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

ForHousing Limited (202314204)

Back to Top

 

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202314204

ForHousing Limited

19 July 2024

 

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

  1. The complaint is regarding the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, the associated repairs and reports of damp and mould.
  2. This investigation has also considered the landlord’s handling of the complaint, and the level of compensation offered.

Jurisdiction

  1. What the Ombudsman can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Scheme. When a complaint is brought to this service, the Ombudsman must consider all the circumstances of the case, as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
  2. In a further complaint submitted to the landlord in April 2024, the resident raised concerns regarding the standard of repairs and remedial works carried out following his return to the property, the return of damp and mould and reported delays with installing a new kitchen. However, this did not form part of the complaint which was referred to this Service or the subsequent complaint made in June 2023. Under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which…are made prior to having exhausted a (landlord’s) complaints procedure”. The concerns raised in this complaint, along with another complaint made in October 2023 regarding reported theft of possessions from his property and staff conduct, are therefore ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. The resident may wish to ask the landlord to escalate either of these complaints, or submit a new complaint, and invite it to respond via its existing complaints procedure.
  3. Additionally, when advising this Service of his desired complaint outcomes, the resident stated he would like to be compensated for the impact the situation reportedly had on his health. Although this investigation will consider the impact of the delayed/outstanding repairs and assess whether the landlord acted reasonably, this Service cannot determine liability or issue any binding decision about personal injury claims, nor can it award damages as these are legal matters better suited to an insurance claim or court proceedings. Any offer of compensation made following our determination will be issued in line with our Guidance on Remedies, published on our website. The resident may wish to contact his local Citizens Advice bureau or other independent advice service(s) if he wishes to pursue this aspect of his complaint further.

Scope of investigation

  1. This Service previously wrote to the resident and advised him that matters raised within his June 2023 (landlord reference 73483) would be ruled outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction under paragraph 42(a) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. However, while the landlord advised this complaint was not escalated and has therefore not gone through its complaint procedure in full, in the Ombudsman’s opinion it clearly relates to the same issues responded to in February and April 2023, more so than the 2 complaints ruled outside of jurisdiction above. The Ombudsman has therefore used its discretion to include the resident’s second complaint, and the landlord’s stage 1 response, within the scope of this investigation.

Background and summary of events

Background

  1. The resident is a tenant of the landlord, a housing association. He has resided at the property, described as a 1-bedroom bungalow within a supported housing complex, since 2017.
  2. The landlord has advised it is aware the resident suffers from mental health issues including stress and anxiety disorder as well as physical health issues including arthritis and kidney damage. He completes an annual wellbeing survey as part of the conditions of living in supported accommodation.

Summary of events

  1. On 15 December 2022, the resident made an out of hours report to the landlord to advise there was a leak in his property. Landlord repair records indicate a pipe in the loft appeared to have burst and the leak could not be contained, meaning electrical fittings were becoming wet. It raised emergency repair orders to make safe the property’s electrics and the bedroom ceiling. However, records indicate the resident reported to his support worker that a plumber did not attend straightaway. The landlord’s repair records indicate one emergency order was cancelled due to reported access issues and another when operatives left after being threatened by the resident.
  2. On 19 December 2022 the landlord noted within its repair records that the water and electrics at the property had been isolated but that “further works (were) required… (it had) been 4 days now”. It stated follow-on works were needed “ASAP as mould has started” to grow in the property. No further entries were made until 9 January 2023 when the landlord noted “follow on works need raising to resolve the burst pipe…(and) get all supplies back on”. It identified a repair was needed to repair the burst pipe and a plasterer needed to “ensure ceilings are safe” and noted the resident needed to be contacted in advance of any attendance as he was not residing at the property.
  3. On 11 January 2023, landlord records indicated that follow on repairs had been raised but an entry noted “(the) customer declined works”.
  4. Repairs records show the landlord arranged for a damp survey to be carried out at the vacant property on 6 February 2023. It recommended a “full strip out and replastering including new skirting board” for the hallway, the bathroom ceiling needed “fully taking down and reboarding”, 2 walls in the kitchen needed “stripping to full height (and) reinstating” and stated mould paint was required on the lounge’s external wall.
  5. On the same day, the resident logged a complaint with the landlord. He stated that following the leak caused by a burst pipe, a plumber failed to attend on 3 occasions. When the plumber did attend, they failed to raise any follow-on repairs and as a result his property was “left until the New Year”. Although works were now booked in for March 2023, the resident advised his possessions were “ruined and growing mould” due to the property remaining wet. He believed that if the follow-on works had been raised earlier and dehumidifiers had been provided, the property would have dried out and some of his possessions would have been “saved”.
  6. On 15 February 2023, the landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response. It outlined that it had investigated the “issues…raised…about the outstanding plastering works following a leak” and made the following comments and findings:
    1. It stated the “delay in having these works on the system” was due to the resident being abusive to an attending operative on 18 December 2022. It advised it had subsequently contacted the resident to re-book the repairs, but he had “refused the dates given and ended the call”. After contacting him again, dates for the repairs were agreed and a series of appointments for 5 trades (plastering, plumbing, joinery, electrical and roofing) were arranged for consecutive days between 13 and 21 March 2023.
    2. It advised the resident that he would need to claim on his home contents insurance policy regarding any “damaged items in the property including the mobility scooters”.
    3. The resident was advised how to escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy with the landlord’s response.
  7. The landlord logged a complaint escalation request on 27 February 2023. A diary entry noted he had advised of his unhappiness with the stage 1 complaint response during a phone call a week earlier. The resident stated he had not been previously told that works were delayed due to him being aggressive to staff, and he denied he had been. He reiterated his belief that if dehumidifiers had been provided and if works had been completed earlier, the damage to his property and possessions would not have been so severe. In its submissions to this investigation, the landlord advised he had raised additional concerns about repairs being marked as “no access” despite him being away from the property and the presence of a key safe for contractors to use, and that the landlord had not taken “the impact on his mental health” into account. It is unclear from the landlord’s records when these additional concerns were raised.
  8. Records show the landlord emailed the resident on 9 March 2023 to acknowledge his complaint escalation request. It advised that a “review had been booked” on 16 March 2023.
  9. Repair records show that a second damp survey took place on 14 March 2023. Pictures provided by the contractor to accompany its report show the condition of the property appeared to have deteriorated and they made recommendations for a large number of works. These included over a week’s worth of plastering appointments to “carry out DPM&DPC works in hall/landing, bathroom, storage room, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom” and to take down and overlay the plasterboard ceilings in all the aforementioned rooms. The survey report recommended “(the) tenant to be moved permanently out of the property”.
  10. On 13 April 2023, the landlord provided its stage 2 complaint response. It outlined its understanding of the resident’s outstanding concerns and reasons for escalating the complaint and reiterated its stage 1 conclusions. It went on to address each point in turn and made the following comments and findings:
    1. Regarding the delay in beginning repairs, it had reviewed its records and “identified delays in the work starting back to December”. It apologised that “this was not covered in the stage 1 response” but did not provide any further details.
    2. It apologised dehumidifiers had not been provided “to support the drying out process”. It stated feedback had been given to its contractors that these should be provided “following leaks of this size, particularly where tenants’ belongings remain”.
    3. Regarding repair appointments being recorded as “no access” when the resident had not been residing at the property, it offered its “sincere apologies” and stated its contractors had been made aware of the situation and a key safe had been provided. It stated there had been an “oversight”, that it would not happen again and assured the resident that all operatives currently working in the property were aware he was not residing there and knew how to access the keys.
    4. It agreed it had failed to take the impact of the flood and subsequent repairs on his mental health into account within its stage 1 complaint response. It offered an apology for this.
    5. It noted the resident had provided a list of items “lost due to this flood” during the stage 2 complaint investigation. It also noted his Support Worker had advised he was currently seeking a settlement from his insurance provider, but they had indicated they would “not cover items damaged following delays to works commencing”, including 2 mobility scooters and “clothing and trainers damaged by mould/condensation”. It therefore offered the resident £2500 for those items and “also for the stress and inconvenience this has had on you”.
    6. The landlord noted that “during the delays to the work starting” it had offered the resident a permanent move to another property, but this had been declined. It stated it had also offered a temporary decant but this was also declined, and the resident had advised he would stay with his partner’s parents. It noted it had provided the resident with food and fuel vouchers (to the value of £60 and £80 respectively) to “support the increased cost to your partner’s parents” during his stay and advised it would “endeavour to support (him) during this period” if he required any additional assistance.
    7. It also clarified it would be covering the cost of the resident’s utility bills (gas, electricity and water) while he was absent from the property. It stated it had also offered to store further items, such as fishing equipment, but the resident had declined.
  11. The landlord advised repairs had now begun and it “expected” to have the property back to the resident in 6-8 weeks, although this timeframe was “subject to change as the work required is large scale”. It advised it would “continue to work” with the resident while works are completed and after he had moved back home.
  12. On or around 12 June 2023, the resident logged a new complaint. An entry to the landlord’s records on 14 June 2023 summarised the new complaint as regarding the resident’s unhappiness that agreed damp works had not been completed as planned and that he had been unable to live in the property since the leak occurred in December 2022 and he “just wanted to return home”. The landlord referenced the resident’s previous complaint and noted that while “works (had) begun”, additional repairs had been identified and these were yet to start and there was no timescale for completion. It also noted that the resident had reported mould had returned to the property and dehumidifiers that were promised in the previous complaint response had not been provided. It understood the resident to be “angry, upset and frustrated” with the situation as he had now been out of his home for over 6 months.
  13. The landlord provided a stage 1 response to the new complaint on 27 June 2023. It made the following comments and findings:
    1. It acknowledged that “works have been ongoing…for some time now”, following the leak that occurred before Christmas 2022. It advised the works required had been “extensive, and delays (had) been noted throughout the process”.
    2. It stated that mould growth in the property was due to the fact the property remained empty, which meant it had not been “adequately heated and had air circulating”. It advised this had “now been rectified” and a damp supervisor had set a timer for the heating system. It clarified that a fuel voucher would be provided to “cover these costs in the meantime”.
    3. It acknowledged there had been a delay in providing a dehumidifier and provided an apology for this but noted that one had now been delivered.
    4. It clarified that, once works were completed, a full redecoration of the property would take place, and this would “remove any mould spores that may still be present”.
    5. It advised “a specific time scale” could not be given for the resident to return to the property as it continued to identify other necessary works, such as the need to renew and replace the bathroom floor, rather than just repairing it. It would provide a further update “as soon as the scale of the works drops”.
    6. It apologised for the delays, stated the repairs were being “monitored closely” and that any further delays would be communicated to him. It acknowledged that its service had fallen “below (its) normal standard” and advised the resident how to escalate his complaint if he remained unhappy, although records indicate the resident did not do so.
  14. Repair records show the landlord carried out a significant number of further repairs at the property in July, August, October and November 2023. In the resident’s bathroom included hacking off and replastering 3 walls from the ceiling downwards, taking down and replacing the ceiling, installing and laying a new floor and a ventilation fan. In the resident’s bedroom works included hacking and replastering walls to full height, renewing skirting and repairing cracks around the door and window frame while in the hallway it hacked and replastered the walls, took down and overlayed the ceiling. It did the same to 3 walls in the kitchen. Records indicate the landlord believed the property was ready for the resident’s return on or around 10 January 2024, although he did not appear to move back in until a few weeks later.
  15. After moving back home, the resident raised concerns about some works he still believed to be outstanding and complained that damp and mould had returned. As above, these issues will not be considered within this investigation. However, for context, it is noted that the landlord has advised it attended the property and acknowledged the presence of damp and mould, which it attributed to the property remaining empty for a further period. It advised repairs were raised to install a new ventilation system and renew windows in the bathroom, bedroom and kitchen. It also advised that, having begun the installation of a new kitchen, it had identified asbestos which delayed works, and these remain ongoing.

Assessment and findings

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of a leak, the associated repairs and reports of damp and mould

  1. In this case, it is not disputed that there were delays in completing certain repairs following the leak at the resident’s property. In its stage 1 response to the resident’s initial (February 2023) complaint, the landlord noted there had been a “delay in having works on the (repairs) system”, although it stated this was caused by the resident being abusive to operatives and initially refusing alternative repair dates. However, its stage 2 response “identified delays in the work starting” which it did not cover in its previous response. Furthermore, in its stage 1 response to the later complaint (June 2023), the landlord acknowledged that “delays had been noted throughout the (repairs) process”, that dehumidifiers had not been provided despite previous assurances and it accepted that its service “fell below (its) normal standard”. In its final response to the original complaint, the landlord offered the resident £2500 towards the cost of replacing some personal possessions, but also to reflect the “stress and inconvenience” the situation had had on the resident. It offered a further apology, but no compensation, in its stage 1 response to the second complaint.
  2. Where there are admitted failings by a landlord, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman assesses whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: be fair, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  3. Records indicate that, following the resident’s report of a leak at the property on 15/16 December 2022, the landlord initially appeared to respond reasonably. Its repair records show that emergency repair orders were raised for a plumber to attend and stop/isolate the leak. However, orders raised to stop the leak on both the 16 and 17 December 2022 were not completed, and the leak does not appear to have been stopped until 19 December 2022.
  4. In the resident’s initial complaint, he alleged there had been 3 occasions when a plumber had failed to attend. The landlord’s repair records indicate that an initial order was cancelled as “no access” when the resident failed to answer his phone and 2 subsequent attendances, by a plumber and an electrician, appear to have been aborted due to the resident’s behaviour. It is noted that when asking for his complaint to be escalated, the resident specifically denied the landlord’s allegations that he had been aggressive or abusive towards attending operatives. While the Ombudsman acknowledges the resident’s position, it is not possible to determine precisely what happened. From the information that is available, the landlord’s records appear to be consistent and are detailed regarding the resident’s alleged behaviour, which reportedly led to contractor operatives feeling unsafe at the property.
  5. From the evidence seen by this Service, the landlord seems to have made reasonable efforts to raise relevant emergency repair orders and attend the property within an appropriate timeframe. While the events are disputed, based on the evidence available, the landlord was entitled to cancel at least 2 of the orders raised and, in the Ombudsman’s, opinion is not at fault for the 2 or 3 days’ delay in stopping the initial leak. The Ombudsman considers it would have been preferable for the landlord to have shared more details with the resident regarding the reasons contractor operatives left the property without having completed the repairs, particularly after he had contested the version of events it put forward in its complaint response. However, this aspect of the complaint will be assessed further below.
  6. Having stopped the leak on or around 19 December 2022, the landlord has accepted it failed to appropriately raise orders for follow-on repairs. After its initial complaint response appeared to blame the resident for the “delay in having works on the (repairs) system”, its stage 2 response “identified delays in the work starting”. While it was positive that the landlord acknowledged these delays had not been covered in its previous response, it would have been preferable had it provided further details regarding the cause(s) of those delays. This was also the case when it provided its response to the resident’s later complaint in June 2023 when, while it accepted there had been “delays noted throughout the (repairs) process, it failed to give any further details regarding the nature or cause of those delays. This meant the landlord missed a further opportunity to demonstrate a greater degree of transparency and to offer clarity for the resident as to why he had, at that time, had to spend over 6 months away from his property following the original leak.
  7. In its stage 2 complaint response, addressing the resident’s assertion that his possessions may not have been damaged by damp and mould if dehumidifiers had been provided, it was appropriate that the landlord apologised for this and set out the feedback it would give to its contractors. However, following this, it again failed to ensure that dehumidifiers were delivered to the property.
  8. In its stage 1 response to the June 2023 complaint, it accepted there had been mould growth “due to the property being empty” and acknowledged there had been a further delay in providing dehumidifiers. It apologised and stated these had now been delivered to the property and heating had been switched on, but it did not offer any further compensation, despite there being a further 10 week delay since it last stated dehumidifiers would be supplied. This showed the landlord had not learned from its previous complaint investigation and the feedback it had provided to its contractors had little obvious effect. Although it had acknowledged the spread of mould in the property in March 2023, it again failed to take timely steps to ensure the property could dry out and/or be properly ventilated. As the landlord had, in its stage 2 complaint response, previously agreeing to compensate the resident for possessions which had been affected by damp and mould following the initial leak, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, its failure to follow through on the actions it previously committed to and its failure to consider whether further redress was appropriate was a significant failing.
  9. From the information seen by this Service, the landlord’s delay in raising follow-on works, providing dehumidifiers and ensuring the property was properly ventilated – when it knew the resident was residing elsewhere – likely caused the condition of the property to worsen, resulted in more extensive repairs being required and ultimately led to a significant and unreasonable delay in the resident being able to return home. After an initial delay in arranging follow-one works, by the time a second damp survey was completed in March 2023 (a month after the previous survey had recommended replastering works to several walls and the bedroom ceiling), there was now a significant amount of damp and mould in the property and their findings and recommended repairs were much more extensive and led to a recommendation that the resident be “permanently decanted”. While this investigation cannot say so for certain, based on the evidence seen, the Ombudsman considers it likely that there would have been less impact on the condition of the property, the spread of damp and mould within and the time the resident spent away from his home, had the landlord taken steps sooner to ensure the property was “drying out” and properly ventilated so repairs could begin at an earlier stage.
  10. Following the second damp survey, records show a significant amount of repair orders were raised. The landlord’s repairs policy states that damp works raised following an inspection by a damp inspector will be “raised on the repairs system under the damp contract with a 40 working day target”.
  11. In its stage 2 complaint response sent on 13 April 2023, the landlord advised it hoped the property would be ready for the resident to return to in “6-8 weeks”, although it did advise this was subject to change. However, repair records indicate that repairs initially raised in March 2023 were not fully completed until August 2023, some 5 months later meaning these were completed well outside the target outlined in its repairs policy. The landlord’s repair records provide a reasonable comprehensive timeline to show when orders were raised and when they were completed and it also acknowledged instances where attending operatives incorrectly marked jobs as “no access” and, in submissions to this Service, noted that contractors at times prioritised works at tenanted properties. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the delays and the overall length of time taken to complete repairs were not appropriate and were likely to have caused the resident further distress.
  12. Additionally, there is a lack of evidence the landlord clearly communicated with the resident regarding the progression of works, with available records indicating that many of the updates the resident received appeared to be following enquiries he made with his support worker. This was also not appropriate and would have increased the resident’s uncertainty over when he would be able to return home.
  13. Given the uncertainty this situation would have caused, the lack of evidence regarding whether the landlord gave appropriate consideration of how the situation may have impacted on the resident’s mental health is of particular concern, especially given it was aware he had anxiety related health issues. Although its stage 2 complaint response contained an apology for the fact it had not previously taken his mental health concerns into account, it failed to evidence how it gave this further consideration, either within its complaint response or more generally. While the positive actions and level of communication shown by the resident’s support worker are noted, overall, the landlord should have sought to monitor the progress of the works more closely and it should have done more to prioritise repairs and minimise the length of time the resident was forced to reside away from his home. That it did not do so was a serious failing for which the landlord has not offered appropriate redress.
  14. The Ombudsman acknowledges the scale of the works undertaken by the landlord and it is appreciated that the identification of additional repairs during the whole process delayed matters. It is also recognised that the landlord appeared to appropriately offer the resident both temporary and permanent decants (moves to a new property) following the leak, provided both food and fuel vouchers at regular intervals and committed to covering the cost of utility bills at the property while the resident continued to live with family.
  15. Despite this, it is unreasonable that the resident’s property remained uninhabitable for over a year following the initial burst pipe. This was a significant length of time and would likely have a had a big impact on the resident. While it is noted that the landlord offered redress of £2500 in its stage 2 complaint response, it is unclear how much of this related to the resident’s “stress and inconvenience” and how much related to reimbursement for damaged possessions. It is also noted that this redress was intended to cover stress and inconvenience experienced by the resident up to April 2023, with no further compensation offered to reflect the fact the resident remained unable to return to his home for a further 8 months. Therefore, despite the landlord’s acknowledgement of some earlier failings in its handling of the subsequent repairs and damp and mould, the Ombudsman does not consider that its February, April and June 2023 apologies and its offer of compensation in April 2023 amounts to reasonable redress in the circumstances.
  16. The Ombudsman has made a finding of maladministration regarding the landlord’s response the resident’s reports of a leak, the associated repairs and reports of damp and mould. The Ombudsman notes that a finding of severe maladministration was considered, but the landlord’s offer of redress, while not amounting to reasonable redress, was evidence that it did attempt to put things right at some stages of the complaint process. Orders have been made at the end of this report for it to provide a further apology to the resident in writing, and to pay an increased amount of compensation that appropriately reflects the disruption and inconvenience caused.
  17. It is also noted that the resident states some repairs remain outstanding at the property now he has returned home. While these matters fall outside of the scope of this investigation, a recommendation has also been made for the landlord to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s home and draw up an action plan to complete any identified repairs that remain unresolved.

The landlord’s handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered 

  1. The landlord’s complaints policy states it aims to respond to complaints at stage 1 within 10 working days and at stage 2 within 20 working days. It responded to both the resident’s complaint at stage 1 either within target or 1 day outside, which would have caused little detriment to the resident. However, its stage 2 response in April 2023 was issued 11 working days outside of the target timeframe. It is unclear whether it provided the resident with any updates and the landlord failed to acknowledge this delay within its response, or the possible impact this may have had on the resident. This was not appropriate.
  2. It was appropriate that the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response showed it had carried out further investigations after the resident’s escalation request. It acknowledged failings within its original stage 1 response, including that causes of delay other than the resident’s alleged abusive behaviour had not been identified and that it had failed to consider the impact the situation had had on his mental health. It was also reasonable that it accepted there had been a failure to provide dehumidifiers at the property and that it was necessary to provide feedback to its contractors based on its review of the resident’s case.
  3. However, it then failed to ensure these actions were followed up, given its later complaint response acknowledged there was a further delay in providing the dehumidifiers and ensuring the property was better heated/ventilated in the resident’s absence. As part of a comprehensive complaint response, landlords should ensure that any actions they set out are adhered to. That it failed to do so in this case was not appropriate and meant the commitments it made were not fulfilled in a reasonable timeframe. This ran the risk of further damaging the landlord/tenant relationship.
  4. The landlord’s response lacked detail regarding the additional reasons for works being delayed that it had identified, and it failed to provide any clarity regarding the steps it had taken to consider his mental health during its stage 2 complaint investigation or any actions it identified to ensure his mental health would be considered going forward. It also failed to properly respond to the resident’s assertion that he had not been abusive to contractors, merely reiterating its previous position, despite appearing to have further details within its records which it could have shared. As a result, the landlord’s stage 2 response missed the opportunity to provide the resident with clarity on the above issues or to fully “put things right”.
  5. While the landlord offered apologies within each of its complaint responses, the award of compensation it made in its stage 2 response (which it advises had been paid) lacked clarity. Although the award of £2500 was positive, in accordance with the Housing Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles, the landlord should have provided a breakdown of how much was intended to reflect the “stress and inconvenience” it accepted the resident had been caused, and how much was intended to cover the cost of damaged possessions. The landlord has therefore not been able to demonstrate that its offer of redress regarding stress and inconvenience was reasonable.
  6. In its later complaint response, sent in June 2023, while the landlord apologised for the further delays it had identified “throughout the process”, it again failed to provide more details. As above, in the interests of transparency and providing the resident with clarity, it should have provided a clearer account of the findings it made. It should also have considered whether any further redress was due to the resident, given 2 months had elapsed since its previous award, which covered the inconvenience experienced up to April 2023. That it failed to do so was a failure and meant the landlord did not treat the resident fairly.
  7. As part of a comprehensive complaint response, the landlord, having already made an award to reflect the inconvenience experienced over 4 months, should have revisited this when it became apparent, he would remain away from the property for a significantly longer period. While it is acknowledged that complaints cannot be left open indefinitely, the landlord should have monitored the situation more closely following its stage 2 complaint response in April 2023 and, at some stage before the resident moved back into the property, taken the opportunity to consider whether further redress was required.
  8. Overall, there was maladministration by the landlord regarding its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration regarding the landlord’s:
    1. Response to the resident’s reports of a leak, the associated repairs and reports of damp and mould.
    2. Handling of the complaint and the level of compensation offered.

Reasons

  1. Although not at fault for the initial delay in stopping the leak, the landlord failed to appropriately raise follow-on works. It then took an unreasonable length of time to carry out those works. While it is acknowledged that the completion timeframe was extended when the landlord identified the need for additional repairs, and it at times progressed those appropriately, there is no evidence that the overall length of time the resident was forced to stay away from his property was justified. The landlord also failed to properly evidence that it fully considered the impact of the delays on the resident, despite his known vulnerabilities, and it failed to offer appropriate redress for the disruption the episode caused.
  2. The landlord’s stage 2 response was issued over 2 weeks outside of the stated target time and this was not acknowledged. It did not address all the concerns the resident raised, particularly following his escalation request, failed to give an appropriate level of detail regarding the failings its investigations identified and did not monitor actions it had committed to within its complaint responses. It also missed opportunities to consider whether further redress should be offered above and beyond its previous award when it became evident that further detriment was being caused to the resident due to the length of time he was away from the property.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. The landlord is ordered to, within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
    1. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report and the length of time he had to reside away from the property. This apology should be sent by a staff member at Director level or above.
    2. Pay the resident an additional £1500 compensation, consisting of a further £1200 to reflect the stress and inconvenience caused between April 2023 and January 2024 and £300 to reflect failings in its complaint handling.
  2. The landlord is also ordered, within 8 weeks of the date of this report, to carry out a review of the case, paying particular attention to:
    1. How it supports and communicates with vulnerable residents when extensive repairs require them to stay away from the property or to be decanted.
    2. How it ensures that steps it commits to during its complaint procedure are monitored and actioned appropriately.
  3. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with these orders within the timeframes set out above.

Recommendations

  1. The landlord is recommended to carry out a further inspection of the resident’s property, identify any repairs which remain unresolved and draw up an action plan which sets out a timeframe for their completion within a reasonable timeframe. It should consider sharing a copy of this action plan with both this Service and the resident.