Great Yarmouth Borough Council (202119372)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202119372

Great Yarmouth Borough Council

30 November 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 handling of:
1. the resident’s reports of damp and humidity;
2. other repairs to the property, and the resident’s associated concerns;
3. the resident’s reports of pest control issues;
4. the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and moved to the property in 2018 via a mutual exchange. The property is a 2-bedroom ground floor flat in a 3-storey block containing 21 flats. The resident lives with her child. Both have health conditions known to the landlord.
At the time of the events detailed in this investigation, and of providing information to the Ombudsman, the landlord did not have a formal repairs strategy or policy, a damp and mould policy, or a pest control policy. Its tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is also responsible for keeping in repair and proper working order installations for the supply of water, gas, electricity and heating. Tenants are responsible for reporting any defects to the landlord as soon as they become aware of them. The landlord has produced guidance for its tenants on reducing condensation, damp and mould.
The tenant handbook states that the landlord will complete emergency repairs within 24 hours and routine repairs within 28 days. It will also carry out planned maintenance, such as replacement of roofs, on a programmed basis depending on the age and condition of its properties. The handbook and tenancy agreement do not refer to pest control responsibilities, although the landlord has informed the Ombudsman that “if a tenant has a pest problem, it is their responsibility to source and pay for any treatments”. The landlord’s website states that its operational partner offers services to control pests such as rodents and insects in domestic premises; the website of the relevant organisation states that it is able to treat rats, mice, fleas, flies, wasps and ants.
The landlord operates a 3-stage complaints process. It will acknowledge all complaints, and respond within 10 working days at stage 1 and 20 working days at stages 2 and 3. Its corporate complaints and compliments policy, first introduced in September 2020, states that it will provide a thorough and timely response to customer complaints, learn lessons from them, and put procedures in place to prevent recurrence of issues.
The 2020 version of the landlord’s complaints policy does not refer to compensation, nor was a separate compensation policy in place at that time. A section relating to compensation was added to the complaints policy in September 2022 (a year after the resident made her complaint). This defines compensation as a means “to make amends for loss, injury, service failure, breach of contract, inconvenience or offence”. It states that claims for damage to belongings or personal injury will be handled by the landlord’s insurance team rather than by way of compensation, and “the authority to award compensation should only be used in exceptional circumstances”. When determining whether compensation is payable, it will consider any quantifiable losses and the time, trouble, distress and inconvenience caused to a resident. The policy does not provide a tariff or guidance regarding the level of payments.

Summary of events

In September 2018, around 2 months after she moved to the property, the resident reported issues with damp and mould to the landlord’s repairs contractor. The contractor inspected the property and replaced the air vent covers to create increased airflow. It repaired the windows in the property in November 2018, and cleaned out the air vents to further improve airflow within the property in December 2018.
In October 2019 the landlord’s contractor replaced a broken window seal in the resident’s bedroom, replaced the bathroom window and tightened the air vents in this window to increase ventilation. It also stripped out and replaced a ventilation grille inside a bedroom cupboard and installed 2 pacifier vents in the bedroom and lounge. When the resident reported that the fans in her kitchen and bathroom were not working, the contractor serviced and repaired them in November 2019. Around the same time, it repaired plasterwork in the resident’s bedroom.
In December 2019 the contractor completed a spray treatment for silverfish in the property, and in January 2020 it monitored the functioning of vents in the property. Further works to the fan in the bathroom were carried out the same month. In February 2020 new windows were installed throughout the property, and in March 2020 works were completed to fix a draught from the resident’s front door.
On 17 March 2021 the landlord visited the property after the resident reported that the silverfish issue had returned. She believed this was due to the property being damp. In March 2021 the landlord’s contractor completed repairs to the boiler, and installed thermal boarding in the resident’s child’s bedroom cupboard to increase the temperature of the external wall and reduce condensation. The same month, the landlord replaced the flat roof of the block containing the resident’s property. It also opened, insulated and sealed the vented kitchen wall to improve the thermal efficiency of the wall, and completed ducting repairs to the bathroom vent.
In August 2021 the landlord installed an Envirovent (a positive pressure system used to reduce condensation) in the resident’s property, as she continued to report issues with damp and mould.
On 27 August 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it would be dealing with the repair issues brought to its attention as a new formal complaint, as a previous complaint relating to issues with the windows had been resolved. It clarified that the new complaint related to issues with damp and mould, condensation, infestations of silverfish and ants, the resident’s radiator, and her concerns about the roof. It proposed completing a survey during week commencing 13 September 2021.
On 30 August 2021 the resident told the landlord she was writing up her complaint and would send it in shortly. She subsequently sent it a letter setting out the details of her complaint on 6 September 2021. This stated that:
1. Since moving to the property she had experienced repeated issues with damp, humidity, black mould, faulty windows which continually filled with condensation, silverfish, and now ants as well.
2. She had reported these issues, but often there were “admin errors” or jobs vanished off the system. As a result, she had had contractors turn up and “do guesswork”.
3. The landlord had blamed her for the damp, humidity and mould issues, when in fact it was the damaged damp proof course (DPC) that was responsible. It had wrongly attributed the issues to her not opening windows (when she did open them), her tumble drier (which she disposed of, and now regretted doing so), her laminate flooring (which she changed to carpet), and drying clothes on an airer.
4. The landlord also said everyone has condensation on their windows, but this was not the case.
5. Her bathroom fan had not been installed correctly and was pumping air back into her property. This was not initially identified and the landlord blamed her for not using the fan properly.
6. The curtain pole in her child’s bedroom recently fell down as the fixing came off. The operative who repaired it said the wrong screws had been used. It was also apparent that glue had been used to hold the pole in place, but this had come unstuck due to the damp and humidity in the room.
7. Since the DPC was fixed, she no longer had visible mould. She also did not have any condensation following installation of new windows. However, she felt it took a meeting with the landlord’s chief executive to “finally get things moving”. She was unhappy that the chief executive had refused to have a further meeting with her.
8. She still had the following issues:
  1. Her child’s room was damp and humid all year but freezing at night. The landlord had added insulation to the cupboard in this room, but it made no difference. The Envirovent it installed had had no impact, except on her electricity bill. The landlord now wanted to install a machine to monitor humidity levels, but she had declined this as it would cost more money and she felt it would be better to arrange an independent survey. The landlord had agreed to an independent survey but had not yet provided a date for this.
  2. She continued to have issues with silverfish. When she first reported this she was told it was a tenant’s issue, but she believed there were major issues with the property that attracted the silverfish. The landlord had twice arranged for pest control to treat the property, and the pest control officer told her that silverfish were attracted to damp/humid conditions and travelled through drains and pipework between properties. The silverfish were in her bathroom light, sinks and bath, and were in other tenants’ flats too. They “made her skin crawl” and affected her mental health.
  3. There were ants in her child’s bedroom. Last night the ants were flying around as her child was trying to sleep, and now her child could not sleep in the room. She felt the landlord had tried to “fob her off” regarding this issue too, but ants also nested in damp and humid places.
  4. She believed the block’s new roof was installed on top of the old one, and so trapped damp and humidity in.
9. She felt the landlord spent endless time and money on inspections but did not actually resolve the issues. She questioned the competence of staff who tended to blame the tenant and normalise issues such as silverfish. She also had concerns about the landlord’s record keeping, as it had only one report of silverfish documented.
10. The situation had impacted her health and that of her child, who had been ill with respiratory infections and tonsillitis until the mould was removed. The humidity also affected her child’s breathing. The landlord was aware of her household’s health conditions but she felt it was “not bothered”.
On 27 September 2021 the landlord began a 6-month period of monitoring at the resident’s property, which included monthly visits. It found no evidence of rising damp, and its surveyor found no mould spores or growth. The monitoring showed that the relative humidity in the property was higher than expected, but that the humidity dropped over time as the Envirovent was used. It also identified a bridge in the DPC in some areas of the property, which allowed transfer of moisture.
On 11 November 2021 the landlord told the resident it would close her stage 1 complaint while investigative works in her home were ongoing. It said that, should the resident be unhappy with the results once it had completed the temperature and humidity monitoring, she could then escalate her complaint to stage 2. The resident was unhappy with this, telling the landlord she was “furious” with its delayed response to her complaint and describing its decision to close the complaint as “absolutely disgusting”. On 16 November 2021 she re-sent the details of her complaint to the landlord’s contractor, and included the following additional information:
1. The landlord had visited for the third time that day and installed a machine. It remained to be seen whether this would work better than previous solutions.
2. Silverfish were also in her neighbour’s property, and when her neighbour reported this to the landlord’s contractor, it blamed the issue on the resident’s property.
3. The landlord had arranged for the ants to be treated and there were now very few left.
4. Her child was ill again and the landlord had still not got to the bottom of the issues with her property. It was only as a result of the independent survey that issues had been identified, as the landlord failed to find them.
In response, the landlord wrote to the resident on 19 November 2021, stating that:
1. It would be investigating the resident’s complaint, and so it would be inappropriate for its contractor to respond.
2. The resident originally raised issues when she moved to the property, and at that time it agreed a range of works. These included replacement of windows, silverfish treatment and works to the bedroom and kitchen. The works were fully completed. Although it did not feel the windows were faulty beyond repair, it had replaced them to alleviate the resident’s concerns about condensation.
3. It was aware of the recent reports the resident had made, and was carrying out monitoring to deal with any outstanding issues.
4. The resident felt the damp proofing in the property had failed. There were small areas that may be missing insulation, which would be investigated via an infrared survey, and further investigation was also required in respect of the cupboard floor. An independent expert was monitoring the property over a period of time in order to identify any further issues; this included the installation of a monitoring system to record the levels of moisture in the air and ensure the systems were working efficiently.
5. The independent specialist would return to the property with its contractor on 22 November 2021 to pinpoint areas where insulation may have failed and undertake investigative works. These works would be carried out externally but may cause some noise and disturbance.
6. While it understood that tumble driers were necessary, it was essential that they were vented, as even condensing tumble driers put moisture into the air. Drying clothes on radiators also created significant airborne moisture and could add to any humidity.
7. It had arranged for the Envirovent installer to check the operation of the unit, and it was found to be working correctly. It was pleased to hear that the resident now only had issues with condensation when cooking or bathing.
8. Its specialist found no evidence of silverfish in the property on their last visit, other than one dead silverfish in the bathroom light fitting. It therefore considered there was no evidence of a continuing problem, but this would continue to be monitored. Its specialist would be visiting over a period of months and would pick out any outstanding issues.
9. It acknowledged that the resident felt some repairs had not been completed appropriately. All repairs were undertaken by professional tradespeople. At present there were no open repair jobs (other than those to be addressed as part of its specialist’s work), so if there were specific repair issues outstanding, it asked the resident to report these to its contractor.
10. It confirmed that the resident’s complaint remained active. If the resident felt there were outstanding issues at the end of its specialist’s monitoring period, she could escalate her complaint to stage 2.
On or around 24 November 2021, following intervention by the Ombudsman, the landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 of its complaints process. It noted in an email to this Service that the deadline for its response was 20 December 2021, “but this may require an extension if the surveys required as part of the ongoing investigation are not complete, as this will be material to the complaint response contents”. On 20 December 2021 the landlord informed the resident that it had been unable to complete its stage 2 investigation within 20 working days, but that it aimed to respond within a further 10 working days (by 10 January 2022).
On 24 December 2021 the resident pointed out that the landlord appeared to have provided conflicting information, as it initially said the extended response time was not related to the survey, but later said it was waiting for the results of the survey in order to complete its investigation. The same day, the landlord replied that the reason it needed more time “was not to allow for the survey and investigation works to be completed”, but was because other queries remained outstanding.
In January 2022 the landlord wrote to the residents of neighbouring properties regarding the silverfish issue. On 10 January 2022 it issued its stage 2 response to the resident’s complaint, which stated that:
1. It had reviewed correspondence between the resident and its housing asset manager, the resident’s letters dated 6 September 2021 and 16 November 2021, and sought additional information from relevant staff and contractors.
2. It had found fault in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp, mould and pests in her property, and in relation to its complaint handling.
3. Its repair logs excluded information relating to surveyor visits, which were managed through a separate system. This meant it had no single record of reported repairs for a property. It had made a recommendation to change this practice, as its repair logs did not evidence the resident’s report regarding damp, condensation and humidity. Its recommendation would prevent tenants from feeling their reports were ‘lost’. It upheld this aspect of the complaint.
4. There had been a number of surveyor visits to the resident’s home since she moved in. Works had been undertaken in relation to the humidity and damp reported, as well as the temperature in the resident’s child’s bedroom. To address the damp/humidity, an Envirovent was ordered in March 2020. To address the bedroom temperature, an order was also raised in March 2020 to install insulation to an external wall in the bedroom cupboard. It considered the length of time between its survey (in March 2020) and its first visit in connection with the Envirovent installation (in July 2020) was too long, and it apologised for this.
5. In August 2020 it decided that an independent survey was required to investigate the cause of the humidity in the resident’s home, as works expected to resolve the issue had not done so. As part of the survey, 2 battery-powered monitors were installed in the property on 5 October 2021. Ongoing monitoring from these had shown that levels of humidity were higher than expected, despite the Envirovent being installed in August 2020. However, data recovered on 5 January 2022 showed that the humidity was falling towards a more acceptable level. Moving forward, the focus of its work was to identify the cause of the elevated humidity and the works needed to remove this.
6. On 22 November 2021 the independent surveyor removed bricks from the wall dividing the resident’s property from a neighbouring property, to allow internal inspection of the cavity wall. This showed that the cavity had been breached by cement and partially filled with concrete (to 1 brick course higher than the level of the DPC). As a result, remedial works were required to clear the excess cement, which bridged the cavity and enabled moisture to move between the external and internal skins of the wall. It anticipated that these works could be carried out externally. Its surveyor would provide a specification for the works and manage the tender process. It would update the resident regarding timescales for the works, which were expected to begin in 2-3 months’ time.
7. As the humidity levels were now dropping, it did not consider that the cavity issues were the main cause of the humidity. Its surveyor did not believe there was any rising damp in the property, and all meter readings taken on 5 January 2022 showed a dry reading.
8. It proposed using an alternative ventilation system to the Envirovent to support further reductions in humidity levels. The Envirovent was having a lower impact on humidity in the bedrooms. It would procure a specialist contractor to install the replacement system, with works expected to be completed by early February 2022.
9. It intended to leave the monitoring devices in the resident’s home until early March 2022. The extension of the monitoring period would be overseen by its surveyor, who would monitor the effectiveness of the additional measures and arrange early intervention if they did not achieve the required reduction. The resident’s feedback on the impact of the works would also be sought. The extended monitoring period would not delay the timescale for other works to be undertaken.
10. It apologised for the way the proposal to extend the monitoring period was communicated to the resident. It understood she felt she had no choice but to keep the monitors for a further 2 months. However, it assured her they could be removed and the monitoring ended if that was her preference.
11. Further investigative works were also underway, with a thermal survey having been commissioned for the block. This would highlight any cold spots in the external walls that could cause internal cold/damp areas. The thermal survey would also be overseen by its surveyor, who would make recommendations for any works required. It had already confirmed the time and date of the survey with the resident, subject to weather conditions. Copies of the 4 reports prepared by its surveyor would be provided to her.
12. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the temperature in her child’s bedroom, a monitor placed in this room showed that the temperature between 1 December 2021 and 5 January 2022 ranged from 17.4°C and 26.8°C, and averaged 20.6°C. This was close to the temperature recorded in the lounge. Temperatures between 5 and 25 October 2021 were similar. Its surveyor advised that the child’s bedroom could feel colder at times and that this may be due to the distance between the radiator and the boiler. On 5 January 2022, a number of changes were made to the heating system, and ongoing monitoring would allow it to understand the impact of these changes on heat distribution across the property.
13. It found that it had often failed to provide timescales for works to the resident’s home. It also found that, while it listened to the resident’s concerns about the electricity usage of the monitors and Envirovent, it did not inform her quickly enough that an alternative option was being looked into. It apologised for the anxiety she experienced as a result.
14. In addition, issues caused by the incorrect installation of a bathroom fan took too many visits to identify and remedy. It apologised for its contractor’s poor service, which fell far below the standard it expected, and for the negative impact on the resident. It agreed with the resident’s view that money had been “wasted on repairs which made no difference”.
15. It arranged silverfish treatments in December 2019 and February 2020 in response to reports made by the resident. It could see that, as of 7 January 2022, the last requested treatment had not taken place. It had asked its contractor to contact the resident to arrange a suitable time to visit.
16. The resident had expressed concern that repeated treatments of the silverfish without addressing the conditions which support the infestation was a further waste of money. It had therefore ordered a treatment of all the flats in the block. However, it noted that although it would encourage all tenants to take up the treatment, some may not accept it.
17. It was clear that it had not resolved the silverfish issue, which had been ongoing over a number of years. Part of its surveyor’s remit was to consider this issue. The works it proposed to reduce humidity in the property would mean that it was no longer a suitable environment for silverfish. Its surveyor had recommended measures to help discourage silverfish, including reducing food sources, keeping the property tidy, vacuuming regularly, keeping gutters clean, and sealing any openings. It appreciated these may already be part of the resident’s routine.
18. If treatment of the whole block did not resolve the silverfish issue, its surveyor would attend the resident’s property with a builder to identify and fill any openings which may be providing access. It had also asked its housing asset team to ensure the gutters were kept clean and free of debris.
19. It had consulted its surveyor who oversaw the block roof replacement. They gave assurance that the original roof was removed during the works.
20. It was unaware of any outstanding repairs to the property, other than those relating to the silverfish and humidity issues. If this was incorrect, it asked the resident to let it know and it would follow this up. The resident had confirmed on 23 December 2021 that there was no longer an ant infestation.
21. It had found no evidence that other tenants of the block had reported damp. However, any other affected tenants may not have reported issues. Its thermal survey on 17 January 2022 would identify any insulation issues.
22. It could also find no evidence that it responded to the resident’s letter of 6 September 2021. As a result, it upheld her complaint regarding the timescale for resolving the complaint. It noted that on 11 November 2021, the resident raised her concern that her complaint was being closed. This decision was overturned, but the complaint was not escalated to stage 2 until the resident contacted the Ombudsman. While it understood why the stage 1 complaint was left open, the resident was not given a timescale for a response, which was a breach of its complaints policy. The complaint was also not escalated when the resident requested this. It apologised for the anxiety and stress this caused.
23. It had not always been clear what it proposed to do to address issues the resident reported. For example, an email it sent on 11 November 2021 stated that it was attending to some building faults, but did not say what these were, resulting in a period of 8 days when the resident was unclear regarding its intentions. It had made a recommendation to improve this.
24. It apologised for the negative impact of the damp, humidity, ants and silverfish on the resident and her child. It accepted it had taken too long to resolve these issues. It upheld her complaint regarding its handling of damp/mould, pest infestations, and complaint handling. It offered £500 in compensation to reflect the impact of its delays.
25. It was unable to provide a timeframe within which all the works would be complete. If the resident would prefer to move, it would send her an application form to apply for a transfer. Her request would be prioritised in accordance with its allocation scheme. If the works to resolve the humidity required the resident to be decanted, she could request for the move to be permanent. In this event (or in the event of a transfer or mutual exchange within 12 months), it would pay removal costs of £225, cover mail redirection, and provide support.
26. It had made the following recommendations as a result of the complaint, which would be shared with its housing assets team and contractor:
  1. All inspectors completing visits to investigate reports of damp, mould or humidity to carry and use a damp detector;
  2. Tenants experiencing ongoing repair issues to have a dedicated point of contact;
  3. Tenants to be notified of their point of contact within 5 working days;
  4. All repair requests which require a surveyor visit to be logged on its property repair record.
The resident told the landlord the same day that she was “extremely unhappy” with its response and intended to take her complaint further. On 12 January 2022 she said that she would not be accepting the compensation offered, as she felt it was “an absolutely disgraceful offer considering this has been going on for 3.5 years”. She also clarified that the only outstanding repair issue was with her radiators, some of which did not work properly.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord’s contractor attended the property to begin a course of monitoring for silverfish, which comprised 3 visits. This was funded by its tenancy services department, despite pest infestations usually being considered the tenant’s responsibility. On 18 January 2022 the landlord received an email from the contractor, which stated that the resident had told its operative she did not have any silverfish in her property.
On 8 February 2022 the resident told the landlord that there were still silverfish in her property following traps placed during treatment. On 11 February 2022 the landlord liaised with its contractor, which said it would contact the resident to arrange a further visit the following week. It also noted that when it contacted the residents of neighbouring properties, they did not appear to have an issue with silverfish.
On 21 February 2022 the resident wrote to the landlord, stating her wish to escalate her complaint to stage 3 of its complaints process. She listed the issues her escalated complaint related to and provided comments and updates on each one. The issues were:
1. Damp, mould and humidity – while the damp and humidity had reduced slightly, there was now a wind tunnel between the pacifier vent and the Envirovent, causing her child’s bedroom to be cold. She was also losing heat through other vents.
2. Silverfish – this issue had impacted her anxiety and OCD and caused her to claw at her own skin. There were fewer silverfish in the winter, when the heating was on, and more in summer. A pest control officer who put traps down was supposed to contact her the previous week, but had not. She had noticed more silverfish in her bath, sink and bathroom light. She felt the landlord had not taken sufficient action to maintain its properties, and she did not believe it would keep the gutters clear. She said the issue would never be resolved when neighbours’ properties were not maintained correctly.
3. The new roof – she had stood and watched the landlord’s contractor put a brand new roof on top of the old dirty and damp one. She believed this had trapped in damp and mould. She felt this belief was supported by comments made by the contractor, the difference in height between blocks, and the number of skips used. She also raised issues with the contractors’ conduct, the new roof on sheds outside the block, and the fact she was not informed in advance that scaffolding would be erected outside her window.
4. Outstanding and ‘lost’ repairs – there was an outstanding issue with her radiator valve. She initially reported this and was told the valves were working correctly. Another valve had now stopped working. The issue had taken weeks to address and had been chased up. She had now received an appointment letter, but would need to reschedule due to a hospital visit. She felt the lack of surveyor visit information on repair logs was a “disgrace”.
5. Poor communication – the landlord had repeatedly said it had lost jobs, jobs had already been marked as completed, or there was no evidence of a call. She had made it aware of this issue previously but nothing had been done. She knew other tenants had reported issues because her property was blamed for the silverfish. Some tenants had been advised to open their windows to prevent damp, or were told that their windows will be replaced when the whole block is done. She had seen mould in 2 other properties in the block, and was not surprised issues were not reported when tenants were “fobbed off”. Not all tenants received letters advising them to turn their heating on in advance of the thermal survey on 17 January 2022, meaning that money was again “wasted on a half-hearted job”.
6. Point of contact – she felt the officer who had been made her dedicated point of contact had been negligent in their role and failed to follow the landlord’s complaints procedure. She had previously had issues in 2019 with officers she was in contact with changing roles, and with office phones being left to ring out during the COVID-19 pandemic.
7. Delayed and negligent repairs – the landlord did not complete yearly inspections as it was supposed to. While it identified a 4-month delay in installing the Envirovent in 2020, she had been reporting the underlying issue since 2018. She believed the landlord would not have agreed to an independent survey if she had not sought legal advice. She felt a further delay of 2-3 months to complete works was unacceptable, and noted that when contractors attended to remove bricks, they had to make 2 trips to fetch the necessary materials. The alternative ventilation system proposed by the landlord had not been installed, and instead the Envirovent settings had been changed. She felt that if she refused to keep the monitors, the landlord would claim she refused the works required.
8. Effect of the property on her and her child’s physical and mental health – she felt the landlord had allowed her and her child to live in an unsuitable property for 3 years and 7 months. She believed repairs should be prioritised in circumstances where a tenant’s health was impacted.
9. Complaint handling failures – she felt the landlord changed the rules to suit its purposes. She said its apology was not good enough, and there needed to be changes.
10. Compensation offer – she felt the compensation of £500 was “a disgrace” and £225 towards removal costs was “laughable”. She said she would never do another mutual exchange, and would not complete a housing application as she would not have enough points to be prioritised and would “wait forever on a list”.
11. Provision of reports – she had only been given 1 out of the 4 or 5 reports the landlord said it would provide, despite requesting them under the Freedom of Information Act. She listed further documents and information she wished to receive.
The resident told the landlord she expected it to do one of 2 things: carry out repairs to fix the damp, humidity and pest issues, or move her to a new suitable property (with certain stipulations). In addition to this, she said she expected compensation for “the past 3 years and 7 months of hell”. She asked for all future communication to be in writing.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s escalation request on 24 February 2022. The same day, it visited the property and saw silverfish in the resident’s bathroom light fitting. Following the visit, it raised a request for its contractor to complete another course of treatment.
On 28 February 2022 the landlord’s stage 3 responder contacted the resident. They said they would welcome the opportunity to visit her, and noted that as there was a significant amount of information to review, its usual 20-day response time might not be achievable. On 10 March 2022, after meeting with the resident, the stage 3 responder said they aimed to provide their response by 25 March 2022.
On 14 March 2022 the landlord’s contractor visited the resident’s property and removed glue traps that had been left. The resident told the landlord that the silverfish issue had not been resolved. The landlord again sought an update from its contractor, which advised that its operative had put 3 traps down for 4 weeks, and on removal there were no silverfish in them. As far as the contractor was concerned, its treatment was complete and there was no further action it could take.
The landlord issued its stage 3 response to the resident’s complaint on 21 March 2022, stating that:
1. In relation to damp, mould and humidity:
  1. It had visited on 8 March 2022 and confirmed that the Envirovent in the resident’s property was causing a wind tunnel effect. It agreed that this was not acceptable and needed to be resolved.
  2. It had been advised that the Envirovent’s fan could be adjusted to reduce the amount of cold air coming into the property. It also noted the resident’s concerns regarding the cost of running the unit.
  3. Recent works relating to damp and humidity included a survey by its independent specialist and a separate thermal survey. The thermal survey generated recommendations to complete remedial works to the cavity wall.
  4. It proposed a number of actions, namely: adjusting the Envirovent (as a temporary solution while longer-term structural works were programmed in for June/July 2022); paying the resident £50 to cover any increase in her electricity bills; and reviewing the structural works once complete to determine whether such treatment was suitable for the whole block.
2. In relation to the silverfish issue:
  1. On visiting the property, it saw several live and dead silverfish in the resident’s bathroom light fitting.
  2. Its pest control contractor had been laying indicator traps in the property, but a full treatment was required to resolve the issue. It had asked its housing officer to identify an alternative contractor to undertake this, and up to 2 further treatments.
  3. While it noted the resident’s concerns that the silverfish may be coming from other areas within the block, its understanding was that some treatments left a residue that would prevent the silverfish from coming back into a particular property. It would ask its contractor to use this type of treatment.
3. In relation to the resident’s concerns about the roof:
  1. It was satisfied that the roof works were completed correctly and to the specifications set.
  2. It appeared that works undertaken to the shed roofs were temporary. It had instructed its contractor to carry out a permanent repair.
4. In relation to outstanding and lost repairs:
  1. It noted that the resident still required a radiator valve to be fixed, and the confusion regarding a suitable appointment time. It had allocated a point of contact to reschedule the appointment.
  2. Regarding repairs being lost, it referred the resident back to its stage 2 response in which it made a recommendation to change the way its report logs worked. This meant that information previously captured by different systems would be brought together going forwards.
5. In relation to poor communication:
  1. It supported the findings of its stage 2 responder regarding this issue.
  2. It had allocated the resident a single point of contact to improve this.
6. In relation to its point of contact:
  1. It did not believe its previously allocated officer to be incompetent.
  2. However, it recognised why the resident would find it hard to liaise with this officer. It had therefore allocated an alternative point of contact.
7. In relation to repairs:
  1. It agreed with its stage 2 findings. There had been times when it had not been as clear as it could have been during correspondence with the resident, and its complaint responses were delayed. It apologised for this, and was working to prevent it from happening again.
  2. It noted that while there had been issues with its handling of the resident’s case, it had undertaken a considerable amount of works to try to resolve the issues raised. It had also previously paid the resident compensation of £1,792.10.

In relation to health impacts:
1. It noted the resident’s concerns regarding her health, and that of her child. It apologised for any impact its actions had had.
2. It was hopeful that the issues raised were now much closer to being resolved.
In relation to complaint handling:
1. It agreed with its stage 2 findings. It reiterated its apology for any stress and anxiety caused.
2. It had undertaken a stage 3 investigation because the resident was unhappy with its stage 2 response. While it supported some aspects of the stage 2 response, it had identified some further actions to address the outstanding issues.
In relation to compensation:
1. It had not made any additional findings beyond its stage 2 offer. It therefore reconfirmed its offer of £500.
2. As previously stated, it also offered £50 for the running costs of the Envirovent and £225 to meet any removal costs.
In relation to the resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request:
1. It believed there was some initial confusion regarding the resident’s request for information, which had now been resolved through its FOI officer.
2. If anything remained outstanding, it asked the resident to let it know.
In relation to the resident’s proposed resolutions:
1. It believed it had been able to achieve the first option of carrying out repairs to fix the damp, humidity and pest issues.
2. It would be unable to address the second option in the way the resident outlined. It repeated its offer to send a housing application form so that the resident could apply for a transfer through its allocations scheme.

Post complaint

The same day the landlord issued its stage 3 response (21 March 2022), it arranged for a private pest control company to attend the resident’s property and explore alternative treatments. The company advised that spray and gel treatments were available, and discussed options with the resident when she raised concerns about the chemicals involved. According to the landlord, the company subsequently informed it that the resident said it would be pointless to treat the silverfish in her property as the other flats in the block were also damp and infested. She also reportedly said that a member of her household had a medical condition that could be aggravated by a chemical treatment, so the treatment was not carried out. The resident told the landlord on 25 March 2022 that the pest control company felt the treatment would not work as it would only be effective for 21 days. She said that, since the damp problem persisted, carrying out a short-term treatment would be a waste of taxpayers’ money.
Between 5 and 13 July 2022 the landlord’s contractor removed brickwork, the existing DPC and concrete bridging from the property. It then installed a new DPC and reinstated the brickwork.
On 13 August 2022 and 1 September 2022, emails were exchanged between the resident and landlord regarding the silverfish issue. The landlord noted that its contractor did not have a recent record of a pest control treatment being completed, and said it would request a further treatment to support the one carried out in early 2022. On 8 September 2022 the landlord offered the resident a further silverfish treatment and explained how she could arrange this, but she did not do so.
The landlord has informed this Service that it has since continued to address damp and humidity issues within the resident’s property, including replacement of insulation on or around 28 September 2022. On 12 October 2022, when it provided details of the resident’s case requested by the Ombudsman, it stated its belief that “Now these works have been completed, the ongoing issues of damp and humidity in the property have been resolved, and [it] had exhausted the actions [it] could take regarding this matter.” At this point, outstanding repair works included replacement of a temporary shed roof repair with a full repair, installation of a window fan in the bathroom, and removal of the Envirovent (at the resident’s request). The shed repair was scheduled the same month.
On 18 May 2023 the landlord visited the resident and subsequently provided an email update regarding the outstanding issues. This noted that the silverfish issue continued, and the landlord had arranged a further treatment which would not aggravate the resident’s child’s allergies. It had also arranged an inspection to ascertain the cause of ongoing damp, humidity and condensation issues.
On 26 June 2023 the resident asked the landlord to complete an assessment of hazards in her home with reference to the Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS). This was completed on 30 June 2023. Of the 32 types of hazard assessed, evidence of risk was found in relation to 1 (‘damp and mould growth’).
On 6 July 2023 the landlord received a report following a thermal imaging survey of the block, which recommended that it undertook monitoring of humidity in other flats. It confirmed to the resident that this was being arranged on 13 July 2023. On 21 July 2023 an email from the landlord to the resident stated that although the recent report identified her property was dry, elevated humidity readings were generated over a 2-week monitoring period and a small area of mould was present. It advised that it was arranging a further silverfish treatment.
The landlord subsequently offered the resident a temporary decant while it completed adaptation works in her property, and said it would complete silverfish treatment and monitoring while the property was empty. The resident declined the decant property offered on 11 August 2023. The landlord then followed up its proposal of a further independent inspection with the resident on 25 August 2023. The resident declined this on 31 August 2023, stating that the only way to resolve the issues was to demolish the block and rebuild it. The landlord acknowledged her decision on 7 September 2023.
The resident continues to disagree that the landlord has completed repairs to her home and pest control actions to an acceptable standard.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

Paragraph 42 of the Scheme sets out matters which the Ombudsman may not consider. This includes complaints which were not brought to the attention of the member landlord as a formal complaint within a reasonable period (normally 6 months of the matter arising), and those which fall properly within the jurisdiction of another ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body. It also includes complaints concerning matters where the Ombudsman considers it quicker, fairer, more reasonable, or more effective to seek a remedy through the courts, other tribunal or procedure. The following matters therefore fall outside the scope of the current investigation:
1. The resident’s previous complaint(s), including a complaint regarding damp and mould made in October 2019 and responded to by the landlord in December 2019, and associated events;
2. The resident’s recent complaint regarding adaptations, made in June 2023 and escalated to stage 3 in October 2023, which she may refer separately to the Ombudsman for investigation;
3. The landlord’s response to the resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request and Subject Access Request (SAR), which falls within the remit of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) and other bodies;
4. Any impact of the landlord’s action or inaction on the resident’s health, or that of her child, which may be pursued by way of a personal injury insurance claim.
For clarity, this investigation will focus on the period from March 2021 until March 2022, although reference may be made to some earlier or later events.
It is noted that a large volume of correspondence and other documentation has been provided in connection with this case. This comprises over 10,000 pages (including some duplicate documents). While not all events and issues may be referenced specifically, all the information supplied has been reviewed and taken into account.

Damp and humidity

The damp and humidity affecting the resident’s property has evidently been challenging for the landlord to resolve. In the Ombudsman’s opinion, it carried out a range of appropriate diagnostic and repair works during the timeframe assessed. These included identification and exploration of a DPC issue, thermal and infrared surveys, humidity monitoring, and use of an Envirovent system. Though some of these works were delayed, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out internal investigations, to employ independent specialists when it was unable to identify the cause of the issue itself, and to follow the recommendations of its qualified staff and contractors. It is unfortunate that its efforts did not quickly resolve the damp, and the resident’s frustration due to the length of time she has lived with damp in her property is appreciated. However, it cannot be determined that this lack of resolution is the fault of the landlord, which has maintained regular communication with the resident and taken responsibility for any actions that caused additional distress to her (such as the way she was informed of an extension to the monitoring period).
It is noted that the resident’s concerns regarding the cost of running the Envirovent system (and other associated costs) could have been alleviated at an earlier stage if the landlord had given assurance that it would cover these at the outset, rather than as part of its stage 3 complaint response. Nevertheless, it responded appropriately by agreeing to cover the costs when it became aware of the issue, and demonstrated openness by setting out its method of calculating the £50 offered. It was good practice for the landlord to proactively seek the resident’s feedback on the results of its exploratory repairs, and it also responded promptly when she raised the new issue of a wind tunnel effect caused by the Envirovent.
The Ombudsman acknowledges the upset caused to the resident as a result of feeling she was initially blamed for the condensation in her property. In addition, she felt that the landlord may not have carried out such extensive monitoring if she had not sought legal advice. This cannot be known, and so no finding can be made. While it was misleading for the landlord to suggest that condensation was inevitable, it was appropriate for it to give advice regarding the common causes of condensation in the early stages of its investigation. This advice supported the information given in its published guidance for tenants. The correspondence seen by this Service on the topic of condensation was sensitively worded and did not imply blame.
The resident was also concerned about the impact of the damp, mould and humidity in her property on her health, and that of her child. Though the presence of mould was comparatively short-lived, she remained worried that the damp and humidity could exacerbate her child’s respiratory issues, as well as about the impact of the various issues on her mental health. As explained under ‘scope of investigation’ above, the resident may choose to make a personal injury insurance claim in relation to any health impact she believes to have resulted from the landlord’s actions (or lack of action). There is evidence within the documentation provided that the landlord took the resident’s concerns seriously and took swift action when she expressed these, such as arranging a welfare visit.
Health and safety considerations featured prominently in the expert reports commissioned by the landlord, and when the resident requested a HHSRS inspection, the landlord quickly completed this. Though it did not offer a decant until more recently, it repeatedly explained to the resident how she could progress a move through other routes, and accommodated reasonable adjustments requested such as avoidance of certain chemicals and repair techniques that generated dust. In summary, while the landlord could potentially have considered a decant or managed moved sooner, it could not have known how long some issues would ultimately take to resolve. It also became aware of some of the resident’s concerns, such as her child’s tonsillitis when mould was present, after the event. In view of the information available to it at the time – such as the disappearance of visible mould, the levels of damp and humidity detected, the apparent effectiveness of the Envirovent system, and mitigating actions to increase airflow/ventilation – its response to the resident’s health concerns is considered to have been sufficient.
An overall finding of reasonable redress has been made, as the landlord’s offer of compensation in relation to its handling of the damp and humidity within the resident’s property is found to have been satisfactory in the circumstances. This takes account of the fact that it maintained effective communication with the resident, despite receiving large quantities of correspondence, and apologised for delays when these occurred. Some of the delays, such as that caused by a tender process, were outside its control; for example, 2-3 months to procure external specialist services is not considered to be unreasonable. There is also evidence that the landlord based its decision making on the information available to it, such as the levels of reports received from other residents, and the eradication of visible mould following its repair of the DPC. It was appropriate for it to modify its plan of action based on developments in its investigation – for instance, adjusting the existing Envirovent system rather than implementing a new system as it had previously suggested – and to update the resident accordingly.

Other repairs and associated concerns

There is evidence that the landlord carried out repairs in response to the various issues reported by the resident, including exploring solutions to address a temperature issue in her child’s bedroom. It had also previously replaced the windows in the property, despite not believing they were beyond repair, in recognition of the resident’s concerns. While the works completed were not always effective, some of the issues were complex and the landlord made appropriate use of its resources in attempting to resolve them. It is generally accepted that complicated issues requiring a ‘process of elimination’ approach would not be fully resolved within the timeframe set out for routine repairs.

Record keeping

When the resident raised concerns in relation to the landlord’s record keeping, and in particular regarding its record of the number of visits to her property, it identified that its use of 2 parallel databases was responsible for the inconsistencies highlighted. Having found the cause of the issue, it promptly put measures in place to address this, and informed the resident that it had done so. This was an adequate and proportionate response.
The landlord also confirmed that it had taken appropriate steps to reduce repair delays, such as ensuring operatives attended with the correct equipment first time and designating a point of contact to oversee complex cases and provide regular updates. This was helpful, and demonstrated a willingness to learn from issues and put things right.

Block roof replacement

The Ombudsman understands the resident’s concerns relating to the block roof replacement, especially in light of her own observations during the works and the ongoing damp issues. However, from the information provided, in the Ombudsman’s opinion the landlord’s response to these concerns was satisfactory. It was appropriate for it to consult its records, to liaise with relevant staff and contractors, and to explain why it did not hold certain information. There is evidence that it took the resident’s concerns seriously and exhausted the avenues of investigation available to it at the time in order to reassure her.

Shed roof repair

Though this issue falls outside the focal period of this investigation, it has been included for completeness as the landlord addressed it in its stage 3 complaint response.
In response to the resident’s concerns, the landlord clarified in March 2022 that a previous repair to 3 shed roofs was temporary and agreed to carry out a permanent repair. This remained outstanding when the landlord provided an update to this Service in October 2022, and the information provided indicates that the necessary works were progressed later the same month. Though the delay of 7 months clearly caused annoyance to the resident, the landlord confirmed that the temporary repair ensured the sheds were fully weatherproof while a more permanent solution was being arranged. Since there is no indication that the repair was urgent, or that its delay caused the resident significant detriment, the Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of this matter to have been reasonable.

Point of contact

When the resident expressed her dissatisfaction with the conduct of a member of the landlord’s staff, it was appropriate for it to allocate an alternative point of contact, despite disagreeing that the staff member in question was “incompetent”. Landlords are generally permitted to use their resources as they see fit, and in this instance, the landlord exercised appropriate discretion in response to the concerns raised. In doing so, it acknowledged the resident’s feelings and the fact that it would be difficult for her to continue to correspond with the officer whose conduct she disputed.

Summary

An overall finding of no maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s handling of repairs to the property (other than those concerning damp and humidity) and the resident’s associated concerns. This is due to the reasons set out above. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident was at times frustrated by administrative errors and explanations that she disagreed with, and that the cumulative impact of multiple simultaneous repair issues caused her considerable distress throughout the period assessed. However, it is the role of this Service to determine whether the landlord acted reasonably in the full circumstances of the case, and taking all of the information supplied into account, its response has been considered to be acceptable.

Pest control issues

The landlord’s usual position is that pest control issues are the tenant’s responsibility. However, the Ombudsman has had sight of an email dated 4 December 2019 in which the landlord agreed to arrange for its pest control service to treat the property for silverfish at no cost to the resident. It no doubt made this offer with good intentions and in view of the resident’s stated concerns about the costs involved. It also subsequently continued to cover the costs of treating the property for silverfish and ants, in recognition of the fact that the damp/humidity issue could be creating conditions that attracted such insects. This constitutes evidence of a tailored and flexible approach, which the landlord has sustained over a period of almost 4 years.

Ants

The resident brought the issue of an ant infestation to the landlord’s attention in or around August 2021. Following treatment by the landlord and resident, the issue was resolved within 4 months (by December 2021). The Ombudsman finds the landlord’s handling of this matter, which went beyond its original commitment to treat silverfish, to have been reasonable.

Silverfish

Between December 2019 and March 2022, the landlord completed or arranged at least 3 treatments of a persistent silverfish infestation in the resident’s property. It also visited to assess levels of silverfish on other occasions during this period, and offered treatments to other tenants of the resident’s block when she expressed concern about the insects’ movement between flats. It went on to offer further treatments in September 2022, May 2023 and August 2023, some or all of which the resident declined.
In the Ombudsman’s opinion, having agreed to treat the silverfish, the landlord acted appropriately in arranging treatments, liaising with specialists and giving advice. It is noted that there was sometimes limited evidence of a current infestation when staff visited the property, and that the resident refused some types of treatment due to understandable concerns about the effect on her child’s health conditions. She also mentioned some issues with third party organisations, over which the landlord had limited influence. Despite this, it persevered in proposing new treatment options, which ceased only when the resident stopped accepting them. It also offered compensation in relation to its handling of a matter it had no obligation to deal with. While the distress caused to the resident’s household as a result of the silverfish infestation is not underestimated, the landlord’s response to the issue was helpful and solution-focused, and so a finding of reasonable redress has been made.

Complaint handling

The landlord took the initiative of logging a complaint for the resident in August 2021. It is unclear if this was what the resident wanted, or indeed if logging a complaint was necessary in order to resolve the substantive repair issues. However, the resident appeared happy with the course of action, as she went on to provide a detailed written summary of her complaint. It is also accepted that the landlord had dealt with a previous complaint she had made regarding a related matter, and would therefore have had some existing awareness of her expectations.
The landlord’s decision to close the resident’s stage 1 complaint on 11 November 2021, before it had produced a formal response, was unsatisfactory. However, when the resident objected, it promptly reopened the complaint and issued a detailed update (apparently in lieu of a stage 1 response) the following week. The landlord’s communication of 19 November 2021 should have been presented as a stage 1 response, but was nevertheless helpful. However, it was unreasonable for the landlord to tell the resident that escalation to stage 2 was conditional on repair issues remaining outstanding at the end of its monitoring period. This necessitated intervention by the Ombudsman.
The landlord provided conflicting information as to whether or not its delay in responding at stage 2 was linked to the results of its survey. On 24 November 2021, at the time of escalating the resident’s complaint and confirming its anticipated response date, the landlord told this Service it “may require an extension if the surveys required are not complete, as this will be material to the complaint response contents”. On 24 December 2021, after the landlord had informed the resident it needed more time to respond, the resident pointed out that the landlord initially told her “the additional timescale … is not related to the survey but based on the timescale required to complete my investigation”. According to the resident, it then said it was waiting for the results of the survey in order to complete its investigation, but subsequently stated that “the reason [it] needed more time … was not to allow for the survey and investigation works to be completed” and that it “had a number of other queries outstanding”. Whether or not the landlord was waiting for the survey outcome before producing its response, its advice to the resident was confusing and contradictory, and caused her to lose confidence in its approach.
Although the landlord provided some updates to the resident regarding timescales, its responses at all 3 stages of its complaints process exceeded those set out in its policy. At stage 1, its email of 11 November 2021 was sent 48 working days after the resident sent her letter of complaint on 6 September 2021 (and 53 working days after the landlord said it had logged the complaint). The stage 2 response was issued 30 working days after the resident escalated her complaint; this was more reasonable in view of the landlord’s policy, which allows for additional time with advance notice. However, the stage 3 response was issued after 50 working days. The delays were not excessive and did not cause significant detriment to the resident, but better communication could have improved her experience.
Having accepted fault in relation to its handling of the resident’s reports of damp/mould and pest issues and her complaint, it was appropriate for the landlord to award financial compensation. In the absence of a tariff, it is difficult to assess the adequacy of the £500 offered. It is positive that a breakdown was provided, and that the impacts of the landlord’s failures on the resident – such as causing her anxiety – were recognised within this. However, while the £500 is considered reasonable redress in respect of the matters it related to, it did not incorporate an award for complaint handling (although the landlord rightly apologised for its complaint handling delays). Additional compensation has therefore been ordered to reflect the findings of this investigation, in accordance with this Service’s remedies guidance.
With regard to the options proposed by the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to conclude (as part of its complaint response) that it could achieve the first option, ie resolution of the reported repair and pest issues. It was therefore also reasonable, in the Ombudsman’s view, for the landlord to decline to move the resident outside of its usual allocations process. It is possible that the landlord’s historical handling of the resident’s case – though well intentioned – created unrealistic expectations in terms of the involvement of senior officers and departure from policies, and a recommendation has been made to address this.
A finding of maladministration has been made in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling, due to the combined factors of its premature closure of the complaint, lack of clearly defined stage 1 response, unreasonable requirements in respect of escalation to stage 2, confusing advice regarding the reasons for its delayed stage 2 response, and overall delays in responding.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was:
1. no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the property and the resident’s associated concerns;
2. maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Scheme, there was:
1. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and humidity;
2. reasonable redress by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of pest control issues.
It is also determined that in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme, the resident’s previous complaint(s) – including a complaint regarding damp and mould made in October 2019 and responded to by the landlord in December 2019, and associated events – fall outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman as they concern events which were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period, which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.
It is also determined that in accordance with paragraph 42(a) of the Scheme, the resident’s recent complaint regarding adaptations, made in June 2023 and escalated to stage 3 in October 2023, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman as it concerns a complaint which has been made prior to having exhausted a member’s complaints procedure.
It is also determined that in accordance with paragraph 42(j) of the Scheme, the landlord’s response to the resident’s Freedom of Information (FOI) request and Subject Access Request (SAR) fall outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman as this complaint falls properly within the jurisdiction of another Ombudsman, regulator, or complaint-handling body.
It is also determined that in accordance with paragraph 42(e) of the Scheme, any impact of the landlord’s action or inaction on the resident’s health, or that of her child, falls outside the jurisdiction of the Ombudsman as this concerns matters where a complainant has the opportunity to raise the subject matter of the complaint as part of legal proceedings.

Reasons

The damp and humidity affecting the resident’s property was a complex matter, and the landlord was proactive in investigating possible causes, carrying out monitoring, and trying to find solutions. Though there were some delays and communication issues, which caused distress and frustration to the resident, the landlord apologised for these. It gave consistent advice and offered appropriate financial redress for the failures it identified.
The landlord responded in accordance with the Ombudsman’s expectations to other repair issues within the resident’s property. Where possible, it put measures in place to prevent issues from recurring. Its response to the resident’s concerns about a block roof replacement, a shed roof repair and its allocated point of contact was reasonable.
The landlord repeatedly treated ant and silverfish infestations in the resident’s property, despite having no obligation to do so. Its response to the resident’s concerns about a wider infestation and different types of treatment was flexible and solution-focused. When the resident complained about the landlord’s approach to the pest control issues, it offered financial redress that (in the Ombudsman’s opinion) resolved the stated issues satisfactorily.
While some aspects of the landlord’s complaint handling were positive, it initially closed the resident’s complaint without responding. It did not produce a formal stage 1 response, set out unreasonable requirements in respect of escalation to stage 2, and gave confusing advice regarding the reasons for its delayed stage 2 response. In addition, its responses at all 3 stages of its complaints process were delayed.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord is ordered to do the following within 4 weeks of the date of this report:
1. Reiterate its apology to the resident for its delays in handling her reports of damp/humidity and pest related matters. It should also apologise for its delays and other failures in handling her associated complaint.
2. Pay the resident £300 for its complaint handling failures and the additional distress and inconvenience caused to her as a result.
3. Provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service.

Recommendations

It is recommended that, in addition to the £300 ordered above, the landlord pays the resident the £500 it offered in its stage 2 and 3 complaint responses, which related to its delay in resolving the damp/humidity and silverfish issues and the impacts of this on her.
It is recommended that the landlord reviews its policies and other published information, and considers amending these to clearly state its position with regard to pest control issues (if it has not already done so). This statement should detail the circumstances in which the landlord may depart from its usual procedure by covering the cost of pest control treatments, and any conditions to which its intervention is subject – such as a maximum number of treatments, and its position if a tenant disagrees with the type of treatment proposed.
It is recommended that the landlord is mindful of the importance of setting realistic expectations when dealing with residents, particularly in relation to the involvement of senior staff and departures from its policies.
It is recommended that the landlord provides any outstanding reports to the resident, if it has not already done so.
It is recommended that the landlord satisfies itself that it is complying with its responsibilities with regard to yearly inspections of its properties, and provides written assurance to the resident regarding this. If its position or commitments have changed, it should clarify this with reference to any relevant legislation.