Camden Council (202224293)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202224293

Camden Council

28 March 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The resident’s complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs in her property, including damp and mould;
2. Response to reports of pests;
3. Response to a carbon monoxide leak, and her subsequent move from the property;
4. Handling of the associated complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident holds a secure tenancy for a two-bedroom, ground floor flat, which began in February 2022.
The resident has two young children. She has advised that the youngest, who was less than a year old when she moved in, has since been diagnosed with asthma.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s repairs policy set out the landlord’s responsibility for repairs, which includes plumbing, damp-proof work, plastering and finishing and maintenance of the boiler.
The repairs policy specifies timeframes for the landlord’s response to repairs:
1. Within two hours where there is “immediate danger”, and before 8pm for emergencies reported during working hours;
2. Within three working days for all other emergency repairs;
3. Within five working days for urgent repairs that would “cause significant nuisance”;
4. 20 working days for routine repairs;
5. An “agreed timescale” for complex repairs.
Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act (1985) requires the landlord to keep the property in a habitable state of repair, including installations for the supply of gas and sanitation.
The Homes (Fitness for Habitation) Act 2018 (‘The Homes Act 2018’) obliges the landlord to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation. In determining whether a property is unfit for habitation, regard should be given to whether the property is so far defective in matters including repair, stability, freedom from damp, ventilation, drainage and sanitary conveniences, and facilities for preparation and cooking of food and disposal of waste water, that it is not reasonably suitable for occupation in that condition.
Landlords are required to consider the condition of properties using a risk assessment approach called the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). HHSRS does not specify any minimum standards, but it is concerned with avoiding, or minimising potential health hazards. Damp and mould are potential hazards that fall within the scope of HHSRS. Landlords should be aware of their obligations under HHSRS. Where potential hazards are identified, improvement works are typically the starting point and additional monitoring is expected.
The Ombudsman published the Spotlight report on Damp and Mould in October 2021 (https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-damp-and-mould/ ) which stated that landlord should “adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould”. The report said landlords should take “proactive interventions” in its approach to diagnosing damp and mould issues in its properties.
In December 2023 the landlord put in place a damp and mould policy. As part of its self-assessment regarding its handling of damp and mould reports, it has advised us its staff have been trained to use empathetic language.
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints process. It aims to respond within 10 working days at stage 1, and 20 working days at stage 2. It provides guidance on compensation to staff, which it states is based on the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman’s guidance on remedies and should be used as “guidelines only”.

Summary of Events

The landlord’s records show the property’s gas was capped on 21 April 2021 because the property was unoccupied. The landlord has advised that there was a debt on the gas meter, and no electric supply to the property, which meant it had not tested the boiler before it was decommissioned (turned off and disconnected).
The landlord has advised that its gas contractor attended the property on 17 February 2022 to recommission the boiler, and found the pump to be defective. The resident’s tenancy started on 21 February 2022, and on 23 February 2022 the contractor attended to fit a replacement pump. At that visit, it found the boiler fan had failed, and ordered a replacement.
On 28 February 2022 the contractor advised the resident that it would fit the new fan on 1 or 2 March 2022. The landlord later acknowledged that this had “upset” the resident because she had been without heating since she moved in. It has advised that when the contractor attended on 1 March 2022 it uncapped the gas, and found that the boiler fan was in fact working. The landlord has provided a copy of the gas safety certificate the contractor issued, which confirmed the boiler was in working order.
There is a gap of recorded contact for the next six months.
The landlord said its pest control team attended the resident’s property to carry out treatment for wasps on 2 September 2022.
On 11 October 2022 the resident contacted the landlord and reported a “loud noise” coming from her boiler, and that she had no heating or hot water. The landlord says its engineer attended that day, identified a fault with the thermostat and ordered a part.
On 18 October 2022 the resident submitted a transfer request to the landlord, for the reason that her property had damp and mould and her son’s health had been affected.
The landlord has advised that its gas contractor closed the repair job for the boiler repair on 23 October 2022 but had not recorded any attempts to contact the resident.
On 26 October 2022 the resident called the landlord’s housing team and told it her boiler was leaking gas. The landlord advised her to call its repairs team and ask it to attend to shut off the gas. When the resident contacted the landlord’s repairs team, it recorded a report of a water leak rather than a gas leak, and it has advised that it did not treat the matter as an emergency as a consequence.
The resident then contacted the gas distributor for the area, which attended that day, detected carbon monoxide and found a “massive hole” behind the boiler. The operative noted the boiler was not secured properly and there was “sooting” coming from the boiler. They capped off the gas supply and notified the landlord.
The resident then asked the landlord for temporary accommodation due to the carbon monoxide leak. The landlord advised it would not offer this until it had confirmed the property was uninhabitable, and said it could provide temporary heating.
The landlord said it later tried to attend, but it did not gain access. The resident has explained that she went to stay with her neighbour. She told us that it was “embarrassing” to have to ask people to let her and her children stay. The landlord has advised that around 8pm it established the gas distributor had capped the gas, and subsequently offered temporary accommodation for the night to the resident, but she declined this offer.
The landlord attended the property on 27 October 2022 and carried out a carbon monoxide “sweep” (a process to confirm whether carbon monoxide is in the air). On the same day, it logged a stage 1 complaint from the resident. She told the landlord she had reported problems with her boiler since she moved in to the property, as well as problems with wasps, flies, rats and mice, there was wide-spread damp and mould, and there had been no action from it. When she reported a gas leak, it was “marked” as a water leak and carbon monoxide had then been found by the gas distribution company. The resident said she had been “left” for two days with a neighbour and asked the landlord to move her family to a suitable property.
The landlord says it advised the resident to complete a damp and mould questionnaire on 31 October 2022.
On 1 November 2022 the landlord spoke with the resident, and she told it again that her son was very unwell. She explained she had tried to open windows “constantly” to treat the mould but without success, and that rodents had entered the boiler.
The landlord’s contractor carried out a damp and mould survey on 2 November 2022. It found “mild damp” around the boiler in the kitchen, damp patches in the hallway, and “severe damp” in the bathroom due to a leak coming from the flat above. The contractor recommended that once a new boiler was installed, the landlord fit a new vent or extractor fan.
The landlord’s pest control team cancelled a follow-up appointment in relation to the wasps booked for 2 November 2022, and advised this was due to “illness”.
The landlord’s pest control operative and its gas contractor attended the property on 3 November 2022. The landlord’s pest control operative recorded that there had been confusion about the nature of the work that the landlord had intended to be done. As a result, no treatment of the rodent infestation was completed and the work to the boiler was halted.
The landlord carried out another carbon monoxide sweep on 6 November 2022, when it also carried out a survey for a replacement boiler. It installed the new boiler on 8 November 2022.
On 11 November 2022 the landlord attended the resident’s property. It recorded that there was no heating or hot water and the boiler was faulty, located the source of the leak in the flat above, and identified that the resident’s bathroom would need to be fully replaced. Its internal records show that the landlord estimated it would take over 12 weeks for repairs to be completed, due to an “extensive” period needed for the property to dry out. It noted that the resident had informed it her children had respiratory problems, and its records show authorisation was given to rehouse the family.
The landlord’s records indicate that it attempted to attend the property on 16 November 2022 and left when it could not gain access.
The landlord issued a 10-page stage 1 complaint response letter to the resident on 18 November 2022. It:
1. Apologised that the resident “felt the need to complain”;
2. Gave a detailed history of the repairs and pest issues the resident had raised and its responses;
3. Advised it upheld the resident’s complaint, and accepted that there were unnecessary delays to the repairs of her boiler. It confirmed it had logged her call on 26 October 2022 as being about a water leak in error;
4. Said it was “most unfortunate” that the resident experienced a carbon monoxide leak, and recognised this “must have been frightening” for the resident;
5. Found that it had “acted accordingly from [the point when its contractor was notified of the carbon monoxide leak] onwards”. It said it had offered the resident temporary accommodation in the evening of 26 October 2022 and she had advised she was staying with a friend. It had taken a while to gain access to the flat above the resident’s because it was owned and rented out privately;
6. Said the resident’s councillor had explained to the resident that she was entitled to reimbursement for the running costs of temporary heaters after its member of staff had informed her this was not the case in error;
7. Advised it had identified a property that the resident could stay at whilst the repairs were completed;
8. Offered the resident £200 compensation for the failures in its response to the boiler repairs,
9. Advised the resident how to escalate her complaint to the next stage if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident contacted the landlord on 28 November 2022 and expressed her dissatisfaction with its complaint response. She described her experience on the day of the carbon monoxide leak, which she said was “the scariest moment of my life”, and detailed the difficulties she had experienced since having to move out of her home. The resident said she felt insulted that the landlord’s staff member told her they could not come into the office due to tube strikes, but expected the resident to travel across London to give access for repairs. She confirmed on 30 November 2022 that she wanted the landlord to escalate her complaint to stage 2, which it did on 2 December 2022.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 22 December 2022 shows its staff discussed that the resident was still in hotel accommodation, not having accepted its offers of alternative accommodation, and one member of staff asked if the repairs to her flat could be expedited so she could return home.
The landlord recorded that it tried to attend the property on 20 January 2023, and when the operative could not gain access they spoke to the resident who explained she was staying in temporary accommodation elsewhere.
The landlord’s repairs records say that a “clear up” (understood to be for mould) was booked for 24 January 2023, but it was turned away “on the doorstep”.
The landlord issued a stage 2 complaint response to the resident on 23 February 2023. It:
1. Apologised for the delay in its stage 2 complaint response, which it explained was “due to heavy workloads”;
2. Confirmed that it upheld her complaint, and explained this “should not be seen as an acceptance of liability”;
3. Acknowledged that the resident had been moved into temporary accommodation whilst the landlord sought to address water ingress from the flat above, which was privately rented through a managing agent. It explained it had had to negotiate with the managing agent to get the issues sorted, which had “taken time”;
4. It advised that it had raised a works order for mould treatment, to fit an extractor fan, and “attend to” plumbing, plastering and decorative works by 8 March 2023;
5. Advised it had linked the rodent infestation with “misuse” of the area around the building by other residents, including throwing food from their windows. Its teams were working to address this;
6. Recognised that it was “disappointing and concerning” that the resident had experienced problems with the boiler so soon after moving in, despite it having been “subject” to works in preparation for the letting of the flat;
7. Confirmed it would increase its previous offer of compensation to £300. It recognised that the resident experienced severe distress, however it did not accept that the timeframe was “prolonged”;
8. Offered the resident an additional £50 for her time and trouble in escalating the complaint, and £50 for its delay in responding at stage 2, making its total offer of compensation £400;
9. Signposted the resident to this Service if she remained dissatisfied.
The resident has explained that she contacted a legal-aid solicitor, with the aim of progressing the situation. The landlord noted that it called the resident on 29 June 2023, and that it believed the resident wanted the mould treatment to go ahead, but that everything was “going through the solicitors”.
The landlord’s internal correspondence from 11 July 2023 showed its staff noted that the resident had advised it not to start works without her consent, and asked it to contact her through her solicitor.
There is a note from 12 July 2023 in which the landlord instructed its repairs team “do not work at this address at the moment as [the resident’s] solicitor [was] involved… leave until further notice”. Its internal correspondence shows it was in possession of the keys to the flat on this date.
There is another note on the repair record, in which the landlord said it was unable to gain access to the resident’s flat on 24 July 2023. The landlord’s records show it cancelled the outstanding mould clear up at the property on 17 October 2023.
We have spoken to the resident during the investigation of her complaint. She remained in temporary accommodation as of March 2024, and the landlord has agreed to a permanent move. She explained she did not want to return to her previous property, however she has experienced further distress whilst awaiting a move. She advised us her son has recently been diagnosed with pneumonia and she believes this is due to mould in the property they are staying in.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property, including damp and mould

The landlord’s records demonstrate that the boiler was decommissioned (out of use) for a long period prior to the resident moving in. The landlord should be aware that this could lead to problems with the boiler once it is switched on. The landlord’s contractor checked the boiler two working days prior to the resident’s tenancy start date and did find that the pump would require replacement. This did not allow enough time to order and fit a part before the resident moved in, which it is noted was in winter.
When it attended to fit the new part two days after the resident’s tenancy started, the landlord’s contractor found the boiler to still not be working, and it mistakenly thought this was because it needed a new fan. After a further delay of a week, the contractor attended and realised that it needed to uncap the gas.
It is unacceptable that the landlord did not ensure the resident had a source of heating during this time, and this failure is compounded by the fact the resident had two very young children. The landlord said in its complaint response that it was aware the resident was “upset” when she tried to chase the fitting of the part six days after she moved in, yet it did not demonstrate that it understood its role in the distress that had been caused to her.
We have previously reminded the landlord of the impact of poor information sharing between its teams and its contractors. In this case, the landlord did not exercise sufficient oversight to ensure that its responsibilities were being met, and did not appear to be aware that the resident had been left without heating at the time of the events.
In its complaint response, the landlord said it had identified that its contractor had fallen short of the performance it expected, but the lack of specifics regarding what it would do about this did not offer sufficient reassurance that it has taken appropriate steps to prevent similar mistakes happening again.
In mid-October 2022 the resident reported a loud noise from the boiler. The landlord’s contractor did attend quickly to inspect the boiler, and ordered a part as a result. The landlord’s contractor subsequently closed down the repair job, but had not recorded any attempts to contact the resident. This is a further example of a lack of oversight from the landlord, and it is concerning that this happened for a boiler repair in particular.
The resident had, in the meantime, reported damp and mould to the landlord, and asked to be moved due to her concerns for her children’s health. The landlord did not appear to have shared this information with its repairs team, which presented a missed opportunity to investigate the cause of the damp.
The Ombudsman notes that, in addition to information sharing with contractors, we have recently asked the landlord to look at how it can improve the sharing of information between its different in-house teams, in particular how its various teams share information with the repairs team.
The landlord at times relied on the resident to move the issues forward, and this was evident when it asked her to complete a damp and mould questionnaire even after she had moved out of her property. Once an inspection was done, it was quickly evident to the landlord that there was a live leak from the flat above, which had by that time caused significant damage to the resident’s property.
The landlord’s response to the resident’s recent reports of damp and mould in her temporary accommodation has been concerning. The resident asked reasonable questions regarding the safety of the substances the landlord uses in its mould washes, and despite our intervention we have not seen evidence that it responded to her on this point. Instead, it cancelled a proposed visit for treatment. This is poor customer service and demonstrates a lack of empathy on the landlord’s part. We recently published a spotlight report on attitudes, respects and rights, “a relationship of equals” – which can be found here: https://www.housing-ombudsman.org.uk/reports/spotlight-on-attitudes-respect-and-rights-relationship-of-equals/ – and we urge the landlord to reflect on its approach to the resident in this context.
We recently ordered the landlord to review the way it handles cases of damp and mould, in response to our investigation of a separate case (reference 202220378). In its response to that case, it identified that the lack of sharing of information held by different teams and on different systems had led to failures of service to a family with vulnerabilities. It has told us that it will carry out a further review on how it can better use its knowledge of residents’ individual circumstances, and will use our spotlight report on knowledge and information management to “guide” this. The landlord also advised us it now has a dedicated team that handles reports of damp and mould.
The resident sought assistance from a legal-aid solicitor in June 2023. She has explained to us that this was for a relatively short time, and the solicitor stepped away once the resident explained she had contacted us. During June and July 2023, the landlord’s staff discussed that they had stopped repairs to the property because the resident had contacted a solicitor. In our spotlight report on damp and mould, we have advised landlords of the importance of continuing with works to restore residents’ homes to a safe condition, even if there is concurrent legal action. The landlord should ensure its staff, especially in its repairs teams, are aware of and understand this guidance.
The landlord offered the resident £300 for the delays to its repairs, in particular to her boiler. This was not proportionate to the effect of its delays and failures on her and her family, and we have therefore ordered the landlord to pay the resident an increased amount below.

The landlord’s response to reports of pests

The damage to the resident’s boiler, which led to the carbon monoxide leak, was at least partly caused by damage by mice, which had chewed through some of its parts. The landlord was aware of a wider issue regarding rodents at the resident’s estate, and has advised that it has sent a letter to all residents reminding them about the importance of proper disposal of food.
The landlord’s communication with its pest control operative after the carbon monoxide leak was not sufficiently clear, and this resulted in works to treat the infestation (which the pest control operative reported to be “mild” in the resident’s home) and to the boiler being halted. The resident has explained the inconvenience she experienced in having to travel across London, at a time when there were tube strikes, in having to allow repeated access to the property for works. The landlord’s complaint response did not demonstrate that it fully understood the impact of this unnecessary delay, which amounted to service failure, or that it would ensure the mistakes were not repeated. The landlord should offer the resident compensation for her inconvenience, and we have made an order to address this below.
The resident was concerned that the landlord had dismissed her complaint that she had previously reported pests, and cited the example of wasps which the landlord had previously arranged treatment for. We can see that the landlord did confirm in its stage 1 complaint response that it had record of her report of wasps in September 2022. We have not seen record of reports or treatment of flies, and the landlord should have acknowledged this to the resident. We note that the follow-up appointment to treat the wasps was cancelled due to staff sickness, and that subsequent events overtook the issue after the resident moved out of the property and then confirmed she did not wish to return.

The landlord’s response to the carbon monoxide leak and the resident’s subsequent move from the property

When the resident reported a gas leak to the landlord, the member of staff she spoke to asked her to contact its repairs team, rather than doing this themselves. When the resident contacted the repairs team, it logged a water leak in error, and this appears to have reduced the priority for the repair and also meant the landlord did not provide the resident with appropriate advice regarding carbon monoxide and how to keep her family safe. The resident has described her distress at waiting for an update from the landlord.
Following our investigation into a separate case concerning the landlord (reference 202233157), we asked it to review its liaison arrangements between its repairs and complaints teams, to ensure its complaints team could log a repair if needed, and to consider whether it has an adequate triage process to identify repairs which fall into its emergency category, and whether there is clarity as to who is responsible for monitoring the progress of repairs and updating the resident. Given our findings in this investigation, we ask that the landlord extend this review to include the liaison arrangements between its housing and repairs teams too.
Once the gas distribution company had confirmed there was carbon monoxide in the air, and turned off the gas supply, the resident contacted the landlord for assistance. The member of the landlord’s staff the resident spoke to did not demonstrate trust in the update from the resident, and consequently did not offer her appropriate support such as a temporary move.
The resident initially stayed with friends and neighbours for about a week, and has explained that in addition to the embarrassment she felt in asking them for help, she found the treatment from the landlord “derogatory” when it pushed her to explain why she did not have relatives to stay with.
It was then agreed that the landlord would arrange hotels for the resident and her family to stay in. The resident has speculated as to whether the landlord deliberately placed her in hotels far from her neighbourhood, and said she had at times seen hotel rooms available in the same hotel chain (at a lower advertised cost), but nearer to her property.
Whilst we understand the resident’s concerns, it is also noted that the landlord would have offered what was available to it at the time of the placement. The landlord should however ensure that its temporary moves (decant) policy includes transparency about how it locates temporary accommodation. It did not provide us with records of how it had ensured that the resident’s household’s needs were taken into consideration in its selection of accommodation, and it should ensure that in future it records details of any vulnerabilities in a household and confirmation it has ensured it has found suitable accommodation on this basis. We acknowledge that temporary moves can be very difficult for residents, not just because they lose access to their support networks, but also in having to adjust to unfamiliar areas and changes to their daily routines, including tasks from food shopping, to seeing doctors, and so on.
The resident has explained that she felt forgotten about whilst she was staying in temporary accommodation. She told us that the landlord said it had to “refamiliarise” itself with her case when she called in for updates. This could have been avoided by appointing a point of contact for the resident, and we recommend the landlord consider how it could use this in future for residents.
The resident was further upset when she called the landlord for updates near to Christmas, and says that staff told her they had to end calls because they had Christmas parties to go to. She felt she had been “left” over the festive period.
As discussed above, the landlord could have made things easier for the resident by considering how to minimise disruption to her whilst she was out of her home and away from her support networks. For example, it could have agreed with the resident that her keys would be left in a keysafe, to reduce the journeys she had to make to give access. Nearly three months after she left the property, the landlord recorded a failed repairs visit due to not being able to gain access to the flat.
The resident and landlord have now agreed that she will move to a different property, which the resident has welcomed. However, the resident has explained she is not confident that the landlord had prioritised her move, and has told us that she has seen properties advertised for bidding that could have been suitable for her family. Along with a point of contact, the landlord should consider whether there is sufficient visibility on its systems of its residents currently in temporary accommodation (whilst still holding tenancy agreements with it), and sufficient clarity for its staff as to how to ensure it meets its obligations to them to be able to exercise quiet enjoyment of their home and to have a habitable home to live in.
Taken altogether, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to the carbon monoxide leak and the resident’s subsequent move from the property.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

The resident explained in her stage 2 complaint escalation request that she had been told by a member of the landlord’s staff that they were “very stressed out”, “working three people’s jobs”, and “going off work sick and won’t be back”. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response went on to advise the resident that it had not responded to her in a timely way due to “heavy workloads”. We have seen evidence of similar language regarding workloads used by the landlord’s staff in other recent complaint responses we have investigated.
The resident clearly set out to the landlord the reason this language was unhelpful and inappropriate, explaining it was “unprofessional”, that it added pressure to her whilst she was trying to deal with her “own stresses”, and that whilst they were “concerning” issues, it should be the landlord which should be addressing them, not residents. The landlord should now consider whether there is a need for specific guidance to be provided to its staff about the professional boundaries that should be observed, with particular consideration given to the communication with residents who have made a complaint.
We have addressed the overall issue of the timeliness of the landlord’s stage 2 complaints separately, and will not duplicate an order on this point. We do acknowledge that the delay added to the resident’s distress in this case, and that the landlord has offered the resident compensation for this.
The landlord’s language in its complaint responses at times lacked empathy for the resident, examples include “our concern is … that our property can sufficiently dry out and remedial works can commence”, references to being “pleased” to have now identified the repairs issues, and telling the resident there was “some resistance from [her]” to returning to her property on 27 October 2022.
The landlord’s responses in this case did not demonstrate an appropriate level of engagement with the resident’s actual experience, instead focussing on what its policies and procedures say about what should happen. It is understandable that this has not reassured the resident that the landlord has recognised the seriousness of the issues she had complained about, or identified appropriate specific methods to put things right.
The landlord told the resident it could not exceed an offer of £300 compensation for the impact of its failures in relation to the various repairs. It told her that this was due to its policy on remedies. It was not helpful for the landlord to tell the resident that her experience had not been over a “prolonged period”, as she clearly had experienced disruption and distress over several months and it had failed in its service on multiple occasions. This is a subjective measure and the landlord’s policy does allow for discretion with regards to compensation offers. It should now ensure its staff are aware of this for housing complaints in relation to its responsibilities as a landlord. This should include clear guidance on how they can seek input from management if required.
There was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint. Given the cumulative effects of the distress she experienced, its offer of £100 compensation was not proportionate and we have ordered an increased amount of compensation below.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs in the resident’s property, including damp and mould;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s response to reports of pests;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s response to a carbon monoxide leak, and her subsequent move from the property;
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.

Reasons

The landlord did not use the knowledge and information it had in relation to the repairs issues at the resident’s property to ensure the matters were dealt with appropriately. Its teams did not share important information with each other or its contractors, which led to delays, and in turn frustration, inconvenience and distress to the resident. It should have acted sooner when she notified it of damp and mould, and it was unacceptable that the resident waited for over a week after starting her tenancy without a functioning source of heating and hot water.
The landlord has carried out treatment for wasps, and has started work regarding the wider issue of rodents at the resident’s estate. It caused the resident unnecessary inconvenience through poor communication with its contractors regarding the treatment for mice after the damage to the boiler had been identified.
The landlord did not act quickly enough when the resident reported a gas leak. It compounded this when it incorrectly recorded the issue as a water leak, and then it caused further distress when its member of staff did not act on the resident’s report that the gas had been capped by the distribution company due to a carbon monoxide escape. The landlord’s communication with the resident was poor, and there was not sufficient ownership of her case whilst she and her children were out of their home. The resident has experienced stress and distress, and the landlord could have done more to prevent this.
The landlord’s complaint communication was poor. It relied on its policies which set out its expected processes, rather than examining its actual response to the resident. It told the resident it had spoken to one member of its staff to remind them of its policies, and that it accepted that its contractor had not acted as it should have, however it did not explain what steps it would take to prevent a recurrence of the failures. This was a missed opportunity to take and implement learning. Its failure to identify a proportionate amount of compensation may well have resulted from its failure to properly engage with the issues the resident had complained about. It is very concerning that the resident is still experiencing unempathetic and heavy handed treatment from the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord’s chief executive must apologise to the resident for the distress and inconvenience she has experienced as a result of its failures and lack of empathy. It should provide us with a copy once complete.
The resident’s weekly rent when she moved in was £115.56. Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must directly pay the resident a total of £2,350 compensation, comprising:
1. £400 it previously offered (if not already paid);
2. £1,200 for the inconvenience and distress caused by its failures in relation to the repairs at her property (when taken with its previous offer, this figure is calculated based on approximately 10% of her rent whilst out of her home, plus three and a half weeks’ rent for the time she was without heating at the start and after she had reported damp and mould in October 2022);
3. £50 for the inconvenience the landlord caused the resident due to the halted pest control appointment;
4. £600 for the distress the resident was caused through the lack of appropriate support she received after she reported the gas leak;
5. £100 for the impact of the landlord’s lack of engagement with the resident’s complaint.
Within three weeks of the date of this report, it must appoint a point of contact for the resident, who will keep her updated of progress regarding repairs and her transfer, until she is able to move to a permanent home. It must confirm to us when this is in place.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must ensure that a suitably qualified individual has assessed the resident’s temporary home for damp and mould, and carried out appropriate treatment. It must advise of the outcome of its survey when complete, and the actions it takes a result.
Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must consider how it can ensure it has sufficient oversight of cases where residents are without heating or hot water, or where a repair to the heating system has been closed without having been completed. It must confirm to us what actions it plans to take as a result.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must complete its review of how it can better use its knowledge of residents’ individual circumstances in cases where damp or mould has been reported. This should include consideration of how information is shared between its housing, complaints, and dedicated damp and mould teams. It must confirm to us the actions it plans to take as a result.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must ensure its relevant staff are aware of and understand the guidance we have issued in relation to its responsibilities regarding repairs when legal proceedings are ongoing. It must confirm to us when this is complete.
Within five weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must review the way it shares information with its pest control operatives, to ensure that the details of the work they need to undertake is clear, especially where there are repairs ongoing. It must confirm to is what it has decided as a result.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must ensure its relevant staff are clear on what to do when a gas leak or carbon monoxide escape is reported to them. It must confirm to us when this is complete.
Within four weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should identify how the reported gas leak came to be logged as a water leak, and provide us with reassurance of how it will prevent this in future.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must consider whether its standard of service could be improved by the use of a point of contact for residents who have had to leave their homes, until they can return or move to a different permanent home. It must also consider whether it could minimise disruption to ‘decanted’ residents by either taking a set of keys or use of a key safe for the purpose of allowing access for relevant remedial works. It must confirm to us what it has decided.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure that in it has a process in place to record the details of any vulnerabilities in a household that has to be temporarily moved from their home, with confirmation that it has ensured it has found suitable accommodation on this basis. It should ensure that its temporary moves (decant) policy includes transparency about how it locates and selects temporary accommodation. It must confirm to us when this is complete.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should consider whether there is sufficient visibility on its systems of its residents currently staying in temporary accommodation (whilst still holding tenancy agreements with it), and sufficient clarity for its staff as to how to ensure it meets its obligations to its residents in relation to the ability to exercise quiet enjoyment of their home and to have a habitable home to live in. It must advise us of the outcome of this consideration.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide guidance to its relevant staff regarding the control of substances hazardous to health (COSHH) risk assessments and what information they can provide to residents who have concerns about the chemicals it uses for repairs and pest control, with particular attention to substances used during treatment for mould. It must confirm to us when this is complete, and advise us of how it has done this.
Within six weeks of the date of this report, the landlord should ensure its complaints handlers are aware of its policy regarding their ability to exercise discretion in the amount of compensation it offers for failures in relation its responsibilities as a landlord. This should include clear guidance on when and how they can seek input from management if required. It must confirm to us when this is complete.