Golding Homes Limited (202211641)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202211641

Golding Homes Limited

9 October 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

This complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Response to the resident’s:
  1. Reports of damp following a previous Ombudsman determination;
  2. Reports of Silverfish;
  3. Reports of bathroom drainage issues;
  4. Vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns;
2. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is an assured tenant and her tenancy began in 2007. The property is a 1 bedroom flat in a block. The information seen indicates the block is around 60 years old. The resident has vulnerabilities relating to her physical and mental health. They include respiratory issues, high blood pressure, depression, and anxiety.
The tenancy agreement shows the landlord is obliged to keep the property’s: walls, floors, drains and outside pipes in “good condition”, along with the structure and exterior of the block. The resident must keep the inside of the property “in good repair, well decorated and in clean condition”.
The landlord operates a 2 stage complaints procedure. Its relevant complaints policy, effective April 2022, shows it aimed to resolve complaints within 8 working days at stage 1. At stage 2, it aimed to resolve complaints within 20 working days. The landlord has since updated its timescales. Unless there was a service failure, the policy did not cover complaints where an alternative process was more appropriate. In other words, an initial report could be treated as a service request in the first instance.
The parties’ case evidence shows the landlord was subject to extensive communication from the resident during the timeline. For example, in February 2022 the landlord told the resident it received in excess of 30 calls and 50 emails in the last 2 weeks. At this point, it said the resident’s level of contact made it “very difficult” to help her.

Summary of events

On 11 March 2022 the Ombudsman determined a previous complaint (our reference 202014847) involving the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, and its handling of various repairs. Based on the delays and failures identified, we found there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of both issues. In addition to an apology and increased compensation, we ordered the landlord to:
1. Explain how it would post-inspect bathroom drainage works due to be completed that month.
2. Share its findings from a February 2022 damp inspection with the resident, or complete a new damp survey and share those findings instead.
3. Create and share an action plan, including likely repair timescales, based on the above inspection findings.
4. Explain whether it would review the condition of skirting boards and lining paper following completion of the repair works.
The landlord inspected the property on 17 March 2022. We have not seen its corresponding inspection report. In its later correspondence to the resident, from August 2022, the landlord said the inspection found “some evidence” of damp to the living room walls. This was attributed to leaking gutters. The correspondence also said no issues were identified with the property’s bathroom drainage.
On 23 March 2022 the landlord emailed an independent surveyor to arrange a damp and mould survey. A follow-up email said the block had issues relating to leaks, damp, mould, and waste water not draining. Further, the landlord wanted to identify the root cause but the property was currently its main concern. It also said homes above and below the property were affected by damp and mould.
On 29 March 2022 the resident raised a new complaint about the landlord’s damp handling. She said a damp meter reading was outstanding from the previous month’s inspection and there was no progress since the Ombudsman’s determination. The timeline confirms there was significant overlap with our previous assessment. It also shows the landlord was engaging with our orders. Around the same time, she began raising silverfish living in “rotting skirting wood”.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 14 and 27 April 2022:
1. The landlord issued a stage 1 response. It said the resident had confirmed her complaint involved its handling of damp issues over the last 15 months (our determination covered this period). It also said an independent surveyor could attend the property on 19 April 2022. Further, on receipt of their findings, an action plan would be created. Overall, the response resembled an update.
2. In an email the next day, the resident asked to meet with the landlord. She said it was not listening and its inconsistencies were impacting her mental health. She confirmed many of her damp concerns were already with the Ombudsman. However, damp in the living room was a new issue and previous repairs were outstanding.
3. The landlord issued a further response at stage 1. It said the independent surveyor would attend the property again in early-May 2022 to inspect pipework under the bath. Further, the bath panel would be removed and replaced. It also said the landlord was arranging a CCTV survey of the communal soil pipe that served the property.
A survey report dated 9 May 2022 detailed the independent surveyor’s damp and mould findings. The survey was limited to the property. It said, in due course, a separate report would address the block’s wider water ingress issues. While evidence of historic leaks was noted, it said “the only concerning moisture reading” was from the wooden bathroom door threshold. It also said the living room wall was tested during both visits. The main points were:
1. The soil pipe was visibly old. When tested, the bath drained at an “unusually slow” rate. The resident did not allow removal of the bath panel. This prevented an assessment of the pipework behind the panel.
2. A pipework assessment was recommended. The bath panel and pipe boxing should be removed. A CCTV survey of the waste/soil pipe connection was also recommended.
3. Moisture readings were taken in different locations around the property. Since the threshold returned a “medium” reading, the surveyor recommended it was replaced. It was understood the reading related to a historic leak.
4. A kitchen wall was cold to touch around an air brick. There was no evidence of any “immediate issues”, but the landlord could brick-up an air vent to prevent any cold bridging to the exterior wall. The surveyor recommended investigating a low-level air brick to ensure the cavity was sufficiently filled. They also recommended ensuring the kitchen fan was a humidistat (an automatic fan that responds to humidity levels).
In an email to the resident on 11 May 2022, the landlord proposed an alteration to the bathroom pipework. It said should this should negate the need to remove the bath panel. Its subsequent correspondence with the independent surveyor shows the landlord wanted its drainage contractor to replace a 90 degree bend with a pair of 45’s. The landlord said the resident may not allow the works.
The drainage contractor’s CCTV survey report from 19 May 2022 shows there were no defective junctions in the communal soil pipe. While no recommendations were recorded, the landlord’s subsequent internal correspondence shows a descale was required. It also said the contractor had advised replacing the sharp bend would not improve the property’s drainage. Instead, regular unblocking works or a redesign of the waste pipe junctions were recommended. The landlord said the redesign could be tested in one of the block’s flats.
On 24 May 2022 the parties met at the landlord’s office. The landlord’s meeting minutes show the resident felt the soil pipe should be replaced. However, the landlord advised a plumbing alteration was being trialled in a neighbouring home and, if successful, could be considered for the property. They also show the resident disputed that there were no traces of silverfish at the property. Other key points were:
1. The landlord confirmed an air-brick on the ground floor was being inspected to assess the block’s cavity. Scaffolding would be erected to inspect the property’s air-brick from the outside.
2. The resident referenced damp behind a kitchen unit. The landlord agreed to buy a thermal imaging camera to help with its internal and external inspections.
3. The resident agreed to a replacement threshold providing the existing carpet and bathroom flooring were not damaged. She also agreed to the installation of a humidistat fan.
4. The resident was seeking significant compensation and a meeting with the landlord’s CEO. She eventually became upset and ended the meeting.
On 16 June 2022 the resident reported silverfish activity from skirting in the hallway. She subsequently emailed the landlord several images that she said showed damp under the living room wallpaper. On 21 June 2022, she asked to escalate her March 2022 complaint. This was broadly on the basis the landlord’s action plan should have been completed. Within days, the landlord emailed her a progress update. It said its repair works were based on the independent surveyor’s report.
In a letter on 4 July 2022, the landlord acknowledged a delay completing an external thermal imaging assessment. It said an appointment was scheduled within days and offered the resident £50 in compensation. It highlighted the CCTV drain survey findings and said it was working to establish whether further works were required. The letter was not a formal complaint response. For example, no complaint stage or escalation rights were included.
The landlord’s correspondence shows the following events occurred between 5 and 21 July 2022:
1. The independent surveyor wrote to the landlord with further communal area investigation suggestions.
2. The resident reported scaffolding had been erected.
3. The resident told the landlord all works were cancelled until it listened to her. She made an exception for replacement pipe works but did not specify what these were.
4. The landlord told the resident it was seeking legal advice about her contact.
5. The Ombudsman’s review team upheld our original determination and orders. This followed an earlier appeal from the landlord.
On 16 August 2022 the resident updated the landlord following a thermal imaging inspection. The Ombudsman has not seen a corresponding inspection report. The resident said the landlord’s equipment did not detect damp. She asserted its operative was unqualified and the property had penetrating damp. The next day, the landlord wrote to the resident again. Its letter shows she was awarded £50 compensation for facilitating several damp inspections. The main points were:
1. The drainage contractor had been instructed to descale the communal soil pipe. Access to several neighbouring homes was required and the works would begin in August 2022.
2. Following the resident’s reports of further drainage issues, the landlord had recently completed additional checks. No works were identified and the landlord could share its recordings of the bath and basin draining.
3. An independent inspection of the block’s gutters was completed following the landlord’s March 2022 survey findings. The landlord had recently received the results and it would consider the report’s findings by mid-September 2022.
4. In relation to the block’s communal areas, the landlord was acting on the independent surveyor’s findings. These were previously shared with the resident. The related leak repair works did not affect the property.
5. Descaling and high-level air-brick works aside, all actions from the landlord’s June 2022 action plan were now complete. The air-brick works were suspended on 2 occasions following “distress and interruption” caused by the resident.
6. The resident refused replacement threshold works and humidistat installation in early July 2022. These works were still available if the resident changed her mind.
7. Due to high external temperatures, a recent thermal imaging survey to the property’s living room was inconclusive. The landlord wanted to repeat the survey in November 2022.
In a detailed email 3 days later, the resident denied refusing works or disrupting visits. She alleged bullying, discrimination, dishonesty and incompetence by the landlord. She also said the time she had spent addressing issues with the property’s condition prevented her gaining employment for around 2 years. Further, there was no point in completing another thermal imaging survey, and a specialist plumbing contractor should replace the bathroom pipework. Overall, she felt the landlord wanted to avoid paying for the correct works.
On 30 August 2022, the Ombudsman told the resident we were satisfied the landlord had complied with our orders. The same day, the resident emailed the landlord about: damp and mould spores in the property’s living room, pipework, and silverfish. Her correspondence said the landlord should raise a new complaint. An accompanying image showed 1 dead silverfish. She also completed the landlord’s complaint form. The key points from her interactions were:
1. The landlord should provide a timescale for damp works to the living room. Mould washing was not acceptable because it failed to resolve damp issues in neighbouring homes. Instead, works to the external brick work were required. The problem was not condensation and the resident had health issues.
2. The landlord sent an underqualified operative to post inspect the drainage. It also failed to consider changing the pipes in line with a previous drain contractor’s report. This was unfair since the property was previously impacted by back-filling sewage. She would not allow the landlord’s drainage contractor to attend the property again.
3. The resident was concerned the silverfish would multiply. She was also anxious about swallowing them in her sleep. If she caught silverfish she would send them to the landlord’s office.
The resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint on 6 September 2022. The next day, the landlord said it wanted to handle her silverfish concerns as a service request in the first instance. This would allow it to investigate and fix the problem. It asked the resident for a convenient inspection date. The Ombudsman has not seen the resident’s reply. However, she reiterated her escalation request around a week later.
In an email update on 26 September 2022, the landlord told the resident her silverfish concerns were not considered a complaint. It said it was awaiting a pest control contractor’s availability. Further, appointment details would be confirmed shortly. Around the same time, the landlord warned the resident that the content of her emails was unacceptable. It said its staff felt harassed by their volume, tone and derogatory language. Further, it was drafting an acceptable behaviour agreement (ABA).
On 7 October 2022 the landlord’s pest control contractor shared its findings with the landlord. It said, having attended the property the previous day, no silverfish were seen. Further, all areas of the property were accessible. Nevertheless, traps were placed in all rooms except the living room and the resident was encouraged to report increased silverfish activity.
The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 13 October 2022. This was around 31 working days after the resident’s new complaint. It addressed her damp, drainage and silverfish concerns. It said the complaint was received in September 2022 through the Ombudsman. The main points were:
1. There was no evidence of damp in the property and the resident had been given a copy of relevant survey. Nevertheless, the landlord wanted to complete a thermal-imaging survey at a convenient time for the resident.
2. The resident reported silverfish on 29 August 2022. Her accompanying image showed 1 insect. At the time, her report fell outside the landlord’s formal complaints policy. This was on the basis it was not given an opportunity to investigate the report beforehand. The resident subsequently raised silverfish again in mid-September 2022.
3. At this point, she asked to escalate her silverfish complaint. This was impossible without completing stage 1. Subsequently, a pest control visit arranged for late September 2022 did not take place due to a scheduling error. The landlord was sorry about this. It previously credited £30 compensation to the resident’s rent account.
4. At the resident’s request, a different pest control contractor attended on 6 October 2020. In line with the independent surveyor’s findings, there was no evidence of silverfish during the inspection. Traps were nevertheless placed around the property. The resident was advised to monitor them and report increased silverfish activity to the landlord.
5. The landlord accepted the pest control contractor’s findings. In the event of further reports, it would instruct the contractor to re-attend. It had asked the contractor when the traps would be collected. The resident would be updated in due course.
6. The fall and drainage to the soil pipe from the bath and basin waste was “more than sufficient”. In addition, a specialist drain survey in May 2022 confirmed there were no defects to the soil pipe. Based on the specialist’s opinion, the landlord disputed incorrect pipework had been inspected.
In an email on 16 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to escalate her complaint. Broadly, she said its response was wrong since the property was damp and the independent survey did not address silverfish. In an email to the Ombudsman on the same day, she said the landlord’s inspection reports were irrelevant. She also referenced the missed pest control appointment.
The landlord issued a stage 2 acknowledgement on 25 October 2022. It said it would respond to the resident’s complaint by 9 November 2022. The landlord subsequently issued its stage 2 response on this date. This was around 17 working days after the resident’s escalation request. The response addressed the landlord’s damp reports to date, its response to the resident’s concerns about post-inspections to the bathroom drainage, and silverfish. The resident’s complaint was not upheld. The main points were:
1. The independent surveyor’s damp findings were clear. Aside from the threshold, no damp was evident from their meter readings. The resident should report any new sightings of damp so the landlord could arrange an inspection. Sightings would be treated as a service request in the first instance.
2. The resident previously declined threshold works to avoid disturbing the property’s flooring. At the time, she was pursuing a management move to another of the landlord’s properties. Having decided not to move, the works were still available to the resident.
3. The pest control contractor’s silverfish findings matched the independent surveyor’s. Traps were nevertheless placed. The landlord understood 8 more silverfish had since been caught. It was trying to arrange replacement traps. When the contractor returned, it would be asked for a full report including recommendations around eradication and control. Silverfish were not harmful to the resident.
4. The landlord reiterated the correct pipework had been inspected. The soil pipe was also descaled in mid-August 2019. Around this time, the property’s pipework was found to be draining freely.
5. Measured contact with the resident remained in place. On notification from the resident, the landlord had adjusted its communications, and response to her housing needs, to account for her health concerns (the Ombudsman has not seen details of the adjustments made).
The resident replied by email on 16 November 2022. She said there were black mould spots on walls and damp patches in living room corners. She highlighted the landlord’s March 2022 inspection findings, her health conditions and outstanding repairs. She disputed changing her mind about works and said silverfish could impact her allergies. Her email included images showing small patches of black mould growth on walls. Its internal correspondence, the following day, shows the landlord was awaiting the resident’s availability for a pest control appointment.
The evidence points to a meeting at the property around 21 November 2022. Following further contact between the parties, the landlord updated the resident by email on 25 November 2022. The email suggests the resident wanted information about a contractor working elsewhere in the block. This was with a to having the lounge and threshold works completed. It shows a thermal imaging survey was scheduled and the landlord was trying to arrange a pest control visit.
A similar update on 1 December 2022 shows the landlord offered the resident £30 compensation because its pest control contractor was late and the resident was unable to facilitate a delayed appointment. Further, it passed the contractor’s details to the resident in line with her previous request. It also shows a landlord consultation with leaseholders was pending around guttering works to the block.
The Ombudsman has seen an undated inspection report completed by the above referenced contractor (a damp specialist). The information seen suggests the corresponding inspection took place around 15 December 2022. The report said there were no water ingress marks or staining to surfaces in the living room. However, there appeared to be a condensation issue between the exterior wall and the lining paper. The key points were:
1. A thermal imaging survey was recommended in the first instance. Otherwise, the landlord should remove the existing paper and replace with a thermal variety, or apply anti-condensation paint.
2. The bathroom threshold seemed solid and the surface was not rotting. Its moisture reading was “elevated slightly”. A mastic gap between the metal and timber threshold was recommended, along with moisture testing to the bathroom floor.
3. Defective backing plaster was causing surface cracks on a bedroom wall. The landlord should remove, make good and redecorate. The resident’s furniture and clothing needed moving beforehand.
During internal correspondence on 20 December 2022, the landlord said the resident “turned away” a recent pest control visit. As result, the contractor was unable to check the traps for silverfish. It also said the resident cancelled a recent thermal imaging appointment. The information seen suggests the landlord previously postponed an initial appointment due to snow.
The pest control contractor updated the landlord by email on 12 January 2023. It said it recently replaced the traps at the property. Further, the previous traps had been left down for over 13 weeks. However, it could only identify 9 silverfish and a couple of other insects. On that basis, it said, the job was closed. The same day, at the resident’s request, the landlord credited her rent account with £60 for missed appointments.
The parties agree a thermal imaging survey was completed on 12 January 2023 and moisture was identified under the bathroom floor. The landlord’s timeline notes indicate the floor needed removing and drying. They said the resident was very upset with the news. The information seen suggests the bathroom was replaced around 2021. Additional timeline notes said an external thermal-imaging survey was completed around the same time. Further, there were no abnormal readings.
The resident’s February 2023 correspondence with the landlord and the Ombudsman confirms she was unhappy with the scope of the landlord’s proposed repair works. For example, on 23 February 2023 she reiterated previous concerns around the value of mould treatment works. During correspondence to the landlord around this time, she refused to accept the landlord’s proposed repairs contractor without offering an explanation.
On 7 March 2023 the resident reported water backfilling though the basin and bath. She said the landlord refused to replace “our mains pipes”. She also said the landlord should fix the issue and perform regular maintenance. According to the landlord’s timeline notes, during a call the same day, she made serious allegations about a member of the contractor’s staff.
The drain contractor’s block visit records show descaling works were completed to a nearby soil pipe on 9 March 2023. Timeline notes said, the next day, the pest control contractor noted 2 silverfish caught in the property’s traps. In an email update on 15 March 2023, the landlord told the resident it had checked with its proposed contractor and the individual named by the resident was not an employee. It said it wanted to arrange a visit so the contractor could plan the repairs. The parties’ correspondence suggests the visit took place on 6 April 2023.
The landlord updated the resident by email on 12 April 2023. It responded to various issues including allegations of harassment, discrimination and dishonesty. It referenced a specific example cited by the resident around the landlord’s contact with the Ombudsman. Its correspondence was not a formal complaint response. The landlord’s main points were:
1. The landlord was sorry the resident felt her single point of contact (SPOC), was discriminating against her. From this point onwards, the SPOC would always be accompanied when visiting the property. Still, the claims were unjustified and unfair. The resident had made similar claims about other staff members over the years.
2. The landlord’s warnings about the resident’s contact and behaviour were not prompted by the resident’s complaint about the SPOC. They were instead prompted by the resulting alarm and distress to the landlord’s staff. Since the parties’ contact agreement was not working, the landlord was seeking further legal advice.
3. The SPOC had not been dishonest about seeking mediation from the Ombudsman. A high-level meeting was held but the SPOC was not involved. The landlord was seeking third-party mediation due to the difficulty it was experiencing in finalising resolutions to the resident’s complaints.
4. The following repairs would be completed to the property: removal of bathroom threshold; investigation into bathroom flooring moisture, with potential removal and replacement of flooring; lounge redecoration including: lining/wallpaper strip, mould wash, thermal lining paper and wall paper chosen by the resident; hairline crack to bedroom wall to be re-filled and repainted.
5. The landlord would write to the resident following an upcoming contractor visit. Its correspondence would include a timetable to allow planning around removals and storage.
In an email on 18 May 2023, the landlord told the resident it had requested an independent review of her complaint about communication with the SPOC. It said a stage 2 hearing would be held virtually. The Ombudsman has not seen the landlord’s final response to this complaint. The next day, the resident said all repairs were on hold until the scope of the works was agreed. However, further pest control visits were required.
The landlord wrote to the Ombudsman on 23 June 2023. It said it was seeking support in communicating with the resident. Further, it wanted meditation as a means to bring all parties together to discuss a way forward. It said the resident had rejected its offers of mediation and paid support from and independent advocate. Whilst it appreciated the resident was vulnerable, the landlord said her behaviour was causing significant anxiety and harm to its staff.
In a letter dated 30 August 2023, the resident’s local authority wrote to her about its recent inspection. It said the inspection was carried out under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). Further, since there were no significant hazards at the property, no enforcement action would be taken against the landlord. Its wording shows the landlord also attended the inspection. The main points were:
1. A kitchen window handle was broken and a bathroom door threshold was damp. The resident advised the landlord had confirmed it would replace the threshold.
2. There was no damp or mould in the bathroom, kitchen or bedroom. There was “a couple of small areas of pin head black mould in the lounge”. This was assessed as “a low Category 2 hazard”.
3. Several other general maintenance issues were identified, which fell into the same category. These issues should be directed to, and addressed by, the landlord.
4. The block’s original cast iron pipework was deteriorating. The landlord had explained it was replacing it based on need. This was on the basis re-housing the block’s occupants (to complete full replacement works) was considered impractical.
The resident updated the Ombudsman over 2 phone calls in September 2023. She said an ongoing storage issue was preventing the landlord from starting the repairs. Given her contact restriction, she felt the level of communication she was receiving from the landlord was unfair. She also felt the property was impacted by thermal bridging and damp proof course issues. Her main points were:
1. The resident was “going round in circles” with the landlord. Since its actions had impacted her health and wellbeing, significant compensation was due.
2. The lounge wall should be taken back to the brickwork and replastered to prevent the mould returning. External brickworks repairs were also needed along with replacement windows. In general, the landlord sought to avoid costly works.
3. Due to corrosion and ageing, the block’s soil pipes needed replacing. The landlord failed to update the resident on the results of its pipework alteration testing elsewhere in the block.
4. Since March 2023, the landlord had placed a hold on further pest control visits. This was on the basis they formed part of the bathroom repair works. A trap was sent for testing beforehand, but the landlord failed to confirm the results.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised the situation is distressing for the resident. The timeline shows it has been ongoing for a considerable period of time. It also shows the resident has multiple concerns about the landlord’s activities. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. Unlike a court we cannot establish liability or award damages. In other words, we cannot determine whether the landlord was responsible for any illness, injury or loss of earnings.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp following a previous Ombudsman determination

The resident has said the landlord failed to rectify damp in the property. Her complaint largely concerned the living room. Several damp inspections took place during the timeline and it was noted there was some inconsistency between the results. For example, the independent surveyor’s May 2022 report did not identify damp or mould in the living room. Nor did it raise concerns about moisture levels below the bathroom floor. Nevertheless, some of these issues presented themselves later in the timeline. This suggests the situation developed over time.
What remained consistent during the timeline, is that the surveys failed to identify any significant damp or mould issues. This was consistent with the local authority’s HHSRS inspection, around August 2023, which said small patches of black mould in the living room were a “low Category 2 hazard” and no enforcement action would be taken. For example, despite the resident’s repeated references to penetrating damp, thermal bridging and damp proof course issues, none of these issues were identified in any surveys seen by the Ombudsman.
In this case, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an independent survey from a relevant specialist. The landlord was entitled to rely on the specialist’s opinion. Nevertheless, the landlord was responsive to the resident’s concerns. For example, it agreed to obtain thermal imaging equipment for additional internal and external surveys. From the information seen, this was not recommended by the independent surveyor. Following an inconclusive inspection, it later agreed to conduct a further thermal-imaging survey during the winter months
Given the landlord was aware nearby homes were affected by damp and mould, this was an appropriate step. Overall, the timeline suggests the landlord has been monitoring the damp and mould situation and complying with any specialist recommendations accordingly. For example, the damp works detailed in its April 2023 update to the resident were broadly consistent with the damp specialist’s December 2022 recommendations. Again, the landlord is entitled to rely on the professional opinion of a qualified specialist.
The landlord has said the resident declined threshold and humidistat works in July 2022. No evidence was seen to confirm this version of events. However, it was noted the resident previously raised concerns around damaging her existing flooring. In any case, the landlord’s August 2022 update made it clear these works were still available at the resident’s request. It is reasonable to conclude postponing them caused no detriment to the resident. In other words, that they would not have made a significant difference to conditions in the property.
The timeline suggests the landlord was still investigating various damp related possibilities, through thermal imaging for example, until around January 2023. Subsequently, it also suggests the landlord was unable to progress the recommended repairs promptly due to a dispute over the required scope works. For example, the resident had consistently objected to anti-mould treatment works on the basis the living room wall should be taken back to the brickwork. The Ombudsman has not seen a supporting recommendation from a specialist.
Further, the timeline shows the resident cancelled the majority of works in July 2022 and May 2023. Overall, there was no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for significant avoidable delays. Nor was there evidence to suggest that the outstanding works caused significant detriment to the resident. Instead, the landlord’s actions appear responsive and resolution-focussed.
The landlord awarded the resident £100 compensation to address a delayed thermal imaging assessment and in recognition of the resident facilitating several inspections. The Ombudsman considers this award to be reasonable redress for the resident, i.e. the compensation awarded was sufficient to put things right.
From the information seen, the Ombudsman has no additional concerns about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould. The landlord should continue to follow the professional recommendations of qualified specialists. Given the above, there was reasonable redress in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of silverfish

It is accepted that silverfish are unpleasant for the resident. However, no information was seen to show a pest control specialist confirmed the property was suffering from an infestation. Further, online searching shows the British Pest Control Association (BPCA), along with other pest control specialists, consider them a “nuisance” pest. In contrast, cockroaches are considered harmful given their capacity to spread disease. Nevertheless, it is recognised that silverfish can cause allergic reactions in people sensitive to skin irritations.
In this case, no information was seen to suggest the resident experienced such a reaction during the timeline. Instead, her comments suggest she was broadly anxious about their potential impact to her allergies. Further, that their presence indicated the property was damp. From its correspondence with the landlord, the pest control contractor did not appear concerned about the situation in the property. Nevertheless, we considered the landlord’s overall handling with a view to identifying any delays or failures on its part.
The independent surveyor’s report confirms silverfish were considered during its inspections. The timeline suggests the landlord could have contacted a pest control specialist when the resident raised the issue again in June 2022. However, there was no evidence of an infestation at this time. It was noted the image accompanying the resident’s August 2022 report showed 1 silverfish. The timeline also shows, at her request, the landlord later compensated the resident for missed or delayed pest control appointments.
This was appropriate given the circumstances and the timeline points to around £120 in total compensation for missed appointments. However, the evidence shows the landlord’s communication should have been better. For example, in its stage 2 response, the landlord said it would ask its contractor for a full report including recommendations around eradication and control. While this was an appropriate step, no information was seen to show the landlord fulfilled its commitment. This was unfair and the information may have alleviated some of the resident’s anxiety.
Given the above, the landlord’s final position on eradicating or controlling silverfish was unclear. The Ombudsman will order it to obtain the relevant information and share it with the resident. Overall, the evidence points to service failure in respect of this complaint point. This finding reflects the evidence, which suggests the landlord’s failure had a limited impact on the resident. For example, the timeline shows pest control visits continued after the landlord’s commitment. No information was seen to fully confirm when, or why, the pest control visits ended.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of bathroom drainage issues

The timeline points to a similar communication failure in relation to the property’s bathroom drainage. For example, contrary to its comments in the parties’ May 2022 meeting, there was no evidence to show the landlord updated the resident about the outcome of its pipework alterations to a neighbouring home. The evidence suggests it is aware that aging pipework and design defects in the block increase the likelihood of drainage issues over time. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that the above represents a missed opportunity to improve matters for the resident.
The timeline shows the landlord completed descaling works to the property’s soil pipe. It also checked the pipe’s junctions, during a CCTV survey, in line with the independent surveyor’s recommendations. These were appropriate actions given the circumstances. However, the resident subsequently reported drain issues again in March 2023. At this time, she said her basin and bath were both backfilling. Still, little information was seen to show either the landlord’s response or the severity of the problem.
Though the drain contractor’s records show it began working on a nearby soil pipe soon afterwards, no information was seen to show the landlord directly attended the property in response to the resident’s report. Nor was any information seen to show it communicated its plans for resolving the blockage to the resident. This was concerning given the circumstances. It was noted, in general, landlords often treat severe drain issues as an emergency repair. That said, there was no evidence the resident lacked washing facilities for an inappropriate period.
Nor was there any information to suggest that backfilling waste water overflowed in the bathroom. Overall, there was little evidence of a serious impact to the resident. Nevertheless, the above was inappropriate and the landlord should be capable of evidencing the actions taken to resolve the resident’s report. Given the above, there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point. Though the resident’s preferred outcome was noted, it may help to explain that, in this case, the Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to replace the block’s pipework in full.

The landlord’s response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns

From around August 2022 onwards, the resident repeatedly alleged there was discrimination and bullying on the landlord’s part. It is acknowledged these are serious allegations. As mentioned, the Ombudsman is unable to reach legal findings. In other words, it is for the courts to establish whether there was discrimination by the landlord. Nevertheless, the Ombudsman can consider a landlord’s response to concerns of this type. The resident may wish to seek legal advice if she wants to pursue her concerns under the Equality Act (2010).
Having checked the case evidence for any information to support the resident’s concerns, we were unable to find any indication she was treated unfairly based on her personal characteristics. It was understood she is unhappy with the landlord’s contact restrictions. In general, the Ombudsman is satisfied that contact restrictions can be an appropriate measure in some circumstances. In this case, we did not assess the appropriateness of the landlord’s restrictions. That said, with a view to improving relations between the parties, we will make a relevant recommendation below.
The timeline suggests it took the landlord around 8 months to respond to the resident’s allegations. This was based on the period between 16 August 2022 and 12 April 2023. This was an inappropriate timescale given the nature of the allegations. It is reasonable to conclude leaving these allegations unaddressed for an extended period was distressing for the resident. For clarity, the Ombudsman expects landlords to promptly address allegations of this type through their internal complaints procedure (ICP).
Aside from this delay, the timeline suggests the landlord was broadly responsive to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns. For example, it responded to her April 2022 request for a meeting and conducted additional damp surveys beyond the independent surveyor’s recommendations. These were appropriate steps given the circumstances. The landlord’s April 2023 correspondence suggests it later offered to pay for an advocate to support the resident. This welcome and unusual step suggests the landlord was engaging with the resident’s circumstances.
Overall, the evidence suggests there was maladministration in respect of this complaint point.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The timeline points to issues with the landlord’s complaint handling. For example, it suggests the landlord failed to recognise the overlap between the resident’s March 2022 complaint and the Ombudsman’s previous determination. The information seen indicates this prompted the landlord to issue 2 formal responses at stage 1, followed by, in mid-August 2022, an informal response at stage 2. Nevertheless, there was no evidence the resident was adversely impacted and the confusion was not unreasonable given the circumstances.
More significantly, the timeline shows the landlord failed to act on the resident’s complaint dated 30 August 2022. This was based on both the timing and wording of its related stage 1 response, which said the complaint was received through the Ombudsman. The landlord’s failure to respond to the resident directly was inappropriate. It is reasonable to conclude that contacting the Ombudsman at this stage was both unnecessary and inconvenient for her. It was noted she submitted her initial complaint through 2 separate channels.
Based on the above, the timeline points to a related delay of around 23 working days. Compensation would have been appropriate to address a delay of this length. However, since it failed to identify or redress this delay, the evidence suggests the landlord failed to consider its own complaint handling during its investigation. To avoid overlooking similar complaint handling delays going forwards, the landlord should routinely consider its own complaint handling during every investigation. Ultimately, the landlord failed to redress the resident accordingly for the above delay.
There was also further evidence of informal complaint handling later in the timeline. For example, it was noted the landlord’s correspondence on 12 April 2023 was not a formal complaint response. Further, the landlord later said it escalated the resident’s related concerns to a review stage. Because the Ombudsman has not seen a copy of the landlord’s review findings, they were beyond the scope of this assessment. It was noted this complaint concerned issues which occurred around 6 months after the landlord’s final response to the damp, drainage and silverfish issues.
Nevertheless, the landlord is encouraged to avoid informal complaint handling going forwards. A relevant recommendation will be made below. Overall, the evidence points to maladministration in respect of the landlord’s complaint handling. It suggests the landlord failed to act on the resident’s initial complaint, or redress the resulting delay or inconvenience to the resident.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Maladministration in respect of the landlord’s:
  1. Response to the resident’s reports of bathroom drainage issues.
  2. Response to the resident’s vulnerabilities, health and welfare concerns.
  3. Complaint handling.
2. Service failure in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of silverfish.
In accordance with paragraph 53 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was reasonable redress in respect of the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp following a previous Ombudsman determination.

Reasons

There was no evidence to show the landlord updated the resident about the outcome of its pipework alterations to a neighbouring home. Subsequently, the landlord was unable to demonstrate it acted appropriately following her March 2023 reports of further drainage issues. For example, there was no evidence to show it attended the property or updated her about related works to the block.
Based on the period between 16 August 2022 and 12 April 2023, it took the landlord around 8 months to respond to the resident’s allegations around discrimination and bullying. This was an inappropriate timescale given the nature of the allegations. It is reasonable to conclude leaving these allegations unaddressed for an extended period was distressing for the resident.
The timeline shows the landlord failed to act on the resident’s August 2022 complaint. Further, this resulted in a delay of around 23 working days along with additional inconvenience to the resident. The landlord subsequently failed to identify the delay or redress the resident accordingly. Compensation would have been appropriate given the length of the delay.
No information was seen to show the landlord fulfilled its commitment to obtain a full report, including recommendations around silverfish eradication and control, from its pest control contractor. Its final position on the silverfish was therefore unclear. This was unfair to the resident.
There was no evidence to show the landlord was responsible for significant avoidable delays to the damp repair works. Nor was there evidence to suggest the outstanding works caused significant detriment to the resident. Instead, the landlord’s actions appeared responsive and resolution-focussed. The information seen indicates the landlord’s offer of £100 in related compensation was sufficient to put things right for the resident.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord to pay the resident a total of £520 in compensation within 4 weeks. Compensation should be paid to the resident and not offset against any arrears. The compensation comprises:
1. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused the above identified failures in the landlord’s response to the resident’s drainage concerns.
2. £100 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified delay in respect of the landlord’s response to her allegations around discrimination and bullying.
3. £50 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified failures in respect of its response to the resident’s reports of silverfish.
4. £50 for any distress and inconvenience the resident was caused by the above identified complaint handling delays and failures.
5. £220 compensation the landlord has previously awarded the resident for various related delays and failures. The landlord is free to deduct any amount it has already paid from the above total.
The landlord to fulfil its previous commitment to obtain a full pest control report around the eradication and control of silverfish in the property. The report should be shared with the resident and the Ombudsman within 4 weeks.
The landlord to update the resident and the Ombudsman about the outcome of it pipework alterations in a neighbouring property within 4 weeks. The update should include any options available to improve the property’s bathroom drainage.
The landlord to share this report’s key findings with its relevant staff within 4 weeks for learning and improvement purposes. The landlord should provide the Ombudsman a copy of its related internal communication.

Recommendations

The landlord to avoid informal complaint handling by ensuring its responses are consistent with the Housing Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code.
The landlord to ensure it is capable of completing agreed complaint actions and evidencing it repair actions.
The landlord to write to the resident with details of her current contact restrictions, any appeal mechanism, and the date the restrictions will be reviewed.
The landlord to provide evidence of compliance with the above orders and confirm its intentions with regards to the recommendations within 4 weeks.