ForHousing Limited (202210641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202210641

ForHousing Limited

4 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

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of:
1. Concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property when it was let.
2. The resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
3. The resident’s reports of issues with the boiler.
4. The resident’s reports of leaks.
5. The work required to the brickwork, paving slabs, and removal of the shed base.
6. The resident’s reports about the garden fence and the clothesline post.
7. The repairs to the roof.
8. The complaint.

Background

The resident is an assured tenant of a 3– bedroom house. The tenancy began on 7 February 2022.
The resident has been a tenant of the landlord since February 2020. He was permanently decanted to his current property due to repair issues in his previous property which included damp and mould.
The resident’s son has cystic fibrosis.
The tenancy agreement states the landlord will keep the structure and exterior in repair including the roof, outside walls, window frames and major internal plaster work. It will also keep in repair and proper working order any installations provided for heating and sanitation and for the supply of water and gas.

Summary of events

Reports of Damp and Mould.

On 7 March 2022, the resident reported that there was damp in the kitchen that was affecting the plaster. On 15 March 2022, the resident reported that the extractor fan was not working in the kitchen. The landlord agreed with the resident to attend on 25 March 2022 to inspect but was unable to gain access. On the same day, the landlord’s internal records show that the resident had to cancel the appointment as his newborn baby had been in hospital overnight.
The landlord attended on 28 March 2022 to remove the kitchen extractor fan. The resident declined the work as he had been told a damp inspection was required and all works would then be completed at the same time.
On 6 April 2022, the landlord attended and completed a damp inspection. The inspection stated that the following works were required:
1. The kitchen required the installation of a new mechanical extractor fan. It also required removal of a section of wall plaster from the rear and side due to penetrating damp through non existing pointing.
2. The first-floor bathroom required renewal of the mechanical extractor fan.
3. The external required repointing works to the rear and side.
On 12 May 2022. The landlord started the repointing works. The records said that there were still further repointing works required.
On 19 and 20 May 2022 the landlord fitted a new extractor fan in the bathroom. It completed the plastering in the kitchen and further re-pointing of the brickwork at the rear and the side. It was unable to fit the kitchen fan as the plaster needed to set.
On 26 May 2022, the landlord attended to remove electrical wiring which had been left by the old extractor fan in the kitchen, but it was unable to gain access.

Post complaint.

On 15 July 2022, the landlord fitted the extractor fan in the kitchen.

The boiler issues.

The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 7 February 2022 to test and turn on the boiler. It was unable to get the boiler working and the engineer advised the resident to contact the landlord’s customer service team to see if an electrician could fix it as the switch was faulty.
The resident contacted the landlord the next day and advised that he was due to move into the property that weekend. He had 3 children under the age of 5. The youngest was only 3 months old and had suspected cystic fibrosis so he required the heating and hot water to be working.
The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 9 February 2022 and fitted a new switch. The landlord reimbursed the resident 2 weeks rent because of the delays in setting up the boiler due to the electrical fault. The resident reported a leak on the boiler on 11 February 2022 and the landlord’s gas contractor attended on the same day and fixed the leak.
The resident reported no heating and hot water twice in March 2022. The landlord’s gas contractor attended to both reports within 24 hours and the issue was fixed.
On 24 March 2022, the resident reported that the issues were on-going. The resident cancelled the appointment to inspect the boiler on 29 March 2022 as his son was in hospital. The resident raised the job again on 22 April 2022. The landlord’s gas contractor attended on 29 April 2022. It stated the boiler was working and there had been no breakdown since its last visit.

Post complaint.

On 19 July 2022, a job was raised to inspect the boiler. The records state that the landlord’s gas contractor was unable to contact the resident to arrange access.
The annual service of the boiler was completed on 7 February 2023.

Reports of leaks.

On 10 February 2022, the resident reported that there was water leaking from the pipes under the kitchen sink and the tap was broken. The records state that the leak was contained. The landlord attended on 15 February 2022 and fixed the leak on the mixer tap and renewed the tap.
On 16 February 2022, the resident reported that the bath taps were too tight, and the basin taps were too loose causing water to leak from around the edge. The shower was also leaking, and it had never been used.
On 17 February 2022, the resident reported that the window in the rear bedroom was leaking from the top. The leak had become apparent as there had been heavy rainfall. The leak was destroying the paint work. The landlord’s records state that it completed an inspection on 17 February 2022. It stated that the window “was fine” but follow on work was required for a bricklayer to check the brickwork above the bedroom window.
On 9 March 2022, the landlord attended to check the brickwork above the bedroom window. It said the window had a lintel fitted but it was not clear if a cavity tray was present. It would need to be opened up to inspect the cavity tray and fitted if necessary.
The landlord attended on 15 March 2022 and renewed the bath and basin taps and the shower valve.

Post complaint.

On 13 December 2022, the landlord attended to rake out, repoint and repair a cracked concrete lintol above the bedroom window.

Work required to the brickwork, paving slabs, and removal of the shed base.

On 16 February 2022, a job was raised because brickwork was loose at the rear of the property. The walls needed re-pointing in small areas as the pointing was non-existent. It also required a lintel above the kitchen window as the window was supporting the bricks above. The paving slabs were also reported as loose.
On the same day, the resident chased up the removal of the shed base. He said that he had been advised that a job had been raised to remove it when he signed his tenancy agreement, but it still had not been removed.
The landlord attended on 28 February 2022. The records state it raked out the wall, repointed the brickwork in small areas, and lifted and reinstated the paving slabs.
On 8 March 2022, the resident reported that the paving slabs were wobbly.
On 9 March 2022, a bricklayer attended to inspect the external brickwork. The records state that the brickwork above the front kitchen window had had a lintol fitted but a few bricks had dropped and needed relaying. The backdoor had no exterior lintol and water was coming through to the interior.
The landlord attended on 5 April and repaired several paving slabs.
On 13 April 2022, a bricklayer attended to repoint the brickwork. The resident declined the work as he said that he had been advised that all works were to be done at the same time in accordance with the findings in the damp survey. The repair records also confirmed this.
The landlord attended on 22 June 2022 and repaired a single paving slab.

Reports about the garden fence and clothesline post.

On 16 February 2022, the resident reported that the fence at the rear of the garden was coming loose.
On 21 February 2022, the resident reported that the clothesline post was broken. The records state that the post was on order and then an appointment would be required to replace. The resident also reported that the fence was loose.
The landlord attended on 2 March 2022 and the notes state it re-secured the fence.
On 8 March 2022, the resident reported that the clothesline post was crumbling due to age. The records do not provide the date the landlord attended. The records state that the job was “no accessed due to operative going off sick.”
On 17 March 2022, a further report was made that there were still issues with the fence.
On 11 July 2022, an order was raised to replace fence posts to ensure the fence was in a solid state.

Post complaint.

On 26 July 2022, the clothesline post was removed, and the fence was repaired.

Repairs to the roof.

On 10 March 2022, the resident reported that it sounded like there were birds living in the front side corner of the loft.
On 25 April 2022, a job was raised to repair the soffit board at the side of the building. The landlord attended the next day. It said that follow up works were required. A corner soffit needed to be installed as birds were getting into the loft. It required a tower scaffold to enable it to complete the works. The landlord completed the follow on works on 11 July 2022.

The complaint.

On 18 March 2022, the resident raised a stage 1 complaint. He said he was unhappy with the repair issues in the house. In particular the damp and mould which despite being painted over had re-appeared. He had multiple repairs in the property since he had moved in. He could not wait any longer for the repairs to be completed due to his son’s medical conditions.
On 12 April 2022, the resident raised a second stage 1 complaint. He said he had a list of repairs which were not being dealt with. The communication from the landlord had been poor. On 5 and 12 April 2022 he was supposed to have 2 repair jobs done. He had waited in all morning. When he contacted the landlord in the afternoon, he was advised the repair operative was off sick so would not be attending. He had been waiting over a month for the shed base to be removed.
On 27 April 2022, the landlord issued its stage 1 response to the resident’s first complaint. It said:
1. The extractor fan was unable to be fitted on 6 April 2022 because a bricklayer and plasterer were required to complete works before this could be fitted. It apologised for the poor planning in respect of this.
2. It confirmed the works that were still required in accordance with the damp inspection and that an electrician, plasterer, and bricklayer were due to attend on 19 and 20 May 2022.
On 10th May 2022, the landlord sent its stage 1 response to the resident’s second stage 1 complaint. It said:
1. It apologised for the missed appointments and its poor communication.
2. It had completed the repair on 26 April 2022.
3. It had agreed in this instance to remove the shed base and he would be contacted directly to arrange this.
On 14 July 2022, the landlord sent its stage 2 response in respect of both stage 1 complaints. It said that panel meetings had taken place to discuss the stage 1 complaints. It summarised what was discussed. It said:
1. The resident did not consider that either of his complaints had been investigated appropriately.
2. The resident believed the property had been let to him in an unsatisfactory standard due to mould being evident in the bedroom which had been painted over.
3. The original complaint investigation failed to acknowledge that the damp inspection was originally booked for 17 March 2022. It was cancelled by the landlord and rescheduled for 25 March 2022.
4. The resident said that works following the damp inspection had not been scheduled. He was told on 17 March 2022 that the kitchen extraction fan would be installed within 4 weeks. The communication about the repairs had been poor.
5. The resident had removed the shed base himself as he considered it was a health and safety risk.
6. The resident had ongoing issues with his boiler. He had an appointment arranged to inspect the boiler on 29 March 2022, but he had to cancel. A new appointment had not been rescheduled.
7. The resident advised the following repairs were still outstanding.
  1. Flagstones
  2. Roofing repairs
  3. Fence panel in the back garden
  4. Kitchen extractor fan.
  5. Back bedroom window leaking.
  6. Pointing around the property
  7. Leaks to kitchen sink and bathroom.
  8. Rubbish removal.
The landlord said that the panel had reviewed the complaints. It said:
1. Both complaint investigations had acknowledged where there had been failings and had apologised for this. However, it had not acknowledged the full impact on the resident and his family due to the number of repairs being delivered. It was aware that he had suffered a similar experience in his previous property. It apologised for this.
2. It had not addressed its poor communication and it apologised for this.
3. It was concerned that repairs still remained outstanding at the point of the panel hearing.
4. It listed the outstanding repairs and confirmed which repairs had been completed, scheduled and which ones still needed to be scheduled.
5. In relation to the boiler repairs. It had attended 5 times since the resident had moved in. The most recent visit had been on 29 April 2022 and there had been no break down since its last visit. It did not consider therefore that a new boiler was necessary.
6. Changes had been made to its repair processes which included closer planning and management of multi trade repairs and follow on works to ensure smoother delivery.
7. It offered compensation of £250 for the upset and inconvenience caused by the delays. It also agreed to reimburse the resident for the cost of removing the shed base which amounted to £125.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation.

It is acknowledged that there were a considerable number of repairs reported during the period leading up to, during and after the complaint. The resident’s stage 1 complaint said he was unhappy with the amount of repair issues and that there was a list of repairs still outstanding. The landlord refers to certain repairs in its stage 2 review as works raised “outside of the complaint”. For clarity, this Service has considered the landlord’s handling of the repairs that were raised from the tenancy commencement date until the resident raised his stage 1 complaint (7 February 2022 to 12 April 2022).

Legislation, guidance, policies, and procedures.

In accordance with the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is responsible for structural repairs. Once on notice, the landlord is required to carry out the repairs or works it is responsible for within a reasonable period of time, in accordance with its obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and in law. The law does not specify what a reasonable amount of time is; this depends on the individual circumstances of the case.
The landlord has a responsibility under 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 are a potential hazard and therefore the landlord is required to consider whether any mould problems in its properties amount to a hazard that may require remedy.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (published October 2021) provides recommendations for landlords, including that they should:
1. Adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions. Landlords should review their current strategy and consider whether their approach will achieve this.
2. Ensure they can identify complex cases at an early stage and have a strategy for keeping residents informed and effective resolution.
3. Ensure that they clearly and regularly communicate with their residents regarding actions taken or otherwise to resolve reports of damp and mould.
4. Identify where an independent, mutually agreed and suitably qualified surveyor should be used, share the outcomes of all surveys and inspections with residents to help them understand the findings and be clear on next steps. Landlords should then act on accepted survey recommendations in a timely manner.
The landlord’s repair and maintenance procedure states it will respond to emergency repairs in 24 hours. Urgent repairs within 3 working days. Routine repairs within 30 working days. Damp repairs within 40 working days. Replacement repairs will be completed within 80 working days. In respect of void repairs, the landlord surveys the property and carries out necessary works to bring the property to a lettable standard. On completion of the works the landlord will check 20% of the works before signing it off as ready to let.
The landlord’s redress policy states that it has a 3-stage complaint process. Its first response stage looks to see if the complaint can be resolved without a full investigation. The stage 1 investigation stage will involve a full investigation. The landlord will provide its full response within 10 working days. Its stage 2 review will be responded to within 5 working days or within 21 working days where a complaints panel is required.

The condition of the property

This Service requested a copy of the landlord’s lettable standard, procedure, and checklist to show how it had checked the property and signed it off as ready to let. The landlord provided before and after photographs and a list of works that were raised during the void period. It also provided an inspection requirement list. No evidence however has been provided to show how the property had been checked against its standard and that it met its requirements at the time the property was signed off as ready to let.
The landlord’s repair policy states it will check 20% of the works before signing the property off. The landlord has not been able to evidence that its void procedure was followed or that the property met its lettable standard. The resident had raised a number of repairs days after moving in which included a broken tap, loose brick work and paving slabs which evidences that these items did not meet the landlord’s lettable standard checklist.
The landlord did not take the opportunity within its complaint response to explain how it had satisfied itself that the property met its lettable standard. Given the number of repairs that were reported straight after the sign up the landlord should have investigated and responded to the resident’s concerns raised. This was a missed opportunity for it to assess whether it had done all it could and to try to put matters right at an earlier stage.
Orders have been made below for the landlord to apologise to the resident and pay compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused. An order has also been made for the landlord to review its void procedure.

Damp and mould

The landlord’s policy states that it will complete all damp repairs within 40 working days. It responded to the resident’s reports of damp by completing a damp inspection within 15 working days which was reasonable in the circumstances and in accordance with its own policy timescales. It also showed that it was taking the resident’s reports seriously and that it was seeking to identify the cause.
Within 31 days of the damp survey, it had completed the plastering, some re-pointing works and it had replaced the extractor fan in the bathroom. This was in accordance with its policy timescales.
However, the landlord’s stage 2 response in July 2022 states that some re-pointing works relating to the damp and mould were still outstanding. It agreed to contact the resident to arrange to complete these. The landlord advised this Service that the works were completed in December 2022. This was over 9 months after the resident raised the damp and mould issue and 8 months after the damp survey which had identified the need for re-pointing works to be completed to resolve the damp and mould. This timescale was unreasonable and outside of its own policy with no reasonable explanation given for its delays within its complaint response.
The landlord also took 72 working days to fit the mechanical extractor fan after it was identified as part of the damp work required in the kitchen. Again, this was outside of its own 40 working day timescales and unreasonable given the identified issues of damp and mould.
It is unknown whether the resident was still experiencing damp and mould while some works were outstanding or whether the completed works had resolved the main issues. There are no records to show what was discussed with the resident during this period and how he was kept up dated in respect of the repairs and delays. The resident had contacted the landlord asking for a schedule of works but there is no evidence to show that this was provided.
The damp survey stated that the risk assessment had “passed.” It is unclear what this risk assessment was and whether it factored in the household vulnerabilities.
The delays in completing the repairs by the landlord during this time is concerning given the Ombudsman’s Spotlight on damp and mould was published in October 2021. The landlord was on notice that the resident was suffering with damp and mould in his property, and that his son was considered vulnerable to the effects of damp and mould. The landlord’s delays and lack of clear communication was unreasonable and did not demonstrate the “proactive interventions” called for in the Spotlight report.
The landlord offered £250 compensation for the upset and inconvenience caused by the delays in its repairs in its stage 2 response. It did not specify which repairs the compensation related to. This Service does not consider that £250 reflects the impact on the resident particularly given the number of appointments and period of time it took to complete the works in respect of the damp and mould issues. The landlord agreed that its communication had been poor, and that works could have been coordinated better. For 9 months the resident had to live with the uncertainty of when the works would be completed/resolved. His son was vulnerable which would have been a cause of concern for him. He also had to facilitate a considerable number of appointments in respect of the re-pointing works. This was unreasonable and, in the Ombudsman’s, opinion amounts to maladministration.

Boiler repairs.

The landlord correctly acknowledged the delay in the test and turn on of the boiler and reimbursed the resident 2 weeks rent which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord responded to all other call outs of no heating and hot water within 24 hours which is in accordance with its policy. The resident then reported that there were ongoing issues with the boiler, but the records do not show that there was a loss of heat and hot water. The 5 working day appointed response was therefore also within its timescales. It is acknowledged that the resident had to cancel the appointment and then had to contact again to re-arrange but the landlord attended promptly. The landlord had acknowledged that it had failed. It appropriately offered a reduction in rent which in the Ombudsman’s opinion amounted to reasonable redress in the circumstances.

Leaks

The landlord responded to the reports of various leaks within 3 working days. This was reasonable and in accordance with its policy.
The issue with the leak from the bedroom window was however delayed. It is acknowledged the works required planning due to the need for a scaffold tower. However, the leak from the window was first reported in February 2022 but was not repaired until 8 months later in December 2022. This was not in accordance with its own timescales and there is no evidence to show that it apologised, explained, or communicated the delays with the resident which was a failing. Furthermore, the resident had had to remain in the property for 8 months with a leaking window and the uncertainty of when it would be repaired. He had also explained to the landlord that it was causing damage to paint work. Which he would not have been able to put right until the window was repaired.

Works required to the brickwork, paving slabs, and removal of the shed base.

The re-pointing works to the brickwork were raised prior to the damp inspection on 16 February 2022 and the evidence shows that some re-pointing works were completed on 28 February 2022. The resident then declined the work as he had been advised that all the repointing works would be done together as part of the damp works required which was reasonable in the circumstances. It is not clear however why the repointing works were not all completed at the same time. The landlord’s initial response to the reports was however within its policy timescales. This Service has already assessed that there were considerable delays in all the re-pointing works as part of the assessment of the damp and mould.
In respect of the paving slabs the landlord attended 8 working days after it was reported on 16 February 2022. The resident then reported further issues with the paving slabs and the landlord attended in April 2022 and again in June 2022. It is unknown whether the issues with the paving were repeated issues or different parts of the paving. The records show that the landlord responded to the reports however within reasonable timeframes and completed the works.
The landlord also correctly acknowledged its error in not removing the shed base and reimbursed the resident for the cost of this which was in the Ombudsman’s view a reasonable offer of redress.

Garden fence and clothesline post.

The landlord attended to the fence within 10 days on 2 March 2022. The records state that the fence was made safe, and that “follow on work was not raised.” It was not clear whether follow on works were required at this point.
The repair records show that the repair to the fence and removal of the washing line post took 94 days to complete from 17 March to 27 July 2022. This was outside its own policy timescales of 80 days and was a failing. Furthermore, the records did not provide any evidence of how the landlord had communicated with the resident in respect of the delays which meant that the resident had to chase matters up and pursue the complaint process to try to get matters resolved. This was a further failing.

Roof repairs.

It is not clear when the repairs to the roof became apparent, but it is acknowledged that the resident reported that there were birds in the loft in March 2022.
The landlord attended within 32 days on the 25 April 2022. It completed some of the repairs to the roof, but a further job was raised due to the requirement of scaffolding. The repair to prevent the birds accessing the roof was then completed on 11 July 2022. This was 55 days after the further works were raised. Given that the works were replacement works this could reasonably be deemed within its 80-day timescale. This Service has therefore not found any maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the roof repairs.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint.

The landlord’s policy at the time was not compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). It is however acknowledged that the landlord has since issued a new complaint policy which is.
The landlord did not adhere to its policy’s timescales in relation to the stage 1 complaints. The records do not clearly show when the resident requested the matter be escalated to a stage 2 review. Evidence shows that 2 review panel meetings took place in respect of both stage 1 complaints in June 2022. The records also show that the resident was updated after this date as to when it would issue its full written stage 2 response. Overall, however the landlord did not adhere to its timescales which was a failing in its complaint handling.
The landlord’s complaint responses did not show that it had investigated the resident’s complaint reasonably, or that it had addressed all the issues raised by the resident. The resident had mentioned in both stage 1 requests that he had a list of repairs that were not being dealt with and that there were multiple repairs outstanding. The landlord should have clarified with the resident what those repairs were and assessed its handling of them.
The 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. A landlord should be clear on the definition of the complaint and where possible agree that definition with the resident. If the landlord had taken this approach in its stage 1 response it may have been able to put matters right at an earlier stage. That it did not was a further failing and meant the resident had to escalate matters further.
It did however seek to make appointments for the outstanding repairs within its stage 2 response. It also acknowledged that it had not considered the full impact on the resident and his family due to the number of repairs being delivered and that he had suffered a similar experience in his previous property. It offered compensation which was appropriate. The amount offered has already been assessed earlier in this report. It is also further noted that the landlord’s new complaint policy is more concise about how a complaint should be managed in particular addressing all points raised and providing clear reasons for any decisions.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property when it was let.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould and the associated repairs.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of issues with the boiler.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of leaks.
In accordance with paragraph 53b of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme and in the Ombudsman’s opinion there was reasonable redress offered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the work required to the brickwork, paving slabs, and removal of the shed base.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports about the garden fence and the clothesline post.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was no maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the repairs to the roof.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has not been able to evidence that its void procedure was followed or that the property met its lettable standard. The resident had to raise several repairs as soon as he moved into the property which caused stress and inconvenience and evidenced that the property did not meet the lettable standard.
The evidence shows unreasonable delays to the repairs being completed. There is no evidence to show that it communicated the delays to the resident during which time it is unknown whether the damp and mould persisted. The landlord was aware that the resident’s son was vulnerable. The uncertainty and delays in when the works would have been completed would have affected the resident’s enjoyment of his home.
The landlord appropriately provided a reduction in rent for the issues with the initial turn on and test of the boiler. This in the Ombudsman’s opinion amounted to reasonable redress. It then responded within its own policy response times in respect of the reports made by the resident.
Although the landlord responded to the resident’s initial reports of leaks within a reasonable period of time. It took too long to repair the leak to the bedroom window, and it failed to keep the resident up to date with the progress of the repair. Furthermore, it failed to evidence that it had kept the resident informed about the progress of the repair.
The landlord responded within its own timescales to the reports about the brickwork and the paving. It also reimbursed the resident for the cost of the removal of the shed base which was appropriate in the circumstances.
The landlord’s response to the repair to the fence and removal of the washing line post was outside its own policy timescales. It also failed to evidence how it had communicated the delays to the resident.
The landlord completed the works to the roof. It evidenced that further works were required which reasonably caused delays. The overall repair timescale was met.
The landlord failed to show that it had adhered to its own timescales. It failed to clarify, address, and investigate all issues raised in the complaint and assess its handling of the matters.

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within the next 28 days:
1. Apologise to the resident for the failures identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £1450 compensation broken down as follows:
  1. £250 compensation already offered within its complaint response if not paid already.
  2. £200 compensation for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the concerns raised by the resident about the condition of the property when it was let.
  3. £450 compensation for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about damp and mould.
  4. £250 compensation for the adverse effect caused by its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks.
  5. £50 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of the resident’s reports about the garden fence and clothesline post.
  6. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its complaint handling.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord must provide the Ombudsman with evidence that it has complied with the following orders:
1. Review its void procedure to ensure:
  1. Void inspection reports provide a record of the condition of the property in conjunction with photographs of the property.
  2. Post repair inspections record whether repairs have been completed satisfactorily and provide a check against the landlord’s lettable standard.
  3. The landlord retains copies of its void inspection reports and checks against its lettable standard.
2. The landlord is ordered to review its approach to its repairs, considering the failings identified in this case. Particularly:
  1. Satisfying itself that it has effective procedures in place to record and store repair information accurately.
  2. It should consider its staff training and system needs, regarding how it arranges repairs, maintains repair records, which reflect its own and contractor’s actions and how it will monitor any follow up action.
  3. That there is effective internal communication, and that teams are aware of relevant roles in keeping the resident updated and recording the communication.
  4. The landlord must share the outcome of its review with this service, also within eight weeks.

Recommendations.

Within 28 days the landlord should reimburse the resident 2 weeks rent for the boiler delays if it has not done so already. It should also pay the resident £125 for the removal of the shed base if it has not done so already.