Guinness Housing Association Limited (202205434)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202205434

Guinness Housing Association Limited

31 July 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 was about the landlord’s response to:
1. The resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. The resident’s reports of antisocial behaviour (ASB).
3. The resident’s reports of fly tipping.
4. The resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance and communal cleaning.
5. The resident’s request to move.
6. The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

The resident occupied his home together with his late wife under an assured tenancy which began on 11 April 2011. His late wife moved out of the property in September 2022 and sadly passed away in November 2022. The resident suffered from a number of health conditions including a heart condition. Both had limited mobility.

Legal and policy framework

It is reasonable to assume that the terms and conditions of the resident’s tenancy agreement applied to the resident’s neighbours. The tenancy agreement set out the following obligations for the resident:
1. Pay a variable service charge.
2. Put their rubbish in the designated bins and take reasonable care to keep the bin areas clean.
3. Not to use controlled drugs in their home.
4. Obtain permission in writing for permission to keep an animal.
5. Not to allow any pet or animal to cause a nuisance or annoyance or danger to anyone.
6. Not to keep any dangerous animals. This included dangerous dogs.
The landlord had an obligation to keep the structure of the property in repair.
Under Section 9a of the Housing Act 1985, the landlord has an obligation to ensure that the property is fit for human habitation during the term of the tenancy in relation to freedom from damp. The local authority can assess and enforce housing standards under its Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS).
The landlord operated a damp and mould policy from May 2022. It included:
1. Provide dry, warm, healthy and safe homes which were free from any hazards.
2. Take responsibility for diagnosing and resolving damp and mould in a timely and effective way where they result from issues that require repair.
3. Take action to identify homes that have, or may be at risk of developing, problems with damp and mould and use data to understand the risk profile in relation to damp and mould.
4. On receipt of a report, an operative would attend the property to determine the cause and seek to resolve the immediate issue.
5. It recognised that complex cases included those which affected a resident’s health. When a particularly severe or recurring damp or mould issue was identified, it would undertake a comprehensive risk assessment which might result in a range of actions to support the resident depending on their circumstances. These may include providing and funding dehumidifiers, the installation of positive pressure, mechanical or passive ventilation systems, dry lining walls or applying mould resistant coverings, as appropriate, on a case-by-case basis.
Under the repairs policy, it would either complete a repair or carry out a temporary repair within 24 hours of the problem being reported. It would carry out routine repairs within 28 calendar days and sooner if possible.
The ASB policy set out that:
1. It would acknowledge all new ASB reports within a maximum of two working days.
2. It would encourage people to report criminal acts to the police.
3. It would carry out a risk assessment to assess the impact the ASB was having on the individual, whether they are vulnerable, and whether they have any support needs.
4. It would take proportionate and timely action to deal with the ASB.
5. It would agree a plan to tackle the ASB.
6. It would close an ASB case when the behaviour had improved to an acceptable level or there was no further reasonable action that the landlord could take.
7. Nuisance included allowing dogs to bark or roam and dumping rubbish.
The landlord provided its December 2022 estate policy. The aims included:
1. Keeping the estates and neighbourhoods clean, safe, secure, and well-maintained.
2. Inspecting on a regular basis to check the quality of the services, identify any maintenance issues, and remedy any health and safety concerns.
3. Removing any fly tipping within 5 working days of a report.
4. Not permitting any items to be left at the side of the bins. Examples included leaving furniture or household items which could not fit in the bins.
5. Where a resident was misusing the communal bins, it considered this to be ASB and would deal with this as a breach of tenancy or lease.
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure. It would response within 10 working days at Stage 1 and within 20 working days at Stage 2.

Chronology

The resident made an application to move in October 2020. The landlord required more recent medical information than 2018. The GP letter of 2018 referred to the resident being diagnosed with a pulmonarydisease and COPD. The application was made on the basis of poor mobilityand was approved on 21 January 2021 following the provision of an OT (occupational therapist) report in January 2021. The resident was given“band B” priority. On 24 June 2021, the landlord approved a management move for the resident, its highest priority. The requirements were for a ground floor property with level access shower but the resident could use a stairlift or passenger lift to access the first floor.
The landlord provided this Service with the following:
1. The cleaning inspection forms fromMarch 2019 to July 2022. There were no inspectionsformsfor January to July 2022 or October 2020 to May 2021. Otherwise, they were issued approximately every 3-6 months. The scores were high (green) except for “amber” scores in March, July and October 2021.
2. Photographs of the communal parts and inspections forms for the period April, 2019 to March 2023. Some inspections were quarterly, some monthly. The forms were illegible. The photographs appear to show a clean and tidy condition but were not comprehensive.
3. A list of three bulk waste collections from May 2022 to May 2023.
On 7 February 2022, the resident reported that the building had not been cleaned for the previous two weeks. He paid service charges for the service. He reported cannabis smoke penetrating his property through his windows which he said affected his COPD.
On 10 February 2022, the landlord spoke to the resident. It said it would discuss the cleaning with the contractors, speak to his neighbour about the cannabis smoke, and to the surveyor about the ongoing mould issue.
The resident again reported a lack of cleaning again on 15 February 2022. On the same day, the landlord agreed to send a “block letter” about cannabis smoking, it was to ask the grounds staff to pick up the litter, due to attend on 17 February 2022, and it would ensure the cleaning contactor had access to the block. It would investigate whether sandbags in the resident’s flat needing replacing.
On 28 February 2022, the resident reported that he had identified the neighbour who was responsible for the cannabis smoke. The resident had reported this to the police. According to the landlord’s telephone note, a block letter had been sent the previous week. It stated that it would monitor the situation but was unable to take action unless it could prove that the neighbour was responsible.
On 1 March 2022, the parties spoke again. The block was cleaned on 14 and 17 March 2022, the landlord held dated photographs and stated that the matter was “closed”. The staff had access to keys to the block. The resident raised that the sandbags were plastic and not hessian. The resident also reported cannabis smoke and was referred to the police.
On 6 April 2022, the resident reported a mattress being dumped in the bin cupboard. According to the landlord’s notes, it requested their removal. According to the resident this had not been removed by 22 April 2022 but had been by 25 April 2022, though some rubbish had been left behind. The resident reported that the presence of the fly tipping was preventing ordinary rubbish collection. The resident called with a similar report on 16 May 2022 and on 20 May 2022 regarding grounds maintenance. He reported cannabis smoke again on 26 May 2022 which he would report to the police.
On 12 June 2022, the resident made a complaint as follows:
1. The communal areas were not being cleaned although the contractors ticked the forms as “completed”, yet there were areas that had been missed such as the windows and skirting boards. He had reported “25 serious issues” including sewerage ingress.
2. According to an internal note of 21 June 2022, the landlord stated that it did not “automatically raise a complaint” as it would try and resolve the matter without the need for one.
According to an internal email of the following day, the landlord had spoken to the resident and agreed an action plan as follows:
1. It would carry out a full cleaning and estate inspection to identify whether the contractors were meeting the relevant specifications.
2. It would set up a regular monitor on this to make sure that they were visiting on a regular basis and acting in accordance with what they were contracted to do, and if necessary bring them up to specification.
3. It enquired internally as to its processes regarding litter picking in the car park and window cleaning.
4. The resident had refused three properties for not being suitable.
5. The landlord would check cannabis use during block checks and take further action if evidence was obtained. It suggested “drawing a line under historical matters” and work with finding improvements. The landlord would make initial weekly calls with updates and monitor the situation.
The landlord logged a formal complaint following contact by this service on 1 July 2022.
On 7 July 2022, the resident reported further flytipping.
The landlord carried out an internal investigation into the management move, the grounds maintenance including fly tipping, cleaning and ASB consisting of the cannabis smoke and a dog barking that the resident reported to be of a “dangerous” breed.
On 15 July 2022, the landlord raised a job for a damp and mould treatment but the job was marked as not completed. According to the landlord’s records, the resident had cancelled the appointment on 5 August 2022 and was to call back to make a fresh appointment. The records were marked “customer refused work due to wife’s breathing problems”.
Also on 15 July 2022, the landlord responded to the complaint at Stage 1 as follows:
1. It had instructed two different contractors, one for the communal cleaning and another for the upkeep of the communal grounds. The cleaners “litter-picked” inside the building and directly outside the front and rear communal doors while the grounds maintenance contractor litter picked on the communal grounds including the car park. The latter had not been attended as often as expected due to staffing issues. It was working with its contractor to bring the scheme up to specification. It was conducting regular scheme inspections with its cleaning contractor to ensure the scheme was brought up to specification. It expected the services to improve and stated that the service was below standard and it apologised.
2. It had accepted the resident on the highest banding on 24 June 2021. It had offered several new homes, none of which have met their needs. It apologised and understood it was frustrating. It would discuss a wider area with the resident.
3. The relevant team was aware of ASB problems and was monitoring the situation and completing regular visits to the area. It would gather evidence of any ASB and work with external agencies such as the police to put an end to the ASB and escalate to its tenancy enforcement team where the complaint became serious enough and was having a detrimental effect on neighbouring residents. Where there was no clear breach of tenancy or where there was a lack of evidence, it could be difficult to reach a quick outcome.
4. It would act upon any reports of fly tipping and arrange its removal. It had completed an inspection that week and found no evidence of fly tipping. Its gardening contractor would report any fly-tipping. If the resident could identify the perpetrator, it would contact them.
5. It had not identified any repairs within the last six months. It had arranged a further inspection to assess the damp and mould on 19 July 2022. The resident was unhappy with the twenty-four hour timescale when reporting an emergency drainage repair but the timescale was in accordance with its policy.
On 4 August 2022, the landlord carried out an inspection for the purposes of fire safety and noted that there was no on-site fly tipping that constituted a fire hazard.
The resident reported a further lack of litter-picking on 10 August 2022 and on the following day there had been no window cleaning or grounds maintenance.
On 24 August 2022, the landlord raised a job for damp and mould treatment which was carried out on 13 September 2022. According to the landlord’s repair records, there were no obvious signs of leaks into the resident’s property.
The resident made several further reports of lack of cleaning in September 2022 and in the meantime the resident asked to escalate his complaint on 9 September 2022. On 15 September 2021, he asked to close his application for a transfer as his wife was moving elsewhere and he would stay in the property.
A further internal investigation took place including a visit to the block. It listed the ASB reports as follows:
1. On 16 March 2022, the resident had raised a complaint about a dog. The landlord said it would speak to the neighbour who owned it. The resident thought it was a banned breed so the landlord made enquiries with police but there had been no evidence to support this. It tried to follow this up on 28 April 2022. On 13 June 2022, the resident made a further report regarding the dog. The landlord followed this up with the police, with the same conclusion.
2. Following a report of 21 March 2022, the landlord would try and identify where the cannabis smell was coming from. Further reports were made in May and June 2022.
3. Visits were undertaken regularly in the block. “Words of advice” were given to the neighbour. It had not received any further complaints regarding this. The neighbours (but did not specify which), had moved out in the meantime.
On 28 September 2022, the landlord wrote with its final response as follows:
1. Regarding the reports of cannabis use, the landlord had taken steps including ad-hoc visits and liaising with the local police. It had successfully identified the person responsible and gave them a warning regarding drug use.
2. It had liaised with the police but there was no evidence to suggest that the dog breed was illegal and therefore no further action was taken.
3. It was aware of ongoing fly tipping. It had arranged for the items to be removed after each report. It had been unable to identify the people responsible so was unable to take further action. It would continue to monitor this and should it identify the perpetrators, it would take appropriate action.
4. The grounds maintenance contractor attended fortnightly in the summer and monthly in the winter. Since the Stage 1 response, it had carried out inspections, most recently in August 2022, and found that the cleaning and grounds maintenance had been completed and no issues were identified. It had arranged for a further joint visit with both contractors on 30 September 2022. It would monitor this. It upheld this complaint.
5. It apologised that the rehousing options offered in November 2021 and February 2022 had not been appropriate. The delay was due to it rarely having bungalows that met the resident’s needs in the area. The tenancy had now changed from a joint to a sole tenancy. It upheld the complaint due to the errors in offering unsuitable accommodation.
6. It had attended on 21 August 2022 and cleaned the mould from the walls. An appointment took place on 13 September 2022 to remove external soil and further investigate the drainage. It had found no issues with the drainage.
7. It had carried out a joint inspection with its contractors on 30 September 2022. They had identified areas of grass that have been missed and would arrange to address this. It found that the scheme was generally well maintained from a “landscaping prospective”.
8. The cleaners’ supervisor would arrange to remove cobwebs in the ceiling but had no other concerns.
9. It would remove the items of fly tipping.
On 10 October 2022, the resident asked the landlord to repaint his walls after the mould treatment. He requested vouchers which according to an internal note of 19 December 2022 had been granted.
The landlord raised a damp and mould clean on 20 October 2022 but it was not completed. According to the repair record, a duplicate of the job was raised again on 8 November 2022 with a “target date” of 6 December 2022, but completion date of 21 November 2022. The notes stated that the landlord had tried to gain access on two previous occasions.
The resident’s wife sadly passed away on 22 November 2022. The cause of her death was marked chest infection.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 November 2022 that he was unhappy with the outcome of the complaint for the following reasons:
1. He had given the landlord evidence of the identity of the drug users. Both the existing and current neighbour were drugs users.
2. Two different neighbours had noisy dogs.
3. The fly tipping was ongoing. The landlord had indicated that it had charged the perpetrator.
4. He had photographic evidence of the gardening and cleaning issues.
5. The landlord hadstated that the move would take 12 weeks, but it took 16 months. Following a homelessness application, his wife had been offered a bungalow within four weeks by the local authority.
On 8 December 2022, the resident informed this Service that black mould had caused his wife’s death. He had been diagnosed with COPD. He had learnt that mould was not a heathy environment. His daughter treated the mould to avoid “intrusive visits” by the landlord.
The resident reported issues of cannabis smoke on 15 December 2022 and other incidents. He said that on the day before that his neighbour, whom he had reported for smoking cannabis, had been verbally abusive.
On 19 December 2022, the landlord attended to inspect the damp and mould. It noted his vulnerabilities. The landlord noted that the resident believed that the damp issue was due to the guttering being blocked and so would raise a job to clear the gutters. The resident had informed the landlord that his daughter regularly cleaned and sprayed the walls to try and keep the mould at bay. The mould returned regularly but only in the bedrooms.
The landlord raised a job on 27 January 2023 for a surveyor to attend to investigate ongoing issues with damp and mould. They attended on 30 March 2023
On 6 February 2023, the resident asked to raise a fresh complaint about the damp and mould. The landlord declined to accept the complaint as one had already been made.
On 23 March 2023, the landlord raised a job which referred to “HHSRS severe”, and “large patches of mould in the bedroom, five meters long, “please ensure bigger follow-on works raised as has been cleaned multiple times and not resolved issue”. A screenshot of an extract from the landlord’s electronic repair records dated 12 April 2023 showed the job was marked as cancelled by the resident who reported that the mould “had gone”.
On 28 April 2022 the local authority wrote to the landlord, with photos in support, as follows:
1. There were very high readings on the moisture meter in the corners of both bedrooms at low level. There were also high readings to parts of the floor. This indicated that there is a high level of moisture within these parts of the walls/floors.
2. There were insufficient and incorrect sandbags located in the ground floor hall cupboard. They were not actually sandbags.
3. The outside bin area was in a very untidy state with broken glass and rubbish strewn across the floor, as well as old cooker. The area was open to all.
4. There was a very damp patch on the exterior of the building.
The landlord replied on 2 May 2023 as follows:
1. There has been ongoing work on the block around the blocks regarding damp. This was still in progress.
2. It had requested the sandbags to be replaced with hessian sacks. Generally, the landlord did not provide sandbags but were provided provided in this case as the resident’s wife had used them for a previous sewage overflow at the block, as she thought this helped. Residents should report any leaks/sewage overflows as an “emergency”. It suggested residents did not handle sandbags themselves due to their weight and were there for its repairs team to utilise.
3. The refuse in the outside bin had been reported to its external contractor a few days previously and a clearance was arranged for 3 May 2023. It requested a new padlock with a different code to be installed. It would “re-iterate” the door needed to be locked after each visit to the bin store.
4. The repair to the overflowing pipe was completed on 25 April 2023.
On 15 May 2023, the landlord raised external works regarding the drains. According to an internal email of the same date, the resident’s son had painted the flat. The resident had refused access.
On 19 May 2023, the landlord noted internally that in September 2022, it carried out an inspection with colleagues and did not see any issues with hedges, grass cutting or weeds. It found some “minor” issues with cleaning and the grounds which were dealt with. At the time, contractor staff was on sick leave, so the cleaner was carrying out the works to specification but it was taking longer. The landlord requested that a new padlock was installed on the bin store door. It did not have much independent evidence in regard to the grounds and cleaning reports on a monthly /quarterly basis as the incorrect forms had been filled in. There had been a change of staff since.
On 31 May 2023, the resident informed this service that there had been further issues regarding his bereavement grant, the boiler, the carpet, and the damp and mould issues had existed for four years.

Assessment and findings

Scope of this investigation

The resident reported how the events complained of had affected his, and his late wife’s, health. In particular, he highlighted his and his wife’s health conditions, the potential link to damp and mould in the property, and that his late wife died on a chest infection. The Ombudsman fully understands the resident’s frustration, distress and concerns. However, the Ombudsman cannot assess whether or how a landlord’s service failure or maladministration has contributed to or exacerbated a resident’s physical health. We cannot assess medical evidence and do not make findings on matters such as negligence. However, the Ombudsman does carefully consider what a resident tells the landlord and this Service about how they have been affected by the issues in their complaint, including the overall impact on them. Accordingly, it may set out a remedy that recognises the overall distress and inconvenience caused to a resident by a particular service failure by a landlord.
The resident raised issues with this service in May 2023 that were not in the complaint correspondence. The Ombudsman will not investigate matters that have not been subject to the landlord’s complaint procedure as the landlord has not had the opportunity to respond through its complaints process. Therefore these issues would be outside the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction as set out in the Housing Ombudsman’s Scheme. It is noted that the landlord declined to accept a fresh complaint from the resident regarding the damp and mould. This decision was not referred to this service. If the resident believes he has a fresh complaint to make that is not addressed by this investigation, it is open to the resident to raise this with the landlord and refer its response to the Service if the resident wishes to.
This report refers to events that postdate the landlord’s final response. Given they were closely linked to the complaint, the Ombudsman considered it was reasonable to address those events and take them into account.

Damp and mould

On the basis of the repairs records, the Ombudsman did not identify evidence of any reports of damp and mould prior to February 2022, however, the telephone call logs were limited to those of 2022 onwards. The housing application, supported by an OT report, did not mention damp and mould in the property. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to draw a definite conclusion as to how long the issues had lasted and whether they had been reported.
The evidence showed the resident discussed the issues with the landlord on 22 February 2022. It was therefore inappropriate that the landlord stated that it had not identified any repairs within the six months prior to the first complaint response. It was inappropriate that the landlord did not raise any works or an investigation regarding the damp and mould until July 2022. The outcome was two or three damp and mould washes. While that was reasonable to offer those washes, there was no evidence of an effective investigation into the cause of the damp and mould or that it considered how to prevent the damp and mould prior to September 2023. This was unreasonable in the light of the resident’s and his wife’s health conditions in particular as the housing applications had highlighted these, and inappropriate in the light of its damp and mould policy. The landlord is referred to the following report: Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
While it was reasonable that the landlord removed external soil and had investigated the drainage and guttering, it did not instruct a surveyor to attend until early 2023. At this point, it had rated the issue as “severe”. There was evidence of high levels of damp and substantiated by the local authority on 28 April 2023 and that this was a block issue. While there was evidence of the landlord taking some action, particularly in September 2022, it had nevertheless left the resident in these sub-optimum conditions throughout 2022. This was unsatisfactory, again in the context of the resident’s vulnerabilities. It also ignored the resident’s report that the sandbags, which were to protect the property from a sewage leak, were not adequate.
It is noted that the landlord took steps in regard to the damp and mould, including mould washes. It eventually looked at the causes. It reasonably provided decoration vouchers. It also persisted with the washes, despite difficulties with access. It is also noted that the resident had latterly refused access altogether as he stated that he found the visits “intrusive”. However, the Ombudsman is concerned that the landlord took very little action until September 2022. This was despite the resident’s and his wife’s health conditions, and therefore finds maladministration in that regard.

ASB

While initially the landlord did not have evidence who was smoking cannabis, apart from the resident’s report, the landlord reasonably identified them. It was reasonable of the landlord that, once the perpetrator had been identified, to contact them and seek to address their cannabis use. It was also reasonable to advise the resident to contact the police, as it was both a matter for the landlord and the police. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to make clear that it had a zero-tolerance for unlawful behaviour. It appeared there were two separate neighbours whom the resident had reported about cannabis smoking. Therefore, the Ombudsman takes into account that would have meant a separate approach by the landlord in each case.
The Ombudsman appreciates that there is a limit on what a landlord, or their tenant, can do to address barking by a dog. While not something it could share with the resident necessarily, there was no evidence that the landlord investigated whether the neighbour had permission to keep the dog and assess the level of nuisance, given the policy and tenancy agreement stated that the landlord considered that “allowing” a dog to bark constituted ASB. It was reasonable of the landlord to establish that another neighbour’s dog was not a dangerous breed.
There was no evidence that the landlord complied with its policy and considered opening an ASB case in either case. If it did not open an ASB case, or opened then closed one, then the landlord should give reasons for its actions.
The landlord took steps in response to the resident’s reports and in its first complaint response sought to manage his expectations. However, there was a lack of update, detail and a plan. There was no evidence that the landlord followed up its intention of June 2022 to monitor and update the resident. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds service failure in this regard.

Fly tipping

It was reasonable of the landlord to be accept that there was an issue with fly tipping. Given there was a known problem, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to have been proactive from the outset and to have managed the issue under its ASB policy. Its actions were reactive rather than proactive. However, there was evidence, albeit belatedly, that it took proactive action such as addressing the security of the bin area. While the evidence indicated that the bulk removal was not carried out within the policy timescales, the delays were not significant and it was carried out in response to the resident’s reports. While frustrating for the resident, the Ombudsman appreciates the challenged of eliminating the issue completely. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman considers that an apology was reasonable redress.

Grounds maintenance, communal cleaning

It was reasonable of the landlord to accept that there were failings with the exterior cleaning and the grounds maintenance. It was reasonable that the landlord met with the resident to discuss the issues. However, there was no evidence of regular monitoring as promised by its estates policy. The monitoring was sporadic. The Ombudsman would have expected regular monitoring. The landlord did not demonstrate a reasonable level of proactiveness. The evidence indicated that the landlord only belatedly discovered that a cleaner was off-sick, and that the wrong forms were being used after it inspected as a result of the complaint. The landlord was transparent in accepting its failings. However, given that its monitoring had been flawed, its service had been variable in quality and the resident was paying for those services, the Ombudsman does not consider that an apology constituted reasonable redress. However, in the view of the Ombudsman, the evidence did not show those failures were significant so any order for compensation will be assessed accordingly.

The resident’s request to move.

The landlord had reasonably accepted the resident’s application to move and it offered properties to the resident. The Ombudsman does not consider that the fact the local authority rehoused the resident’s wife in a short space of time was a reflection on the landlord. The local authority would have a wider stock to draw on and would not have necessarily placed the resident on its highest priority as its criteria are different. Timescales for a move would be unpredictable in any event as they rely on occupiers moving out of properties. In addition, there is a scarcity of social housing.
However, there was no evidence that it had also referred the resident to apply to the local authority or supported the resident in making such an application. While there was some reference to choice of areas, there was little evidence that the landlord proactively engaged with the resident on how to improve his chances. It was reasonable that the landlord acknowledged at Stage 2 that the properties it had offered were not appropriate. It is not possible to measure the impact if the landlord had taken further steps, therefore the Ombudsman considers that the offer of an apology constituted reasonable redress but will make recommendations in relation to this aspect of the resident’s complaint.

Complaint handling

It was unreasonable of the landlord not to treat the resident’s complaint of 12 June 2022 as a complaint until this service contacted it. This meant that there was a delay of approximately two weeks to the landlord’s Stage 1 response. It is also concerning that it took the resident approaching this Service and the intervention of this service to prompt a response. The landlord should ensure it responds to a complaint in all cases.
However, it was reasonable it formed an action plan in response to the complaint. The process involved internal enquiries and prompted some action. It also reasonable of the landlord to provide explanation of how its services worked. The Stage 2 response was in good time.
Nevertheless, while there was no very significant impact, it is sufficiently serious that the Ombudsman considers that not responding to a complaint constitutes a service failure.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of anti-social-behaviour (ASB).
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of fly tipping.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance and communal cleaning.
In accordance with Paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, in the Ombudsman’s view, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to move.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

While it took some steps, the landlord was slow to respond to the resident’s report of damp and mould and to take steps to investigate the causes and consider any steps to prevent mould and damp, given the vulnerability of the resident and his wife.
While the landlord took steps in relation to the resident’s reports of ASB, there was no clarify of action, action plan or updates.
While the landlord could have considered being more proactive, in particular earlier on in the complaints process, there was evidence the landlord took steps to prevent fly tipping and to remove the items.
The landlord acknowledged the issues of cleaning and undertook some monitoring however it did not demonstrate a sufficiently proactive response or take not into account in its response that the resident was paying for these services.
The landlord apologised for its failings but could have taken further steps to support the resident. There was no evidence that fault could be attributed to the landlord for the time it took to identify alternative accommodation and in the view of the Ombudsman, the apology constituted reasonable redress.
While the complaint handling was otherwise beneficial overall, the landlord did not respond to the resident’s complaint until this Service intervened with the landlord.

Orders and recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £1,200 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. £750 in relation to the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
  2. £150 in relation to the resident’s reports of anti-social-behaviour (ASB).
  3. £150 in relation to the resident’s concerns about the communal grounds maintenance and communal cleaning.
  4. £150 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
2. Within two weeks of this report, the landlord should contact the resident to offer a further inspection and to investigate how to prevent further incidents of damp and mould as well as to propose treatment. If the resident declines an inspection, it should investigate the reason and seek to reassure the resident. Within six weeks of this report, a copy of the inspection report should be sent to the resident with a reasonable timescale of any works identified in light of the Ombudsman’s recommendations in the Housing Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report. Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and One year on follow up report: Spotlight on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (housing-ombudsman.org.uk)
3. Within six weeks of this report, the landlord should provide the Housing Ombudsman’s with its self-assessment on damp and mould and ensure it is easily accessible on its website.
The landlord should confirm compliance to the Ombudsman with the order for compensation within four weeks and within six weeks in relation to the damp inspection and report.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should share with its repair staff and senior management the Ombudsman’s report Spotlight on damp and mould and put the recommendations of the report and its policy into practice.
2. The landlord should consider opening an ASB case if there are further reports of cannabis smoking and update the resident.
3. It should in all cases provide a reasonable explanation, on receipt of reports of ASB, if it decides not to open an ASB case or if it closes an existing case.
4. The landlord should carry out regular and frequent inspection of the bin area whether through its contractors or by itself and consider consulting on installing CCTV, if proportionate. It should proactively take steps so that only residents of the block had access to the bin area.
5. The landlord should monitor the cleaning and the grounds maintenance on a regular basis in line with its policy to provide “clean, safe, secure and well-maintained” estates.
6. The landlord should support residents seeking whether by signposting them to the local authority, support, or by offering tenancy support and/or providing letters in support of their application.
7. The landlord should ensure it responds to a complaint in all cases within its policy timescales.
8. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within four weeks of this report.