access the property. It tried to contact her 5 times on her mobile phone and was unsuccessful. The operative also noted they waited in their van but could not gain access.
14. The resident explained to the landlord on 20 August 2020 that the reason she had not attended the initial appointment was because she had a fall in the garden, injured her shoulder and needed to attend the hospital. She said she had “complained” about the garden and asked for it to be rectified as it was dangerous due to being slippery and the steps in the garden were not obvious.
15. The landlord was also informed by the police in December 2020 that the resident’s window had been smashed and needed to be made safe. It attended on the same day and did so by boarding up the window.
16. In September 2021, the resident reported two separate concerns to the landlord, rotten flooring at the bottom of the stairs inside the property and damage to a boarded window. The landlord attended to both matters on the same day and made safe the flooring. It however could not gain access to the resident’s property for the window, it posted a card through her door asking her to rearrange the appointment.
17. In October 2021, the resident contacted the landlord numerous times. She raised a complaint on 4 October 2021, reporting issues with flooding from the kitchen, damp and mould in every room, rotten flooring and items left from the previous resident. She stated had been burgled 3 times due to a broken window. She explained she could not afford to replace the furniture again and raised concerns about a rat infestation. She stated the situation required urgent attention and that she was worried for her child as she should not be expected to live in such conditions. She then requested a move to a different property. It wrote to the resident on the same day, asking her to confirm some details relating to her repair and mould reports. It also asked if she had reported the pest control issue to the local authority.
18. The landlord’s notes state that on 5 October 2021, she reported plastering and tiling was coming off some of the walls and there was black mould, especially in the bathroom.
19. She spoke to the landlord again on 7 October 2021 and said she had contacted it more than 30 times over the year since moving to the property. She also stated she had complained about the conditions she was living in, and the landlord had not helped her. She said she had to let her daughter leave as she could not be expected to live in that manner anymore. She wanted to be compensated for her furniture and decorations as they had all rotted away with damp and mould. She also provided images and reiterated her need for a move.
20. The landlord discussed the resident’s complaint internally and its observations from photographs she provided. It explained the follow up works it had completed during the void period and after the resident moved into the property such as repairing an electric shower and a second garden strimming. It said internally that a job for the bath panel had been cancelled due to it being reported so long after the tenancy commenced. It also provided photographs showing the bath panel was in place after its final clean, prior to her taking possession. It identified the current state of the panel was different to how it was 14 months prior. It also highlighted that during a visit, there had been some furniture at the back of the property which the resident said belonged to her. She said it had been moved to the garden by someone while she was temporarily away from the property, and the landlord believed the property to be abandoned. It explained it had signposted her to organisations which could help her with obtaining furniture as well as financial challenges she was experiencing.
21. The landlord told the resident in October 2021 that it was looking into her query about a priority move. She then contacted it a few days later about the move. She said that she was frightened, and her health was affected by the property. She said the mould had worsened her breathing difficulties and there had been an increase in her medication. She also answered the questions raised by the landlord about her property when it attempted to contact her on 4 October 2021. She reiterated the matters she had raised about the damage to the property. She further reported she felt although she had placed a board over the rotted flooring, it was only a matter of time before she fell through it. She raised issues with the washer area, the bathroom being flooded from the previous resident, the garden drains being blocked, and said the floor was slippery. She disputed that the items outside her property belonged to her and said they had been there rotting for a year and had rats living in it. She told the landlord she had reported the pest matter to the local authority over 8 times, and that she was suffering emotionally and could not cope with being treated the way she was. She reiterated her breathing difficulties, and the fact she wanted to be moved.
22. The landlord provided the resident with a complaint rejection letter on 19 October 2021. It thanked her for providing photographs regarding the various repairs required to her property and of the pest control issue. It explained its understanding of what she wanted it to consider and explained it could not accept her concerns as a formal complaint as:
    1. It related to first-time requests, and its records showed that she reported damage to her floorboards under the stairwell on 1 September 2021. An operative attended on the same day and made it safe. The following work was raised and due to take place on 8 November 2021 and a letter would be sent to confirm this.
    2. Following her contact, a request to glaze the broken window was made and its repairs team would contact her to make an appointment that was convenient for her.
    3. It told her it had photographic evidence which showed the outside of her property, and bathroom from the start date of her tenancy which showed a complete bath panel and no items in the garden. It said she had reported fly-tipping on 5 October 2021, and this was passed over to the relevant team who would contact her regarding the removal of the items.
    4. Since reporting issues on 4 October 2021, she had reported more concerns including an overflowing drain in the garden, leak from the kitchen sink, damp, and mould. It explained it had tried to address these matters but either could not reach her or gain access to the property, and it had left a card to rearrange the appointment. It provided her with the necessary details to rebook the appointments.
    5. Regarding the damp and mould, it stated an inspection had been requested and this was being prioritised and she would be contacted and provided an appointment date.
    6. Regarding the damaged bath panel, a repair was booked on 14 October 2021 to inspect or repair the bath panel, but when it attended nobody was home. It asked her to rebook the appointment.
    7. It explained it was not responsible for infestations in a property unless she was receiving support from its housing services, tenancy sustainment or support officers and she needed to contact the local authority’s pest control team to address the matter.
    8. It had asked its Homefinder team to contact her to discuss the matter further and explained the process for applying for new properties was governed by the local authority. It provided her with their website and signposted her to enable her to seek advice on rehousing.
23. The resident responded on the same day and disputed the landlord’s response about the bath panel and items in the garden. She told the landlord she had reported the danger with the garden and that she had fallen in there, breaking a bone due to a leak and the rubbish and said she should be rehoused. Ten days later, the landlord told her if she remained dissatisfied it would progress the topic as a formal complaint and it would conduct a full investigation.
24. On 9 November 2021, the landlord attempted to complete repairs to the resident’s flooring but could not gain access. It provided the resident with a card through her door and asked her to rearrange the appointment. It also provided its stage 1 response. Its response explained that her complaint was about the bath panel and items left in her front garden. It reiterated its comments from the letter of 19 October 2021 around the bath panel reports, pest infestation and signposting. It further explained:
    1. A final clean of her property was completed in April 2020 and it was at a lettable standard. It included a photograph showing that the bath panel was in place at the start of her tenancy. It said she had reported on 1 September 2021 that the panel was missing 12 months after the two-week void defect period. As a result of this the repair was cancelled.
    2. It attended her property on 3 September 2020 and completed works to her garden. At the time, there were no items in her garden. It also provided photographs of the garden to show that it was at a lettable standard and free from fly tipping. It said there had only been 1 report of fly-tipping at the property and that was on 5 October 2021, and this was her report which it passed onto her neighbourhood safety and enforcement team.
25. The following day, the resident responded, disputing the response, and reiterating her concerns with the property and damage to her belongings. She also discussed the effects of the damp and mould on her health, her injury and asked to be compensated. She made allegations that the landlord was not telling the truth, and she had rectified the matter with the missing bath panel herself. She then raised problems with the shower and said she replaced this herself and it had put her in financial difficulty. She then asked for her complaint to be escalated to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints procedure.
26. On 22 November 2021, the landlord provided its stage 2 response and explained she disagreed with the stage 1 response. It said that her complaint was about the state of the property when she moved in, the type of flooring and that she disputed the pictures of the garden. She also complained of the bathroom being flooded, there was no bath panel, concerns with a broken window and damp conditions in her home. It apologised that she remained dissatisfied and told her its decision remained unchanged. It reiterated its reasons from its stage 1 response, regarding the condition of the property when she moved in. It explained that the length of time which had passed stopped it investigating properly and it found no reason to review the outcome any further. It then said:
    1. It had emailed its damp inspection team chasing an appointment for the inspection of her property and asked them to contact her directly. It would not accept the matter as a formal complaint as it had not been given adequate time to rectify the issue. If she did not hear from the team within 5 working days, she should raise a formal complaint.
    2. Its records indicated that she reported the broken window on 14 October 2021. An operative attended and ensured it was boarded and safe. A job had then been raised for new glass to be fitted. It said it would chase up the work for her and ask them to contact her directly.
    3. It told her without an inspection report, it could not look at any type of compensation as part of a formal complaint. It had however arranged for an insurance claim form to be provided to her so that she could consider a claim with its insurance team. It explained her complaint had come to an end and provided the Ombudsman’s details.

Post complaint

27. The landlord continued to discuss the complaint internally. It looked to identify how it could help the resident further and reviewed its actions around the repairs. It also explained that it found it difficult to contact the resident as she communicated from different email addresses and changed her telephone number frequently. It said that it had tried to attend a job regarding the missing bath panel but could not gain access and chased for the damp and mould inspection. It then asked for a second referral to be made on behalf of the resident for support due to her mention of money worries. It tried to reach her on 23 November 2021 but could not do so.
28. It then subsequently completed the inspection on 28 January 2022, and found that although there were some damp readings at the bottom of the walls, a definite decision could not be made as the resident had not been using the heating in the property due to her financial difficulties. This made it difficult to know if the problem was condensation or damp. It then considered if a move could be accommodated to allow it to deal with the matter while the property was empty. It sent the resident emails in March 2022 trying to arrange appointment and asked her to contact it to confirm an appointment but stated it did not receive a response. It also continued to investigate the resident’s reports and provided her with the necessary insurance forms to allow her to make the necessary claims.
29. The landlord also provided a supplementary stage 2 response on 8 February 2022, following the resident’s continued reports. Within the response it explained the actions it had taken to address her various reports and requests for rehousing. It apologised that there was a delay in advising her of the actions it had taken and explained this was because it was trying to collate information from various sources. It said its acknowledgement should have been provided prior to gathering the information and it had learned from the error. It responded to her comments and:
    1. Reiterated its stage 1 findings around the missing bath panel and fly tipping issue. It also explained that it had requested follow up works to address the resident’s broken window of 28 December 2020 in January 2021. It said due to outstanding chargeable repairs and the COVID-19 national restrictions, the full reglaze to the window was not completed until 18 August 2021. It was unable to deal with emergencies during the lockdown, and as her window was boarded and secure, the job was not deemed as an emergency.
    2. Following the easing of lockdown, it had a large backlog of repairs and difficulty obtaining materials which caused delays to its usual repairs’ timescales. It advised that it was also made aware by a member of the public in June 2021 that the window and door to her property had been left open. An emergency operative arrived on the day it was notified to secure it. It had also been notified by its enforcement team in August 2021 that her property had been left abandoned, was in poor condition and unsecure. It arranged for a board and secure job to be completed as an emergency.
    3. Provided a history of the complaint between August 2020 and October 2021. It also explained the actions it took to address the concerns identified such as securing the property and emergency repairs. The landlord also said when it tried to deal with repairs it was faced with a lack of access on multiple occasions and its operatives posted a card asking her to arrange a convenient time for the repair.
    4. Stated it was unable to find a failure in its service around this issue as she had not tried to rearrange the appointment and asked her to contact it to advise of her availability.
    5. Told her photographs it had provided from 20 September 2020 showed the garden was clear and neatly strimmed.
    6. Explained it had received a report of a flooded back garden with water coming in through the back door and damp throughout the property. An inspection had been booked for 6 January 2022 but when the inspector arrived, they were unable to gain access to complete the inspection. A new appointment was then made for 28 January 2022, and an unknown male permitted access to the property. It apologised for the 2-month delay for the first damp inspection appointment which it could not complete due to no access. It explained there was a backlog caused by the effects of COVID-19 over the last 2 years.
    7. Advised that the resident had emailed it requesting £8000 in compensation for household items that she stated were damaged by damp and mould. It also said it was aware she had submitted a claim to its insurance team for around £20000 for household items stolen and affected by damp and mould and said her claim would be assessed by its insurance team who would liaise with her on the matter.
    8. It partially upheld her complaint due to the fact it did not include the information about her property being abandoned and the condition of the property in its stage 1 response. It also said it could not find any failing by its repairs service as there had been several no access visits to her home.
30. The landlord then confirmed in July 2022 that several repairs were required to the property, including a new kitchen and bathroom, fitting a subfloor vent, and replacement joists and floorboards in areas. It also confirmed that there was mould in every room which needed to be treated.
31. Following the original stage 2 response, between December 2021 and July 2022, the resident continued to raise concerns with the landlord after a management move in April 2022. She identified that the damp issues had worsened due to a leak from her upstairs neighbour’s property.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

32. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has raised numerous repair issues within her communications with the landlord and in her complaint. However, not all these were addressed in the landlord’s complaint response, as such have not exhausted its complaint’s process. No evidence has been provided to this service that the resident previously raised these issues to the landlord, or that there was an inaction by the landlord in completing the repairs, which gave rise for the complaint. These issues appear to be new service requests and as such, we are only able to consider the matters which have exhausted the landlord’s complaints process and that is the focus of this report. The Ombudsman will not be considering concerns relating to missing tiles in the bathroom, the shower, and the reported holes in the living room wall.

Handling of repairs including damp and mould throughout the resident’s former property.

33. The landlord met its repair obligations when it came to making safe the property on a number of occasions. Following reports from both the resident and the police, it boarded the damaged windows changed the locks when it became aware of issues and made safe the flooring within 24 hours in line with its repairs policy.
34. When the landlord was unable to gain access to the resident’s property for prearranged appointments to complete repairs, such as with her bath panel, window, follow on works to the flooring and damp and mould inspection, it appropriately left a card through her door asking her to rearrange the missed appointments. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, its actions were reasonable.
35. It also positively looked to organise support and referrals when the resident mentioned concerns around financial difficulties and a lack of furniture. It also supported her with credit for her gas metre, and when she raised issues of damage and injury, it appropriately referred her to its insurers.
36. Despite these positive actions, there were some failings by the landlord in how it handled the repairs to the resident’s property. It was aware in August 2021 that the property was in “poor condition” but has provided no evidence that it completed an assessment or inspection to identify what actions or repairs it needed to complete at this point.
37. The landlord failed to show that it considered the resident’s vulnerabilities when communicating with her or about her internally. Although it has explained that it offered her support and she engaged intermittently, there is no evidence she was supported throughout her reports of repairs. Had she been supported, several of the concerns might have been resolved at a much quicker pace. Further, the tone of some of its internal communications were inappropriate, lacking in empathy and dismissive of the resident’s concerns, such as its email of 14 August 2020 where it said she should not have taken the property if she was unhappy with it.
38. Although it provided her with opportunities to rearrange appointments, when it did not hear from her, it failed to consider why this was and follow up to ensure repairs were completed promptly. It also failed to consider if it needed to take further action to ensure the resident’s safety in such circumstances. There are two considerations it should have taken around the resident’s safety especially being aware of her vulnerabilities. Firstly, it should have considered the impact of the reported issues on her health. It should then have looked to ensure matters were appropriately rectified in a timely manner. It also needed to consider what actions it could have taken as it was unable to contact her. It could have for example physically attending her property or looked to contact any known support network or family members to ensure her safety. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the failure to take such considerations show a repeated lack of customer focus across several issues raised by the resident. It also led to failed opportunities to resolve several repairs at a much earlier point. This was unacceptable.
39. The landlord’s notes show the resident became emotional during a telephone call with it. She also raised issues around her emotional state and mental health. It failed to provide any evidence that it completed any risk assessments or offered her any support or sign posting to aid her about these specific concerns at the time. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unacceptable.
40. The landlord informed the Ombudsman during its update in November 2023, that it was now aware of its responsibilities in relation to vulnerability and its impact on its ability to access the resident’s property to complete repairs. It advised the steps it had taken to understand how it could better support residents with vulnerabilities and that it had completed a review of its policies to include vulnerability. It had also adapted its complaints policy to reflect that an Equality Act 2010 analysis had been completed. Whilst positive, that the landlord has recognised and acknowledged that there were issues around its handling of the resident’s vulnerabilities, this was significantly after the events.

Window repairs and floorboards

41. There was an 8 month delay between the landlord making the resident’s window safe in December 2020 and reglazing it in August 2021. The landlord states there was a delay due to outstanding recharges, however, in the Ombudsman’s opinion this is unacceptable. The fact that there were outstanding charges is not a satisfactory reason to not complete a repair in a timely manner. There is also no evidence that the resident had been made aware that the outstanding charges were delaying it from completing the works. The Ombudsman would have expected to see that the landlord explained this to the resident. There is also no evidence that the landlord had a clear recharge policy, or that it considered the circumstances, and whether the payments could be made after the repair took place. It did however explain internally that after she provided a crime reference number she was not charged for the works. This caused the resident frustration and distress as she explained she did not feel safe in the property.
42. The landlord has explained that during the lockdown, it was only able to deal with emergencies. As the resident’s window was boarded and secure, it did not deem the outstanding work to be an emergency. While the Ombudsman appreciates the need to comply with regulations, the landlord has provided no evidence which demonstrates that the regulations in force at the time prevented it from repairing the window. The Ombudsman also notes that the Government issued advice on 18 May 2020 that routine repairs to social housing could go ahead in line with the working safely during coronavirus (COVID-19) guidance.
43. The landlord explained that following the easing of COVID-19 restrictions, it was left with a large backlog of repairs and difficulty obtaining materials. This in turn led to delays in its repair’s services. Although it is acknowledged that there were backlogs with the landlord’s repairs service, the 8 month delay in completing the repairs in the Ombudsman’s opinion was unacceptable. The landlord has also failed to demonstrate what actions it took to identify if it could source the materials from alternative sources, asides from its usual providers. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord’s approach was unsatisfactory.
44. The landlord has provided no evidence that it offered the resident any updates on the progress of the reglazing works, despite the delay. It also has not shown that it explained the reason for the delay to her. The Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have provided her with timescales for when the works were likely to be completed to manage her expectations. No evidence has been provided that this was done, and this was unreasonable. This raises concerns about the landlord’s communication around the repairs. The lack of communication would have added to the resident’s frustration and distress.

Bath panel

45. The landlord has produced photographic evidence that the bath panel was in place following completion of its final clean during the void period. The resident also reported on 2 separate occasions between August 2020 and October 2021 that the bath panel was damaged. As such the Ombudsman finds it reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that the panel was not missing when the resident took possession of the property.
46. Once the resident raised issues with damage to the bath panel in August 2020, the landlord appropriately arranged an appointment for the necessary works to be completed within specified timeframes in its policy. However, from the evidence, the works were not completed, due to a lack of access and the matter remained unresolved and was raised 14 months later.

Damp and mould

47. The resident reported concerns of mould in her bathroom in August 2020. Although the landlord arranged for works to be completed in the property, it is unclear if these included an inspection of the mould in the bathroom, or if any follow-on works were completed. Fourteen months later, the resident informed the landlord that there was damp and mould throughout the property. It appropriately tried to gather information about this, but unfortunately there was a delay in the resident’s response.
48. The landlord had identified that there was mould in the resident’s property through a photograph. It has provided no evidence that it did anything to address this such as arranging for it to be cleaned, in line with its damp and condensation policy, referred to in its repairs policy. It also failed to show it provided the resident with appropriate advice or referral to its policy on how to tackle it. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unsatisfactory, especially when considered that it was aware of her breathing difficulties.
49. It took the landlord 3 months to inspect resident’s property following her reports in October 2021. No evidence has been provided by the landlord to support that it provided her with any updates about the delays with the inspection following the stage 2 response. It also has not shown that it provided her with timescales for when she was likely to receive an appointment. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, this was unreasonable, and added to the resident’s frustrations, and caused her distress especially as she had informed the landlord, she had breathing difficulties which were worsening due to the condition of the property. The Ombudsman published a spotlight report on damp and mould in October 2021, an order has been made below for this to be reviewed.
50. The landlord did not reach a conclusive decision on the matter of damp following its inspection. It reasonably decided that a second inspection was required to inform its approach. It has however failed to provide any clear evidence or information about when it completed the inspection which identified the matter was condensation related.
51. In March 2022, the landlord stated internally the inspection had been completed, but then changed its position. It said internally that it had emailed the resident several times and asked her to confirm a convenient date for an appointment. It then confirmed in July 2022 “this has now been inspected”. Based on this it is unclear to the Ombudsman when the final inspection of the property took place which identified the necessary works. The records that the landlord has provided are unclear and suggests, from the evidence, there was a delay of between 2 to 5 month in completing the final inspection to inform the landlord’s position and this was unacceptable. Further, although there were difficulties communicating with the resident, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, the landlord could have done more to ensure an appointment was made. The landlord was aware of difficulties reaching the resident through electronic means, it could have taken action to try and physically reach her, and its failure to do so shows a lack of customer focus.

Drainage and flooding issues

52. Following the resident’s reports of a leak from her kitchen sink, the landlord tried to gather further information when it emailed the resident but could not do so. It then appropriately arranged for an emergency appointment in line with its repairs policy but could not gain entry upon arrival. It also attended again a few weeks later but once more could not gain access to complete the repair. It is unclear if these were preplanned appointments. Although it received no further reports about this issue, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, it should have made attempts to follow up to ensure the matter was fully resolved.
53. The resident also reported problems with flooding from her back garden and explained she was unsure if her drains were blocked. The landlord was unable to contact the resident when it sought further information. Its records show that the job was cancelled, but there is no information provided about why this happened. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unsatisfactory. This caused the resident frustration as she believed the flooding led to issues of damp in the property. It also caused her distress as it saw her raise the matter again following the landlord’s stage 1 response. No evidence has been provided to suggest that this was followed up, inspected, or dealt with by the landlord. In the Ombudsman’s opinion this was unacceptable.
54. In summary, although the landlord acted positively in some instances, there were several failings in its handling of issues with the resident’s property. It was aware that she lived with vulnerabilities which could potentially impact on her ability to communicate effectively with it and failed to consider them. This contributed to unnecessary delays in completing repairs sometimes lasting over a year. Some of its communications about the resident were also dismissive. It failed to act in a timely manner to address concerns of damp and mould in the property, despite her explaining it was impacting on her health, and it was available of her vulnerabilities. Based on this the Ombudsman finds that there has been maladministration.

Response to reports of fly-tipping and pest infestations at the property.

55. The landlord has produced photographic evidence that the garden was free of fly-tipping following its strimming in September 2020, after the resident occupied the property. It also explained that a large item of furniture which was in the resident’s property during a visit in August 2021 was found in the garden. As such the Ombudsman finds it reasonable for the landlord to have concluded that the garden was free of fly tipping when the resident took possession of the property.
56. The landlord explained that the resident confirmed during a visit that the items at the back of the property, belonged to her. It had been placed in the garden by whoever had been there, whilst she was away. It also provided photographs which identified an item of furniture which was previously in the resident’s property, was found situated in the garden. The tenancy agreement and the repairs policy make it clear that the landlord is not responsible for keeping the garden clean and clear of objects belongs to the resident, as well as arranging removal of such items.
57. When the resident raised matters of pest infestations, it appropriately signposted her to the local authority to gain assistance with rectifying the issue. Despite its initial signposting, she continued to raise the matter with it. Potentially, it could have been proactive and assisted her, especially given her vulnerabilities, in making arrangements with the local authority to ensure the problem was suitable resolved in a timely manner.

Complaint handling.

58. The landlord wrote to the resident on the same day as her complaint, requesting information on issues she had raised. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, by requesting further information, about the repair concerns, the landlord informally acknowledged her complaint.
59. The landlord’s approach to handling the resident’s complaint was confusing and in the Ombudsman’s opinion unsatisfactory. It provided a complaint refusal as the concerns raised were first time issues, but then appears to provide a response to specific matters it had investigated internally. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it would have been a better approach to provide the resident with a formal stage 1 response, and then explain that certain aspects of the complaint were not considered as they were first time requests and treated as service requests.
60. Instead, the approach it took, saw the resident frustrated and disputing the refusal and it agreeing to consider some of the issues she originally raised. This meant that there was a 15 working day delay in the provision of its stage 1 response, and an overall delay in the handling of the complaint at both stages. The landlord’s response also reiterated several points which had been raised in its refusal.

Determination (decision)

61. In accordance with paragraph 42 (f) of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme, the landlord’s response to the damage caused to household items at the former property, impact on the resident’s health and injury sustained are outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as they are better dealt with by the courts or going through the landlord’s insurance procedure.
62. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme there has been:
    1. Maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs including damp and mould throughout the resident’s former property.
    2. No maladministration in its handling of fly-tipping and pest infestation.
    3. Service failure in its complaint handling.

Reasons

63. The landlord failed to appropriately take consideration of the resident’s vulnerabilities when communicating with her. This added to the delays in completing required works. Some of its internal communications appeared to be unempathetic and dismissive of the resident. There were delays in completing the damp and mould surveys which should have informed its approach on repairing the property. There were also delays in repairing the resident’s window.
64. The landlord evidenced that the property was free from fly-tipping prior to the resident taking possession, and whilst she was in possession when it completed works in September 2020. It also appropriately signposted her to the local authority after informing her, she was responsible for rectifying the pest infestation.
65. The landlord failed to thoroughly investigate the complaint at stage 1 and its approach led to unnecessary delays in its complaint handling.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

66. Within 4 weeks of the report the landlord must:
    1. Provide the resident with an apology around the failings identified with its handling of the repairs and complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident compensation of £600 for its failing around its handling of the repairs, including the damp and mould and its communication with her.
    3. Pay the resident £100 for its service failure with its complaint handling.
    4. Review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould and identify recommendations which could aid in bettering its investigations and approach.
    5. Review the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on repairs and identify any recommendations which could aid in bettering its approach.
67. Provide proof of compliance with these orders.

Recommendations

68. Review this case as part of its working group, identify any learning points especially around vulnerabilities, and staff training needs to ensure ability to meet the needs of individual residents when providing a service.