Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council (202217072)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202217072

Gateshead Metropolitan Borough Council

7 August 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of damp at the property.
2. Complaint handling.
3. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

The resident and his wife are secure tenants of the landlord. The landlord is a local authority and the tenancy began on 4 April 2018. The property is a two bedroom house and the resident lives there with his wife and son. In terms of vulnerabilities, the resident has told the landlord that he suffers from hyperacusis and anxiety and that his wife suffers from obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

Legal framework

The tenancy agreement confirms the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair. This includes outside walls, internal walls, floors, plasterwork. It also says that the resident must give reasonable access to the property to allow for repairs and inspections. It explains that legal action may be taken if access is unreasonably refused.
The landlord has provided a copy of its damp and mould process which explains the steps it follows for reports of damp and mould at a property.
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 has a potential to cause harm and as such a landlord is required to assess any deficiencies within its properties which may increase the likelihood of a hazard occurring. A landlord should be aware of its obligations under HHSRS and it is expected to carry out additional monitoring of a property where potential hazards are identified.
The Decent Homes Standard sets the minimum expectation of quality that all social homes must meet. It explains that for a home to be considered ‘decent’ it must be free of hazards assessed as serious under HHSRS.
The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 recommends that a landlord should:
1. Adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
1. Identify opportunities for extending the scope of diagnosis within buildings, this could include examining neighbouring properties to ensure the response is effective as possible.
2. Avoid taking actions that solely place the onus on the resident and should evaluate the mitigations it can put in place to support the resident and satisfy it that it is taking all reasonable steps.
3. Ensure its responses to reports of damp and mould are timely and reflect the urgency of the issue.
4. Identify complex cases at an early stage.
5. Regularly communicate with the resident about actions taken or otherwise to resolve the reports of damp and mould.
The landlord’s financial compensation guidance allows for discretionary financial compensation for quantifiable loss, avoidable inconvenience, distress, detriment or other unfair impact of a service failure. It explains that quantifiable loss must have been incurred as a direct result of the service failure of complaints process. The policy recognises the cumulative impact on an individual and says it must take into account the entire process, from the point the service failure occurred, plus the complaint process, plus any impact of follow on actions such as future repairs.
The financial compensation guidance explains that awards of £700 and above are in recognition of maladministration or severe maladministration that has had a severe long-term impact on the complainant.
The landlord’s complaints and compliments policy explains its 3 stage complaints procedure which includes an information stage, a formal stage where it aims to provide a response within 10 working days and a review stage. Its policy explains that a review response will be provided within 20 working days.
The Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code explains that a landlord’s complaints procedure should include a two stage process with a maximum timescale for a response. For a stage one response it should not exceed 10 working days. For a stage two response it should not exceed 20 working days from request to escalate, if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the response will be received should be shared with the resident and this timeframe should not exceed a further 10 working days.

Summary of events

The evidence shows the landlord completed voids works at the property between November 2017 and March 2018. The landlord’s notes show it found damp to the ground floor walls and determined it was a result of previous internal leaks. The landlord applied a damp proof render to the areas that had the plaster “hacked off” at that time. The landlord has told this Service that it no longer has access to inspection reports due to a change in contractor.
On 18 May 2018 the resident told the landlord about a wet patch at the bottom of a wall in the kitchen. He said the issue could be related to the adjoining property being higher and its drain water not having anywhere to drain away.
The landlord made a request for a building surveyor to attend for the possible damp issue in the kitchen on 15 May 2018. On 26 June 2018 the landlord noted damp to the external wall at low level with visible salts and a high protimeter reading. It found the ground level to the adjoining property was higher so it was likely to be lateral penetrating damp. It said it would revisit with contractors and noted a similar problem to the understairs cupboard. The evidence shows that at this time an internal email referred to pictures that showed the property was suffering from damp at low level. It is noted that a survey was scheduled for 27 June 2018. The landlord has been unable to provide a copy of its surveyor’s reports due to a change in contractor. However it has accepted damp was present at the property.
The resident made further reports of rising damp in the kitchen on 3 July 2018 and provided the landlord with pictures.
On 12 July 2018 the landlord told the resident that it had received its damp survey and wanted to discuss this with the resident and surveyor. On the same day the resident said he did not want the same surveyor dealing with issues about his property. He said the landlord was aware of the issues and did nothing about them and as such lost chances to correct the ongoing damp. At this time he shared further pictures of the property. Within its response from the same day, the landlord said it would make arrangements to attend the property but as the surveyor was responsible for the area he would be required to attend if a survey was needed.
It is understood that at the same time the resident made a freedom of information request.
The resident sent further pictures to the landlord on 14 July 2018 and said water was coming into the property through the floor and soaking into the internal walls. He said there was damp in his kitchen and behind his fridge. The resident sent a further email on the same day to tell the landlord of his and his wife’s vulnerabilities. He said the damp was significantly worse than that at his previous property. He said it was affecting his families health and was upsetting.
The resident instructed his own surveyor and on 28 September 2018 who made the following observations of the property:
1. There were signs of rising dampness to the party wall and there were visible staining marks indicating rising damp and probably lateral dampness from below the floor slab of the property. The surveyor noted cracking and unevenness to the solid floor slab.
1. There were signs of rising damp behind the fridge in the kitchen.
2. The existing damp proof course was likely to have been compromised by the bridging of the plaster.
3. The surveyor recommended that all walls should be damp proofed and the floors lifted and re-laid over a new membrane. Membranes should be aligned to the damp proof course and replastering. A quote was provided for the works. It is not disputed that this report was sent to the landlord.
On 19 November 2018 the resident asked the landlord to send another surveyor to look at the issue. Due to no response, he chased for a response on 21 November 2018. Within its response from 21 November 2018 the landlord said that it understood the resident was to send it photos of the property. The resident explained that photos had been sent to its other department and that the landlord had enough time to fix the issue but took a “quick fix” approach.
The landlord contacted the resident on 10 April 2019 apologising for its delay about the pending damp works. It said due to the protracted timescales it would resurvey the property and provide an updated report and recommendations. It said it would complete works recommended by its specialist damp contractor. Here it also explained that it was unable to complete works with the resident at the property and would move him on a temporary basis to complete the necessary works. The resident responded the same day and said it conducted a survey in June 2018 and he conducted a private survey and shared his report with the landlord. He explained how dealing with the landlord’s surveyor left him feeling ignored and said he would not move forward with the issue until he was satisfied its proposals would fix the issue.
It is not disputed that the surveyor visited the property following this. The exact date is unclear from the information provided and the landlord’s inability to provide its reports.
On 15 May 2019 the resident told the landlord that the surveyor had refused to answer his questions when at the property and told him he was not the client. The resident explained how he felt not listened to or let him and his wife talk. He said due to the relationship he could not see how the issue would be resolved. The resident raised concerns about the surveyor and said:
1. Water was soaking up from the floor causing the conditions of the walls.
1. He asked when the landlord would get samples of the floor checked for water ingress.
2. How he felt the landlord’s proposed work at this time, was cosmetic and periodic methods to address the issue of damp at the property.
3. He was upset and angry by the surveyor’s visit and said he did not want to move out of the property or lose out financially.
On 20 May 2019 the landlord told the resident that the information it had received differed to that the resident had sourced himself. It said it had a copy of the surveyors revised report and wanted to discuss the contents of it with the resident. It confirmed the agreed appointment on 5 June 2019 to do this.
On 7 June 2019 the resident thanked the landlord for visiting the property and said he wanted to see a written list of the remedial work. He told it of discrepancies with what he was told when they met and the diagram left with him and as such he wanted written confirmation of the planned works. The resident followed up on this email on 29 June 2019 and told the landlord that he had not heard from it. He told it how he felt the landlord was either unwilling of financially unable to resolve the damp issue. He said a private quote he obtained estimated the works at £14,000. He explained that he would rather control the works and offered the landlord £1 to purchase the property.
On 1 July 2019 the landlord apologised for its delay in responding and said it was in the process of agreeing the scope of work. It told the resident that it would keep him updated. The landlord explained it could not pass the responsibility of repairs to the resident and reassured him that it would ensure the works were completed safely. The resident was told how he could consider purchasing the property through right to buy only.
The resident contacted the landlord’s environmental health department on 11 October 2019. He said he initially raised concerns about damp in June 2018 and told it that since then he had been ignored, brushed off or sent to a number of different departments. He asked the landlord to contact him.
The landlord contacted the resident on 7 November 2019 and told the resident the works it would do. It said it would request a temporary move to alternative accommodation to allow the repairs to take place. The landlord said it would support the resident with the move and reassured him that the works were the correct action to take as per its repairs policy and statutory duty. It listed the works as:
1. Party wall in dining room and lounge and under stairs cupboard – full height damp proof works.
1. Hallway cupboards – damp proof works to wall which backs to kitchen.
2. Kitchen – removal of base units to wall which backs onto hallway cupboard and carry out damp proof works.
3. Full ground floor – apply a liquid damp proof membrane and new screed.
On 8 November 2019 the resident told the landlord that he felt its planned approach was not in line with manufacturer’s guidance. He said he was unhappy with its planned approach to complete the kitchen repair work. The landlord acknowledged the concerns on the same day and attempted to reassure the resident that the products it would use would be installed in line with manufacturer’s recommendations. It said it would assess the works in the kitchen once the property was vacant and the floor coverings had been lifted to expose the concrete.
On 11 November 2019 that landlord acknowledged the resident’s concerns about additional areas impacted by damp. It explained that there was a possibility that due to the “protracted timescales that the problem spread to other parts of the property”. It explained how it would resurvey the property once it was empty to ensure it captured any additional works and said it would keep the resident informed of its findings.
The resident sent a number of emails on 11 November 2019 and said:
1. How he felt the landlord intended to move him to take ‘free rein’ to complete work “cheaply”.
1. He had lost trust in the landlord and that the damp issue should have been resolved when the property was empty before the tenancy began.
2. He would not agree to move until he had assurance that future works were agreed by both sides.
3. He wanted the landlord to arrange a further survey. He asked when it would complete a core sample of the floor.
4. When referring to pictures of the property. One picture showed water soaking up through the floor and another showed damp in the sitting room behind the sofa. He explained that both areas were in the middle of the property and in line with a crack in the concrete floor.
5. The landlord’s use of the term “protracted timeframe” within its previous email looked like its attempts to shift blame onto him.
6. The landlord had failed to communicate with him properly.
On 13 November 2019 the landlord said:
1. It had enough information from past visits to determine that the resident was unable to remain at the property whilst remedial repairs were carried out. It said it would request a temporary move to allow it to undertake full investigation of the problems, produce a list of remedial repairs and deliver the repair. It said it would be in touch once it identified a suitable property.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the level of repairs but said it was unable to conclude its investigation around him and his belongings.
2. It reminded the resident that his tenancy agreement said he must provide access for repairs and inspections.
3. It said it would resurvey the property once the resident had moved and this would include specialist surveys if required.
4. It assured the resident that it would maintain regular contact with him throughout the process.
The resident sent a number of emails on 14 November 2019 and said he had allowed all of the landlord’s inspection to take place and had not breached any part of the tenancy agreement. The resident also said:
1. He could not understand why an inspection could not take place with him in the property.
1. Had he not had private surveyor’s report the landlord would have continued with surveys that would have caused further repair works.
2. The landlord’s previous attempts had not got to the root cause of the issues at the property.
3. His medical condition meant he was concerned with noise and chose the property due to its location, being away from main roads. He said due to this he had great reservations about moving.
4. He explained his wife suffered from OCD and would not agree for a temporary move until it agreed to seal off the upstairs part of the house and provided storage facilities.
5. He wanted to know who would check the work was completed correctly. He said he was previously told the works would not be checked.
6. He found the landlord’s statement asking him to reconsider moving for it to progress with works, threatening. He repeated his position that he would move once it had agreed a list of works with him.
7. The landlord had made previous promises but nothing added up. He told the landlord how he felt there could be a racially motivated agenda.
On 17 November 2019 the resident repeated previous concerns about the landlord not resolving the historical damp problem at the property. How he felt he was not being listened to and said that the landlord was now focused on a temporary move. The resident then raised his complaint on 20 November 2019. He said:
1. The landlord allowed him to move to a property without first ensuring it was fit for human habitation. He said the major complaint was about the rising damp across the entire downstairs areas. He said the freedom of information request established that the damp problem was historic and had not been dealt with by the landlord.
1. The landlord had caused mental confusion and provided contradictory information at each visit. He said it spoke to them about parts of the property that needed urgent attention but did not follow up.
2. How he felt the landlord had treated him as a “pest”, despite him following the procedure of the tenancy agreement. He described how the landlord’s staff had ignored him and his wife and walked away whilst in a conversation. He detailed his concerns with the landlord’s staff who dealt with the matter and never responded or ignored his communication. He said the communication was not very honest when compared to the discussions at the property. He described the landlord’s contact with his wife as staff having racial issues with her.
3. He told the landlord of his medical issues and said the situation had put him, his wife and 14 year old son under stress.
It is not disputed that the landlord attended the property on 28 November 2019 and conducted a survey on 4 December 2019. Again this Service has not been provided with copies of the reports following this survey either.
The evidence shows the next contact was on 14 January 2020 where the landlord thanked the resident for his emails and asked for some time to consider them. The landlord and resident were in communication on 20 and 21 January 2020 when it issued its response to his complaint. It said:
1. It had visited the property on 28 November 2019 and 4 December 2019, to view the condition and assist in investigating the complaint. It said it conducted a comprehensive damp survey on 4 December 2019.
1. It said it met with the resident on 16 January 2020 to discuss the scope of work needed at the property following its survey from December 2019.
2. Prior to the resident moving into the property considerable work was undertaken which included comprehensive damp treatment. It acknowledged that this treatment appeared to be unsuccessful. It said the resident first reported the damp in May 2018 and it unreservedly apologised that the previous damp treatment was not successful.
3. It accepted that there was evidence to suspect the resident had experienced confusion, contradiction and delay in its handling of reports of damp. It acknowledged the resident would have experienced frustration and apologised for this.
4. It said it had spoken to the resident on 16 January 2020 and agreed the scope of works, which met the resident’s satisfaction. It said it acknowledged that the resident was happy for the work to start in March 2020. It said it would arrange a temporary move whilst the works were ongoing.
5. It offered the resident £500 compensation in final settlement of his complaint. It said this was in addition to an agreement previously made involving redecoration throughout the affected areas of the property and for compensation for lino.
The resident rejected the landlord’s compensation offer at that time and said £500 was not enough to justify the emotional impact, distress and inconvenience caused to him and his family. He said his family had been subjected to 20 months of ‘turmoil’ and had been forced to live for too long in a hazardous environment. He said £5,000 compensation would be more acceptable. The evidence shows that at this time the resident confirmed March 2020 was suitable time for him to move and for works to begin.
On 24 January 2020 the landlord confirmed the list of works and said it was working towards starting works in March 2020. It said it was attempting to arrange a suitable property and confirmed the work as:
1. Dampness works to areas identified within its recent report.
1. Apply liquid damp proof membrane and new screed to the ground floor.
2. Redecoration of the ground floor rooms affected by the works.
3. New vinyl floor tiles to kitchen/dining room.
4. Replacement sheet vinyl floor covering to hall/cupboard.
On 27 January 2020 the resident listed points he wanted clarified from the landlord. He said:
1. He was awaiting confirmation on how to appeal the compensation it had offered.
1. He never agreed for it to redecorate and said he preferred to do this himself.
2. He would be sealing off the entire upstairs of the house and the stairs would be sealed off with plastic sheeting. He also told it where he would need plastic sheeting.
3. He wanted the landlord to confirm that it was still going to investigate the likely cause of damp further in the utility cupboard.
4. He asked for confirmation that there was no asbestos in the house and wanted a report on the issue.
5. He wanted access to see the status of the works on a regular basis.
The landlord responded on the same day and said:
1. The dampness work would include removing all skirting boards and kitchen units to ensure there was no plasterwork in contact with concrete floor.
1. The waste pipes leading to the soil stack would be checked for blockages and leaks.
2. Dust protection would be installed to minimise any dust migration to the first floor.
3. It would ensure works were delivered in line with its repairs policy and a ‘sign off’ would be completed before the resident returned home.
4. Decoration to the ground floor had been included within the scope of works, and there would be no need to provide paint.
5. Replacing the sitting room floor covering. Which was omitted from its email from 26 January.
6. It would clean the property prior to it being inspected.
7. It would change the locks to give the resident peace of mind.
8. Should a replacement sink be needed it would ensure it was a two hole sink. It needed written permission if he wanted to change the taps.
The resident resent his email from 27 January 2020 on 1 February 2020 and said he wanted to deal with the matter in writing. He said he would not proceed until everything was agreed by it and accepted by him and his family. He told the landlord to escalate the compensation it had previously offered.
The resident repeated his escalation request on 3 February 2020 and asked for the managing director’s email address. This was provided and the resident repeated his request for a review of compensation in this contact.
On 14 February 2020 the landlord approved a direct let for the resident and said this was following a building surveyor and damp specialists visit to the property. It said repeated the list of work identified.
The landlord said it was willing to omit the decoration element from the works on 25 February 2020 and said it would supply the resident with paint to decorate. It agreed to apply plastic sheeting and bubble wrap. Whilst it said it would not be a problem to visit the property, due to health and safety the visits would need to be agreed in advance. It also told the resident about temporary accommodation.
The resident asked for the plastic sheets before he moved to seal off the upstairs He explained the type of sheets required. Within this email from 27 February 2020 the resident listed further points about lino compensation, paint, time to move out and back to the property. He explained his requirements for the temporary accommodation, loss of internet and reminded the landlord that he suffered from hyperacusis which meant he could not live on main road due to the noise.
On 2 March 2020 the resident told the landlord that its contractor had arrived to start work when he was not ready to vacate the property. He asked why the landlord had instructed for works at that time. In its response from the same day the landlord apologised and said its contractor should not have attended as it was aware works would not start that week.
On 9 March 2020 the resident asked the landlord for its reply in relation to his request for a review of compensation. He said this was holding up the works to the property. The following day the landlord apologised for its delay in reviewing the complaint and said it wanted to visit the property to discuss compensation. On 11 March 2020 the resident proposed a meeting on 20 March 2020 and asked the landlord’s staff to familiarise itself with his matter. It is understood that the meeting went ahead on 27 March 2020.
Between March and April 2020 the resident continued to follow up on his freedom of information request. At this time he told the landlord that due to covid-19 restrictions, he and his family were in lockdown in a house that was “not fit for human habitation”.
The landlord responded on 6 April 2020 to confirm the freedom of information request had been sent to the relevant department. It said it was unable to provide a timeframe for a response but would continue to review the situation and would contact him. In an email from the following day the landlord said it was keen to look at the property to see the issues raised and decide the correct course of action. It said this could not go ahead at that time due to covid-19 restrictions but would seek to arrange for this in the future. It said the complaint would remain open and it would assist with any further questions.
On 16 April 2020 the landlord provided the resident with a copy of the repairs history for the property.
The resident contacted the landlord on 1 July 2020 and told it that his previous proposal of £5,000 compensation was no longer proportionate to the impact suffered. He explained how he was at the property during lockdown. The resident said he wanted a 20 year guarantee for the works. The landlord acknowledged the email the same day and said it had passed it to the relevant team to consider.
On 8 August 2020 the resident told the landlord he was unsure who to contact as the previous person he was in contact with was no longer dealing with the issue. He told it that a reply was overdue and that he had been left in ‘limbo’. He sent a further chaser on 23 September 2020 and on 24 September 2020 he repeated the contents of his email from 1 July 2020 about compensation.
In its response from 24 September 2020 the landlord apologised for its delay and explained the member of staff dealing with his complaint had left. It asked for confirmation that the outstanding issue was compensation. In a further email from 25 September 2020 the landlord confirmed it would look at compensation and support the resident during the temporary rehousing. It said it wanted to resolve the issue as soon as possible and that it would contact the resident the following week.
The resident chased for a response on 18 November, 2 and 7 December 2020. He said that despite his attempts he had not received a response from the landlord. He explained how the situation was “the most traumatic and annoying situation” he had been in and the landlord had conducted itself in a “least professional” manner. He said the issue was raised in June 2018 and he was nowhere near an acceptable resolution. He said due to the ongoing situation and health concerns he had sealed the affected area with plastic in attempts to contain the contamination. He also described how he felt the landlord was viewing the matter as an “annoying tenant situation.”
The resident chased for a response again on 4 March 2021 and on 23 March 2021 he approached his MP about the issues and provided photos of the property. The MP told the resident that the landlord had confirmed it would contact him that week. The landlord’s notes show it was unsuccessful in its attempts to contact the resident at that time.
On 1 April 2021 the landlord emailed the resident and said it had tried to call him to arrange an appointment to attend with a building surveyor. It asked the resident to respond with his availability. The resident responded the same day and said the landlord had visited four times previously and that he had conducted private reports. He said the landlord had agreed to works but not done the works due to not agreeing the compensation payment amount. He said he felt abandoned and forgotten about. He told the landlord that he would not meet it and said how its email made him feel it was starting back at the beginning of the complaint. He said he was willing to meet at a council office to discuss.
On 6 April 2021 the landlord’s surveyor told it that the “the floor slab of the adjoining property will be a foot or so higher than the floor slab in the property… therefore the subfloor soils of the next door property will be above DPC level in the property we are looking at which is causing damp conditions within the property.” It said it had scoped the works and the decant offer was refused by the resident.
On 7 April 2021 the landlord apologised to the resident and said it had not forgotten about him. It agreed to communicate via email. It told the resident that he would need to move from the property on a temporary basis and it would contact him to discuss this further. It said it would discuss the compensation payment further and provide the resident with a response. The resident responded the same day and asked the landlord to read through all emails and said he would require everything in writing going forward.
The landlord provided an update on 13 April 2021 telling the resident that it was awaiting more information about repairs and the temporary move. It said it would contact the resident with an update. A further update was provided on 7 May 2021 it said it was aware of the resident’s specific needs and would be in touch to discuss. It said once it had progressed with the temporary accommodation it would contact him.
On 8 May 2021 the resident reminded the landlord that he would not move until he had written confirmation about the issues at the property and compensation had been agreed. He explained how he felt that if compensation was not agreed beforehand he would probably not receive it. He said he had zero trust in the landlord.
On 8 June 2021 the landlord told the resident that it was in the process of finding suitable temporary accommodation for him. It asked for further information about the previous property not being suitable for the resident. Within his response the resident explained that the property offered the year before was not suitable due to his medical condition and proximity to the main road.
On 17 August 2021 the landlord said it had requested a property in a pedestrian area. It asked for details of the family living at the property.
On 19 August 2021 the resident repeated his position from his email of 8 May 2021. He listed further points that he wanted the landlord to answer which included when the property was built, the type of concrete used and the type of water membrane used. The landlord treated this as a freedom of information request and whilst it confirmed the date the property was built it said it did not have access to the other information to respond. It is noted that the resident raised concerns about this in August 2021.
On 14 September 2021 the landlord said it was unable to pull together a complete scope of works. It said to move forward it would make an appointment to survey the property to get an up to date scope of works but explained this would be done once the resident had moved out. It also said it was unable to agree compensation before he moved out as it would only agree compensation at completion of works. It asked again for the details of those living at the property.
The resident responded the same day and said the full scope of works had previously been agreed in its complaint response. He repeated what this work was and said he was not willing to move before everything was agreed in writing. He told the landlord that his mental health was not up to constant moving. He repeated that he had no trust in the landlord due to how he had been treated. He asked the landlord to read all previous emails.
On 23 September 2021 the resident sent a follow up email requesting an update and asked for a direct email address. He repeated concerns about the material used for the building. In its response from the same day, the landlord apologised for its late response and said the customer care officer dealing with the matter no longer worked in that department. It confirmed the new point of contact and said due to the time passed there were two options (1) another building survey or (2) it alter the scope of works whilst it carry out the works if needed. It said that it would check if it could agree a compensation amount before him leaving the property.
On 27 September 2021 the resident told the landlord that the issue was delayed because it kept passing the matter to somebody different. He repeated his previous concerns about historic issues at the property and the quality of the surveyors used by the landlord. He repeated the outstanding issues as compensation, list of works, agreeing to him checking the works, moving from the property and it providing plastic sheets, paint and lino compensation. The landlord said its enquiries were ongoing on 7 October 2021.
On 9 November 2021 the resident contacted his MP again with pictures of the property which included the worsening conditions of the kitchen. He said he had “tried to stem the damp consequences on [their] health by sealing up the area with plastic sheets and trying to soak up the damp with cardboard.” He also said that the damp had impacted tinned food and said he was considering reporting the matter to the media.
The landlord responded on 10 November 2021 and said:
1. The compensation would be escalated to complaint stage 3.
1. It would arrange for full scope of work to be sent to the resident and any further work identified whilst at site would be added to this.
2. It could arrange for the resident to visit the property during the works but said there may be days where it would be unsafe to visit.
3. It explained due to the specific requirements for the temporary accommodation it would take longer for it to locate a suitable property. It said its lettings department would monitor this.
4. It would provide plastic sheeting before the repairs go ahead.
5. It said it would provide décor compensation by vouchers or payment to the resident. It agreed the lino compensation amount for £493 and said it would transfer this to the resident.
On 5 January 2022 the resident told the landlord how he felt its contact ended up in threats and intimidation. He reminded it of his medical condition and copied his MP into his contact with the landlord. The landlord apologised for its delayed response on 7 January 2022, it explained it was awaiting a suitable property and would request an update from its relevant department.
The resident followed up on the lino compensation on 14 January 2022. He said this was part of another matter, he had provided his bank details but not received the compensation.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for a response on 27 January 2022 and referred it to his email from 14 January 2022. Also on 27 January 2022 the landlord said it would arrange for the lino compensation to be paid to the resident or it could ask its contractor to attend to this instead. It said it would need to send another surveyor to the property and told the resident that it no longer used the same surveyor. It agreed to follow up on the temporary accommodation.
The landlord’s internal email from the same day shows that the temporary accommodation aspect had not progressed since 7 June 2021. It said this was due to an oversight.
On 9 and 16 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that previous list of works was relevant and he wanted it to confirm it would adhere to it. He said the future visits should only add additional work if necessary. He told the landlord that he was concerned about works being downgraded. He repeated his previous position on the compensation appeal. He also told the landlord that its lack of response “would appear to be a deliberate ploy…to wear down the individual to the point of submission.” He repeated his concerns about the landlord’s lack of communication and the impact this was having on him.
On 21 February 2022 the landlord apologised for its delay in responding to the resident stating storm damage had impacted its service. It assured the resident that it did not intend to wear the resident down and apologised that he felt this way. It explained the new survey was necessary for its new contractor to cost the work and to add further work. It said it was not looking to brush the last four years under the carpet and said the stage 3 complaint was open so it could review compensation and provide a further response. It said it would chase the response.
The resident told the landlord that he had received a letter about temporary rehousing on 12 May 2022. He said the repairs had yet to be agreed and the compensation had not been concluded. He repeated how he felt he was being ignored and the landlord had not considered his wellbeing. He chased for a response on 16 and 20 May 2022. The resident told the landlord that the issue would not be resolved without contact from it and how he felt he was talking to himself.
The resident continued to chase the landlord for an update on the compensation appeal in June 2022 and July 2022. He asked to raise a complaint about its stage 3 process. He told the landlord that an appeal was agreed to in 2020 but not progressed. The landlord then provided the resident with the name of the person investigating the stage 3 complaint. The resident contacted this member of staff directly and on 4 July 2022 the landlord said it wanted to meet with the resident to get his version of events. The resident explained the outstanding issue was compensation and that he would send all previous emails for it to review before meeting. The resident told the landlord that the issue would need to be prioritised and that he had been “stuck in a damp house for 4 years.”
The resident sent a number of previous emails to the landlord on 5 July 2022 and told it that he had been lied to, ignored, passed around departments and pushed from person to person. He said his mental health had suffered directly due to the anxiety he felt when having dealings with the landlord and that he had been left with zero trust in it. The landlord said it would progress the review with what the resident had sent him.
The resident chased for a response to his appeal request on 20 September 2022 and was told the member of staff dealing with the stage 3 response had moved departments. It provided another member of staff’s contact details. The resident asked who the previous member of staff had passed the matter on to and said “just because somebody leaves a position the problem still remains and needs dealing with.”
On 26 September 2022 the landlord confirmed who would be dealing with the complaint going forward and said it would respond by 7 October 2022. It apologised that it had not provided a response sooner. The resident chased for the outcome on 7 October 2022 and the landlord apologised that it had not responded. It asked if it could speak with the resident to discuss a resolution.
On 12 October 2022 the landlord told the resident it had reviewed the complaint. It accepted the previous compensation did not reflect the length of time he had waited for repairs or the stress and inconveniences caused. It said the temporary accommodation had an impact on delays. It increased its offer of compensation to £6,500 as its final offer inclusive of floor coverings and decoration costs, it said the amount included its previous offer of £500. It told the resident that temporary accommodation may become available which was located in a similar street set up to the property. It asked if the resident would consider the property.
A number of emails were exchanged on 17 October 2022, the key points from these emails was:
1. The landlord said it would not normally accept the reasons given for a specific temporary accommodation property but had done so here which meant it can take some time to source a property.
1. It said its offer was final and there were no further reviews and that it would provide its response in writing explaining how he could escalate his complaint to this Service.
2. The resident said his request for a property was not a specific type but due to his mental condition it was for a property not on a main road. He said the temporary accommodation would be required before work started and confirmed his agreement to the property offered.
3. He said the compensation amount was not reasonable and explained the stress and “mental degradation” suffered by him and his family from June 2018. He said he never had a downstairs property to live in and never had visitors.
The landlord provided its stage 3 response on 25 October 2022. It said:
1. After considering the extent of the delays and taking account of the works remaining outstanding it offered the resident the sum of £6,500.
1. It acknowledged the resident’s rejection of this offer. It explained said a home loss payment would not be made for a temporary move.
2. It also acknowledged the difficulty it was facing in sourcing a suitable property for a temporary move to meet the resident’s requirements due to his hyperacusis. It said it identified another property but it was going through relet process and said it would contact him once it became available.
In another email from 25 October 2022 the landlord said another property had become available and asked if the resident would view it. In his response from the same day the resident repeated his previous comments about his lack of trust for in the landlord and said:
1. He would only move once he had everything documents in email and monies paid in advance.
1. He would consider the new property after a viewing and once he had exhausted this Service’s process.
Following this the landlord treated the resident’s contact as a rejection of the property and the resident asked for it to confirm that it would not agree to everything before commencing works.
On 26 October 2022 the landlord responded to the outstanding points raised by the resident. It said:
1. It was its intention to get the work completed as soon as possible to minimise the stress going forward.
1. It was unable to allow the resident to inspect the work at each stage and said it would not deem it acceptable for the resident to be involved in the details surrounding the technical detail of the works. It said that was its responsibility as owner of the property.
2. It said that it would discuss the scope of works with the resident but did not need to provide the technical specifications for the works.
3. It explained the purpose of its stage 3 response. It said it did not offer compensation for having to temporary move for works It said it felt it made a fair and reasonable compensation offer. It repeated previous points about the works.
The resident remained unhappy with the landlord’s response and told it that the list of work from its stage 2 response was the agreed scope of works, he said he confirmed he was happy with this in 2020. The landlord confirmed its stage 3 response was final on 1 November 2022 and referred the resident to this Service.
The evidence shows the landlord was aware that the disagreement with the compensation amount meant the resident was not willing to move. Its internal email show it had considered the implications of this. Following this in January 2023 the landlord told the resident of its legal duty to carry out repairs and said “if you decide to take this further, we can evidence we have done everything possible to gain entry to the property to carry out our legal obligations.”
A further internal email shows the landlord felt this Service was “more likely to criticise the council for not following our processes and taking every possible step at [its] disposal to make sure that the disrepair is dealt with and the risk to the family is removed.” It was following this that it told the resident that it needed to gain access to carry out the works and said its next steps was the no access route and to apply to the court as per his tenancy agreement. The resident responded the same day to say the matter was with this Service.
The resident has said he has not heard from the landlord since. The landlord has explained that its position remains the same and that it needs access to the property to assess and carry out the works. It has said the resident has declined access awaiting the outcome of this Service’s decision. It appears the landlord has done nothing further.
The landlord has told this Service that its compensation offer of £6,500 was offered calculating the weekly rent divided by the number of habitable rooms in the property. It said this was multiplied by the number of habitable rooms affected. It worked this amount from 9 April 2018 (when issue was first reported) to 20 September 2022 (when its stage 3 response was provided) and it attempted to progress the works. It said this amount was £4,800. A further amount of £1,700 was added to cover the costs of the purchasing and fitting of lino and to cover the cost of redecorating the ground floor of the property as per its stage 2 response.

Assessment and findings

Within his contact with this Service the resident has said the only matter that he wants the Ombudsman to consider is the compensation offered by the landlord. The resident’s points are acknowledged, however it is important to explain that this Service operates an inquisitorial approach to investigations. As such in addition to the compensation offered, the Ombudsman has also considered further complaints.

Handling of damp at the property

Following the resident’s report of a wet patch at the bottom of the kitchen wall, the landlord acted appropriately in conducting a survey on 27 June 2018. Here it found damp to the external wall at low level with visible salts and high protimeter readings. Whilst this Service has not been provided with a copy of its surveyor’s report, the evidence shows the landlord accepted damp was present at the property and was aware that its previous damp works had failed.
Throughout July 2018 the resident reported further concerns about damp at the property and told the landlord of the worsening conditions. He went on to instruct his own surveyor who confirmed the property had signs of rising damp. The resident continued to report concerns about the property and despite sending the landlord pictures in addition to his own surveyor’s finding the landlord did not take any further action at that time. This was not appropriate.
It took the landlord until April 2019 to contact the resident about the works, however due to the time passed it said it needed to conduct a further inspection of the property. It is also noted that it took the landlord almost one year from the resident’s initial report of damp to tell him that he needed to decant for the works to take place. This timeframe demonstrates the landlord’s failure to act swiftly when dealing with damp. Its actions were not in line with its obligations under the tenancy agreement or its wider obligations when dealing with damp at a property.
The resident continued to tell the landlord of the worsening condition of the property. He said water was soaking up from the floor and he felt he was being ignored. It took the landlord until November 2019 to confirm the work it would do to address the damp. At this time the landlord told the resident that it was taking action in line with its repairs policy and statutory duty. However it took the landlord 18 months to get to this point despite its policy timescales and its wider obligations. The landlord left the resident and his family in the property where significant work was required and failed to apply any preventative measures at that time. This was not appropriate.
It is not disputed that the resident agreed to the works in January 2020 and for them to begin in March 2020. However the landlord did not approve the direct let until 14 February 2020. This was almost 1 year after it was aware of the need for a decant. This timeframe was not appropriate.
The evidence shows the landlord’s failure to progress the works at this time contributed to the breakdown of its relationship with the resident. The resident repeatedly told it that he had lost trust in it and the landlord did nothing to rebuild this. Instead it failed to respond in a timely manner to his emails placing the onus on the resident to contact it for updates. It failed to approve a decant for almost a year and it caused a further six month delay to the decant due to an “oversight”. However despite what it knew, it repeatedly told the resident the delay was due to the specific requirements of a property. This was unreasonable.
It is noted that between March 2020 and October 2022 the landlord and resident were in communication about the works and compensation. It is also acknowledged that between March and June 2020, and again between 5 November and December 2020 the landlord would have been impacted by covid-19 restriction in place at that time and could not have progressed matters. However, following the easing of some restrictions there is no evidence to show the landlord progressed matters or considered alternative ways to resolve the sticking points of the matter. This was despite the resident telling it that he had sealed the damp affected areas with plastic in attempts to “contain the contamination.” The landlord’s lack of action here was not appropriate.
Whilst it attempted to clarify matters within its stage 3 response on 25 October 2022 and said it was aware of its legal obligations. It failed to act in a resolution focused way and the significant repair work that it is responsible for remains outstanding. It appears that both the resident and landlord are awaiting the outcome of this Service’s investigation and that matters have not progressed. It is understandable that at times it is difficult to decide how to progress with matters when relationships have broken down and it is difficult to decide if legal action is the right avenue, despite this being a route the landlord was entitled to follow. However, regardless of this Service’s investigation the landlord should have still engaged and liaised with the resident in attempts to progress matters, in line with its ongoing obligations.
Overall, the landlord accepted the property had damp, was aware that its previous damp course had failed and was told of the worsening condition of it as well as the impact it was having on the resident and his family. However it has failed to complete the significant repairs it is responsible for. The landlord has failed to act in line with its repairs policy or wider obligations to make the property decent and its actions fell short of the recommendations made in the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Damp and Mould from October 2021 as:
1. It did not adopt a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould.
1. It took actions placing the onus on the resident.
2. It did not evaluate the mitigations it could put in place to support the resident and satisfy it that it was taking all reasonable steps.
3. It did not respond to reports of damp in a timely and urgent manner.
4. It did not regularly communicate with the resident about its actions or otherwise.
The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp at the property amount to severe maladministration.
It is important to acknowledge that at times there were delays outside of the landlord’s control, this includes covid-19 restrictions, finding a suitable decant property and in the resident not agreeing with its approach as well as refusal to allow access. Whilst it is accepted that the landlord’s handling of the reports of damp was poor, it is clear that the situation has been difficult for both sides. When considering this and the mitigating factors mentioned previously the landlord cannot be held responsible for the full extent of the delays here. This will be considered further below.
It is noted that within its complaint response from 21 January 2020, the landlord appropriately apologised for the delays and accepted the resident had experienced confusion, contradiction and delay in its handling of damp. It is noted the resident accepted the landlord’s position at this time and his main disagreement was with its compensation offer of £500.
Over two years later, the landlord acted appropriately in acknowledging its further delay within its final response from 25 October 2022 and apologised to the resident. Here it revised its compensation amount to £6,500 in total. It said this was made up of £4,800 in rental compensation and £1,700 for costs of lino and redecorating the ground floor of the property. It has explained that the timeframe it used to calculate the rental compensation was 232 weeks from 9 April 2018 to 20 September 2022.
Whilst the landlord’s attempts here are acknowledged it has not recognised the extent of its failings or demonstrated learning. Despite its apologies it failed to progress works, which demonstrates it has not learnt from its previous delays. It has told the resident of its legal obligations but has not done enough to meet these or attempt to resolve the issue despite the resident telling it he never had a downstairs property to live in, never had visitors and had used plastic sheets and cardboard to “soak up” and contain the damp. When considering this combined with the significant timeframe and impact on the resident, greater compensation would be more proportionate in the circumstances.
When deciding an appropriate remedy the landlord’s failings have been taken into account and rental compensation of 30% has been decided as appropriate in these circumstances. The weekly rent is £79.26 and 30% of this is £23.78.
When deciding an appropriate timeframe for the compensation, the mitigating factors mentioned previously have been taken into account. As such the 232 week timeframe, 4 years and four months, used by the landlord is a reasonable timeframe in these circumstances. This amounts to £5,516.96 rental compensation.
The Ombudsman has made a further order for compensation in light of the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused to the resident and that the issue remains outstanding.

Complaint handling

The resident raised his complaint on 19 November 2019. The evidence shows this was treated as his stage two complaint. The landlord provided its response on 21 January 2020. It took the landlord two months to issue its stage two response, this timeframe was not appropriate. However it is acknowledged that during these two months the landlord visited the property on 28 November 2019 and 4 December 2019. It is also acknowledged that it met with the resident on 16 January 2020 before issuing its response. When considering the investigatory steps taken by the landlord during this time, it is accepted that the delay in responding to this complaint would not have had a significant impact on the resident at this time.
It is noted that the resident rejected the landlord’s compensation offer of £500 made within its stage two response and that he asked to escalate the compensation element on 1 February 2020. However, despite his repeated requests for the compensation element to be escalated the landlord did not do this. It took the landlord until 10 November 2021 to confirm it would escalate the complaint to stage 3 and it took a further 11 months to issue its stage 3 response, on 25 October 2022. The timeframe of 32 months to complete its stage 3 process was not appropriate.
For over two and a half years, the resident regularly chased the landlord for its escalated response and told it how he wanted it to review the compensation amount to progress works. Despite knowing this, the landlord failed to progress the complaint in line with the timeframes set within its complaints policy. Overall it took the landlord almost three years to conclude its complaints process. This was not appropriate and amounts to severe maladministration.
The resident repeatedly told the landlord how he felt he was being ignored, being viewed as an “annoying tenant” and that the landlord’s lack of response appeared to be a “deliberate ploy to wear down the individual to the point of submission”. He also told the landlord how he felt its “agenda” could be racially motivated. He explained the impact the situation was having on his mental health. When considering what the resident told it and the landlord’s overall complaint handling, it is accepted that the resident would have been significantly impacted by its poor complaint handling in these circumstances.

Record keeping

Paragraph 10 of the Housing Ombudsman Service confirms the Ombudsman’s expectation in relation to the provision of information, it says:
1. The landlord must provide copies of any information requested by the Ombudsman, that is, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, relevant to the complaint. This may include the following records and documents:
  1. Any internal files, documents correspondence, records, accounts or minutes of meetings in hard copy or electronic form.
As part of this Service’s investigation copies of surveys or inspection reports were requested. Whilst it has not been disputed that the landlord conducted surveys of the property, it has told this Service that it no longer has access to the reports due to a change in contractor. The landlord has accepted the presence of damp at the property and the need for works, however without access to its inspector’s reports it has said it wants to complete a further inspection of the property. The landlord’s failure to keep a copy of its inspection reports is unreasonable.
It has also been noted that throughout the handling of the resident’s matter he was passed to a number of different members of staff and on more than one occasion was told the previous person handling his matter had left or changed roles. Whilst it is acknowledged that the landlord’s has no control over situations such as this, it should have measures in place to ensure matters are handed over for a continuation of service so not to impact its residents. At times the landlord did not demonstrate knowledge of the history of the matter, placing the onus on the resident to repeat previous events and share previous email conversation/agreements with it.
Whilst on the whole this complaint predates the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management from May 2023, the recommendations made within it are good practices for a landlord to adopt. The landlord’s actions and record keeping do not demonstrate it has a devised key recording standard or ensured appropriate systems are in place.
Good record keeping is important to evidence the actions a landlord and its contractor have taken and provide a continuation of service to its residents. The landlord should be aware of the outcome of its surveys and should have copies of such reports, it should also be aware of what has been agreed and any issues of dispute. Its staff should also be aware of its record management policy and procedure and should adhere to these.
Overall, the landlord has not provided this Service with information mentioned above. It has shown that it does not have appropriate processes in place to prevent the loss of information when its contracts end and when its staff leave or move departments. Its failings mean the resident had to repeat the specific details of his matter to several members of staff and tell it that despite a member of staff leaving “the problem still remains and needs dealing with”. The landlord missed opportunities to rebuild the resident’s trust in its handling of his matter or demonstrate an understanding of the longstanding issue. As such the landlord’s record keeping failings amount to severe maladministration.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp.
1. Complaint handling.
2. Record keeping.

Reasons

The landlord has failed to progress the damp works at the property for a significant timeframe. It has caused repeated delays and failed to pursue the avenues available to it to ensure the property was decent or explore alternative options with the resident. Whilst it did acknowledge its delays and apologised for them and it is accepted that some delays were outside of its control. It could have done more to progress matters, demonstrating its lack of learning.
The landlord took almost 3 years to conclude its complaints process, its stage 3 process took two and a half years alone. This was despite the resident’s repeated requests for escalations and him telling him how he had been left feeling.
The landlord has said it no longer has its surveyor reports due to a change in contractor. Throughout the handling of the resident’s matter it changed the member of staff dealing with the matter but did not have processes in place to ensure information was passed over. This demonstrates it does not have appropriate processes in place to prevent the loss of information when its contractors or staff change. As such its processes for record keeping are not adequate.

Orders

The Ombudsman orders the landlord to arrange for its chief executive to apologise to the resident for the failings identified within this report, in person (or in writing if preferred by the resident). This should be within four weeks of the date of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to pay the resident a total of £8,816.96 compensation within four weeks of the date of this report. Compensation should be paid directly to the resident and not offset against any arrears:
1. £5,516.96 rental compensation to acknowledge the landlord’s failings to appropriately address reports of damp. This amount includes the £4,800 rental compensation it previously offered, if it has not paid this already.
1. £1,000 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by the highlighted failings relating to the reports of damp.
2. £600 for the distress, inconvenience, time and trouble caused by its complaint handling failings.
3. £1,700 compensation it previously offered for lino and redecorating the ground floor, if it has not paid this already.
The Ombudsman orders that within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord complete an inspection of the property to assess its condition and the works required to it. This inspection should be conducted by a specialist damp inspector and the landlord is entitled to rely on its inspection. Within two weeks of this inspection, it should provide a copy of the report to this Service and the resident, and confirm in writing:
1. The timeframe of works and provide a work schedule.
2. The sign off process for works. Detailing who will inspect, sign off and monitor the works.
3. As it is not usual for landlord’s to allow site inspections by resident. It would be reasonable for the landlord to explain this in its communication with the resident at this time, if appropriate.
1. The measures it will put in place to monitor whether the proposed works remedy the damp at the property.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to review its complaints handling process and procedure to ensure it is compliant with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code. It should provide this Service with evidence of its compliance within six weeks of this report.
The Ombudsman orders the landlord to consider the Ombudsman’s “Spotlight on: knowledge and information management” report and the recommendations made within it. Within six weeks of the date of this report it should identify and evidence its service improvements or changes to working practices to prevent these issue being repeated. It should share this with this Service.