Hackney Council (202200858)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202200858

Hackney Council

7 September 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen floor;
2. Handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door and associated reports of damp and mould;
3. Handling of the resident’s transfer application;
4. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord which is a local authority. Since April 2003 she has lived in a two-bedroom, fourth-floor flat with her two children.
The landlord has confirmed that it “is aware that the tenant’s children have vulnerabilities”. The landlord was unable to evidence how long it has been aware of the vulnerabilities as a cyber-attack in 2020 impacted its records, this is explored further below. The resident’s communications with the landlord throughout the complaint state that her toddler son had autism and her teenage daughter had visual and hearing impairment which also affected her balance.

Landlord policies and procedures

The landlord’s repairs guide states that it is responsible for damage to door frames, window frames and ironmongery. The guide also provides information regarding condensation and tackling mould. The guidance includes opening windows daily and using extractor fans.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will complete urgent repairs within five working days and “normal” repairs within 21 working days. The policy states that timescales will be extended for certain repairs, such as replacing windows or doors where items need to be manufactured. The landlord states it will provide appointments for repairs.
The landlord’s lettings policy states that it “reserves the right to make a transfer of existing council tenants in extremely exceptional circumstances…Transfers of this type will be outside the normal allocation and bidding process…The property offered should be similar in type and amenities and no additional bedroom will be allocated.”
The landlord operates a two-stage complaints procedure and aims to respond to stage one complaints within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. The same policy states that the landlord considers the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance when calculating compensation.

Events prior to the period of this investigation

In October 2020, the landlord was the victim of a cyber-attack. The landlord has previously advised this Service, in relation to another investigation, that the cyber-attack resulted in “major disruption” to its repairs services as it was unable to track the progress of the reported repairs, and additionally meant that it was unable to review its repairs database.
The resident states that she first reported issues with her windows, balcony door, and uneven kitchen flooring in 2018. The landlord has not disputed this.
The landlord has stated that in early 2019 it carried out a survey of the property. In February 2019 raised works to level the concrete floor in the kitchen, clean mould from the bedroom ceiling and renew the beading to the bedroom window and appointed them to its contractor. In March 2019 the landlord stated that the resident did not allow the window to be repaired as she felt it should be replaced. The notes also state that “The kitchen window has been screwed shut due to wet rot”.
There was no further progress on the repairs until a virtual survey was carried out in May 2021. At this time the landlord advised that work would be “undertaken as a priority”.
A receipt seen by this Service shows that in October 2019 the resident attended the landlord’s offices and submitted a housing transfer application along with medical evidence.

Events during the complaint period

A letter dated 17 March 2022 demonstrates that the resident had been referred by her GP for psychological assessment by the NHS due to “low mood relating to stress caused by your housing situation”.
A report by an NHS paediatric audiologist dated April 2022 stated that the resident’s daughter had “longstanding balance issues” and fell frequently. The report stated that her home had uneven flooring which caused trips and that it was recommended that her housing be “reviewed”.
The resident contacted this Service on 13 April 2022 and advised she was unhappy with her landlord’s response to her reports regarding disrepair to her property which made it inaccessible to her disabled child.
On 19 April 2022 the resident’s daughter underwent an occupational therapy (OT) assessment conducted by an independent OT. The assessment stated that her needs could not be met in the property and therefore recommended that the family be rehoused to a three-bedroom, ground-floor property that was not within a block. The therapist noted within the report that the window and door in the living room had “severe rot” and that the resident’s toddler “was observed…leaning on the window”. It was also noted that the kitchen floor was uneven and “extremely warped” and that as a result the daughter had experienced “frequent fall” and was unable to access the kitchen. The report included a photograph of the wooden framed living room window which is visibly in extremely poor condition and the wood elements are splitting and breaking away.
The resident contacted the landlord on 26 April 2022 and requested an immediate management transfer “under the grounds that the property is in need of major works and that it is unsafe under medical grounds for my disabled daughter”. She provided the landlord with copies of the previously mentioned medical reports. The landlord advised the resident that she needed to complete a transfer application online and then submit a medical form.
A medical report dated 10 May 2022 notes that, as a result of his medical condition, the resident’s son he did not have an awareness of danger and this was of concern as “some of the windows are falling apart and door to the balcony cannot shut properly. There is uneven flooring. [the child] climbs onto…the windowsill and bangs on the windows”.
On 20 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service and advised that she had raised a complaint about her landlord with her local MP. She said she had done so as her landlord had advised her it could not raise a complaint due to a cyberattack. This Service wrote to the landlord on this date to advise that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s response to the MP enquiry and asked that the landlord deal with the matter as a formal complaint and provide a response within ten working days.
The resident commissioned an independent housing disrepair survey which took place on 28 May 2022. This Service has not seen evidence of when this was provided to the landlord but the landlord accepts that it received the report. Relevant findings of the survey included:
1. The kitchen flooring was uneven and the kitchen units were aged and had missing fronts. The kitchen extractor did not work and this had exacerbated the mould growth in the hallway.
2. The hallway had black mould growth. This was due to “lack of extract ventilation (and the inability to control window opening)”. The hallway flooring was also uneven.
3. All windows in the property had issues with rotten beading and wooden frames, broken ironmongery and failed glazed units.
4. The external door in the living room had a rotten, splitting frame and was not weather or draft proof.
5. Failure to repair the bedroom window had caused damage and damp to the plaster below.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 7 June 2022 and provided a holding response to her stage one complaint. It stated that its investigation was ongoing but that as the outstanding works were extensive, it was liaising with the surveying team. It did not state when a response would be provided.
On 9 June 2022 the resident wrote to this Service and advised that she had received no contact from the landlord since 15 March 2022 when she had been told repair works had been approved and she would be kept updated regarding progress. On 21 June 2022 this Service contacted the landlord and advised that it should provide a response to the resident’s complaint within five working days.
Internal landlord emails between 21 June 2022 and 1 July 2022 show that the landlord’s complaint team were chasing the team that managed external repair contractors for an update on the works to the resident’s property. The contractor management team stated that the works were with its contractor to appoint. A senior manager within the landlord replied that “We do not wash our hands of a job or resident contact…we need to own the customer journey. Please work together to get jobs like these progressed and completed ASAP for the residents we serve.”
On 6 July 2022 the landlord raised a number of works for the property including:
1. Replace four windows
2. Remove old plaster and re-plaster
3. Treat mould to blockwork
4. Install an extractor fan
5. Renew flooring
In an internal landlord email of 7 July 2022 it is commented that there had been “limited coherent information from the involved teams, despite many requests for a bit of ownership and customer care from the involved parties”.
Within the landlord’s internal emails of 7 July 2022 a member of the complaints team noted that a surveyor had been asked to call the resident in June 2022 but had not done so and instead said that the contractor should update the resident. The staff member stated that this was “not a customer focused approach” and asked that someone contact the resident the next day, apologise for the delay and provide a point of contact until completion of the works. This Service has not seen evidence that this was done.
The landlord provided the resident with a stage one complaint response on 8 July 2022. The landlord said it understood that the resident’s complaint was about its handling of the resident’s reports that the property was unsafe to live in due to her children’s disabilities, and its handling of her reports of outstanding repairs including to windows, balcony door and damp and mould. It said:
1. In 2019 a survey was carried out and on 21 February 2019 various works were ordered, these were appointed to its contractor.
2. In March 2019 the contractor advised that the resident did not agree to the window being repaired as specified as she felt it should be replaced. At this point the repairs came to a standstill until 2021.
3. The landlord carried out a virtual survey in May 2021 and the resident was advised that work would be “undertaken as a priority but this did not happen”.
4. In March 2022 the landlord assured the resident that the works would be undertaken within the next ten days, “again this did not happen”.
5. The landlord had identified the following delays:
  1. In 2019 the resident did not agree the specification of works.
  2. A specification of works was sent to the landlord by its contractor in July 2021, this was not reviewed or approved by the landlord until April 2022.
  3. The landlord then did not put the works order onto its system until 5 July 2022 so that the work could be appointed.
6. The contractor had now arranged to visit on 13 July 2022 to start the works which would include work to the windows, balcony, bathroom, bedroom, hallway, kitchen, lounge and WC.
7. The landlord apologised for the “unacceptable delays” and offered £500 compensation to “reflect the time and trouble to you of the delays in carrying out these works”.
On 13 July 2022 the landlord raised works to carry out works to the balcony, bedrooms, hallway, kitchen, lounge and WC. The repair log states the works were completed on 27 February 2023 however this conflicts with a statement from the landlord that the works are not yet complete.
On 14 July 2022 the landlord raised an emergency work order to replace the balcony door. The work shows as completed on 18 April 2023 but notes state “no access”.
On 15 July 2022 the resident rejected the landlord’s offer of £500 compensation and on 20 July 2022 she asked that her complaint be escalated to stage two of the complaints process. She stated she was unhappy with the stage one complaint response because:
1. it did not acknowledge her request for a permanent transfer
2. she felt the landlord had not had regard to her children’s medical conditions
3. staying in temporary accommodation would be unsuitable for her children’s needs and would cause further disruption
4. due to their medical conditions an OT assessment would need to be carried out on any temporary accommodation
5. she felt the offer of £500 compensation did not “reflect the…long-term inconvenience & distress, damage to items and possessions and damage to health”
6. she requested compensation of £7,000.
On 2 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and stated it had received her stage two complaint escalation and would provide a response within 20 working days.
Internal landlord emails of 4 August 2022 and 5 August 2022 demonstrate that it held no active housing transfer applications for the resident. The landlord stated that the resident “had an emergency application which has been suspended, I can not see the reasons why this has been done”. The emails show that the landlord advised the resident that a temporary decant had been granted but that she had stated she wanted a permanent decant and that due to her family’s medical needs this would need to be a three-bed property with two toilets. The landlord advised the resident that a permanent decant would only be offered “like for like”.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord contacted the resident and advised that she had not completed a health assessment. It then sent a further email which stated that she did not have an active transfer application “due to the cyber attack” and therefore could not complete a health assessment form. The resident replied on the same day and asked the landlord what she should do. She stated that the cyber-attack was not her fault and she had made her transfer application in October 2019, before the cyber-attack occurred, and therefore her application should have been processed.
On 4 August 2022 the landlord was contacted by an occupational therapist (OT) who advised they had completed a safety assessment at the resident’s home for the resident’s son. They stated they were “extremely concerned about the state of the windows and balcony door in the property” as none of them locked or had restrictors and there was a risk of falling out. The OT chased for a response on 8 August 2022.
On 9 August 2022 an internal landlord email stated that the temporary decant was required primarily due to the kitchen flooring repairs as pipework would need to be repaired, flooring re-screeded and a new kitchen installed. Other works such as window replacement could be completed without decanting the family.
Internal landlord emails of 15 August 2022 state that a permanent decant was not warranted as the works would only take up to six weeks. On 16 August 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident and she asked that its offer of temporary accommodation be put in writing and that she be advised of the address of the temporary accommodation. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord did this.
On 16 August 2022 the landlord’s contractor advised that it had attended the property to carry out temporary repairs to the balcony door and lounge window but there was no access. This Service has not seen evidence that an appointment was made with the resident.
Also on 16 August 2022 the landlord emailed the resident and asked her to provide evidence of the out of pocket expenses she had experienced and to confirm whether she was accepting the resident’s offer of a temporary decant so that repair works could proceed in the property.
The landlord provided a stage two complaint response on 18 August 2022. The response outlined the details of the resident’s stage one complaint, its stage one response, and her stage two escalation. It stated:
1. The landlord could not find evidence that the resident had contacted it in 2020 but this may be a result of a cyber attack in October 2020.
2. The resident felt that her decant should be permanent and not temporary. The landlord confirmed that the decant was on a temporary basis.
3. The landlord apologised again for the avoidable delay to the outstanding repairs and increased its offer of compensation to £600.
4. The landlord would write to the resident to set out details of her temporary decant. Once this was agreed work could start.
5. The landlord would write to the resident regarding her housing transfer application when it received further information from its medical team, housing register team, and neighbourhood office.
On 22 August 2022 the OT for the resident’s son again advised they had not received a response to their previous email. The landlord replied on the same day and said that replacement of the windows and doors had been ordered on 14 July 2022 and would take 8 weeks to manufacture from that date, temporary repairs had been ordered in the interim. It also said that it had been trying to contact the resident to discuss a temporary decant.
In September 2022 internal landlord emails show that the surveyor chased the resident’s housing officer to find out whether there was an update on the temporary decant for the resident.
On 6 September 2022 the resident received a letter from the local mayor who advised he had requested that the outstanding repairs be “undertaken as a priority” and that the housing needs team carry out an assessment of the family’s needs and ensure they were put on the transfer list. The resident completed a housing register application which is dated 7 September 2022.
The landlord sates that it emailed the resident on 10 February 2023 and asked her to complete an online housing register form but that the resident had not yet completed this. This Service has not seen the landlord’s email.
The landlord had advised this Service that the resident had not been temporarily decanted and that as a result the flooring and window repairs remained outstanding. It also said that the resident has advised that she will be moving out of the property at the end of August 2023/start or September 2023 and was moving out of the area.
This Service has been provided with photographs which show wooden window frames which are rotten and have parts of the frame missing, areas of the walls which have black mould and peeling plaster, and the balcony door which has a gap around the top.

Assessment and findings

It is recognised that this situation has caused the resident and her family severe distress as she has experienced repair issues and damp and mould over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the complaint relate to the impact of the family’s living conditions on their health. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. However, unlike a court, we cannot establish liability or calculate and award damages, this would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
It is noted as background context to this investigation that the resident initially reported the issues with her windows, door, and flooring in 2018. This investigation has however primarily focussed on the landlord’s handling of the resident’s recent reports from May 2022 onwards that were considered during the landlord’s recent complaint responses. However, the resident’s repair reports of 2018 to 2021 have been considered in respect of the landlord’s handling of the issues raised from 2022 onwards.
Complaints relating to the provision of housing through a local authority fall under the jurisdiction of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman (LGSCO). This Service is, however, able to consider complaints relating to management transfer requests and temporary accommodation requests, which are discussed below.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen

Photographs of the kitchen flooring taken by the independent surveyor show an extremely uneven floor with ‘ripples’ to the floor covering. Reports by several professionals demonstrate that the flooring in the kitchen had caused the resident’s disabled daughter to fall and that therefore the kitchen was inaccessible to her.
This Service has seen that the landlord was made aware in 2018 that the kitchen floor posed a risk of injury to the family. The landlord has therefore failed, for a prolonged period of five years, to reasonably respond to the repair requests and its obligations.
In 2022 the landlord was made aware that the kitchen did not meet the disability needs of the resident’s daughter and that she was unable to use these facilities. Still the landlord failed to carry out the required works to make the kitchen useable and address the accessibility issues and to date the works remain outstanding.
The landlord’s surveyor stated that in order for the works to be completed to level the kitchen floor, the family would need to be decanted temporarily for a period of approximately six weeks. At the date of this report the family has not been decanted and therefore the works have not been carried out.
The landlord told the resident in its stage two complaint response that it would contact her to provide further details regarding her temporary decant. This Service has seen no evidence to confirm that the landlord did so.
The landlord responded to concerns from an OT on 22 August 2022 stating that it had been trying to contact the resident regarding the decant but this Service has seen no contemporaneous notes to confirm this.
The landlord’s internal communications show that the surveyor chased the housing officer for an update on the temporary decant in September 2022 but this Service has not seen a response from the housing officer.
This Service has seen no further communications regarding the decant from September 2022 and the landlord confirmed in May 2023 that it had not yet decanted the resident.
Overall, the landlord has failed to respond reasonably to reports by the resident, backed up with reports from numerous professionals, that the uneven flooring in the kitchen meant it was inaccessible for a disabled household member. The landlord failed to take reasonable and timely action to decant the family to allow the repairs to take place. The landlord failed to meet the family’s disability needs for an extremely protracted period and therefore there was severe maladministration.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door and associated reports of damp and mould;

Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 places a statutory obligation on the landlord to keep the structure and exterior of the property in repair; this includes an obligation to stop any penetrating damp. The landlord also has a responsibility under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, introduced by The Housing Act 2004, to assess hazards and risks within its rented properties. Damp and mould growth are potential hazards and the landlord is required to consider whether damp problems in its properties amount to a hazard and require remedying.
Photographs and surveyor’s reports detail that the wooden window frames and balcony door frame are rotten. Records demonstrate that the resident had been reporting damp and mould in the property since 2018.
The landlord has carried out surveys to the property in 2019 and 2021, a further survey was carried out by an independent surveyor in 2022. All of these surveys found rotten window and door frames and damp and mould.
The landlord’s own guidance for residents regarding damp and mould advise that they keep properties ventilated. The resident was unable to do so as some of her windows were screwed shut as they were deemed unsafe and the extractor fan in the kitchen did not work. Therefore, the resident was unable to follow the landlord’s guidance and attempt to limit the spread of the damp and mould.
It is of concern that the landlord has been aware for five years that this fourth-floor property has windows and a door to a balcony which are not secure. This clearly poses a risk of falls from height which could result in death or serious injury. This concern is heightened by the fact that the household contains two children with disabilities and the landlord has been made aware by professionals that the resident’s toddler son was climbing onto the window frame and banging on the damaged window. The landlord was made aware of this concern more than 15 months ago and the repairs have not been addressed, this is unacceptable.
Both children in this household could reasonably be considered vulnerable and at a higher-than-average risk of falling from the windows or balcony. The landlord was aware of these risks and should have managed the obvious risks by means of effective temporary making safe and full replacement as a priority.
It is acknowledged that the landlord tried to repair one window in 2019 but that the resident refused stating that they needed replacing. It is accepted that this may have caused some delay to the outstanding repair but this was not a major contributing factor and the landlord had a responsibility to continue to liaise with the resident. Instead, the landlord accepts that at this time repairs came to a standstill until 2021 when a further survey was carried out but still no works completed. This Service has not seen evidence that the landlord made efforts to achieve an agreed position whereby the property could be made safe whilst long-term options were explored.
It is unacceptable that the resident and her vulnerable children have continued to live in a property that has rotten windows, an insecure balcony door, and which has damp and mould. The landlord has been aware of the issues for five years but the issues remain unresolved. Therefore, there has been severe maladministration.

Handling of the resident’s transfer application

When a tenant applies for re-housing by a local authority on the grounds of reasonable preference (eg because they are homeless, overcrowded, or need to move on medical or welfare grounds) they must apply via the allocations scheme also called the social housing register. Complaints about such applications are the jurisdiction of the LGSCO, not this Service.
Existing secure local authority tenants can also apply to their landlord for a management transfer to a different property outside of the wider council allocations scheme, this is dealt with according to the landlord’s lettings policy. Complaints about such applications are the jurisdiction of this Service.
The landlord acknowledged in August 2022 that it did previously have an active management transfer application for the family which had been suspended, but it did not know why. It is unreasonable that the landlord would suspend an application without keeping a record of why it had done so.
In communications with the resident that landlord stated that the transfer application was not live “due to the cyber attack” and that she therefore needed to re-apply. This Service considers that it was not reasonable that the landlord failed to communicate to all those who may have been affected, that the cyber-attack had had the effect of ‘suspending’ transfer applications. In this case, the resident believed from October 2020 until August 2022 that she had an active transfer request when in fact she did not. This caused the resident understandable distress and frustration and she understandably pointed out that the cyber-attack had not been her fault.
Despite this issue not being the resident’s fault, when the landlord became aware of this in August 2022, it told to resident to apply again. No indication was given as to whether the landlord would restore her position to where it was before the cyber-attack.
It is the view of this Service that the landlord’s record keeping practices were insufficiently robust and that this prevented recovery of the information lost during the cyber-attack. Notwithstanding the cyber-attack and its obvious impacts, the landlord missed opportunities to revisit key data such as high-risk management transfer applications. It is unclear why database backups were not able to be accessed. Whilst it is not the remit of this Service to investigate the information technology arrangements of the landlord, the absence of records caused an extended period of serious detriment to the resident and her vulnerable household members.
In February 2023 the landlord said that the resident had been advised to apply to the social housing register but had not done so. The landlord, under its lettings policy, had the right to transfer existing tenants in “extremely exceptional circumstances” and that this would fall outside of the normal allocation process. The policy does not specify what it considered to be exceptional circumstances which provides it with a wide degree of flexibility to apply its discretion.
This Service considers that the resident’s situation would be considered extremely exceptional. The family has two disabled children who were and are residing in a property that requires major repair works to make it safe and fully useable.
It may be that the landlord was considering the resident for rehousing both via a transfer and through the social housing register. This would allow the resident to bid for properties larger than her current home, this would not be allowed in a transfer which would have to be ‘like for like’ according to its lettings policy. If this was the case then the landlord should have clearly explained to the resident why she was being asked to apply via two routes.
Overall, the landlord failed to communicate to the resident that her transfer request had been suspended and in doing so failed to manage her expectations and caused her distress, time and trouble. It also failed to effectively communicate to the resident what she was being asked to do and why. Therefore there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s management transfer request.

The landlord’s complaint handling.

In May 2022 the resident told this Service that the landlord had advised her that it could not log a formal complaint due to the cyber-attack. The landlord has stated, in response to a request from this Service for information, that it has no record of the resident contacting it to log a formal complaint prior to initial contact from this Service.
The landlord has stated that the cyber-attack did not prevent new complaints from being logged, investigated or responded to.
In the absence of evidence confirming whether the landlord did advise the resident it was unable to log her complaint, this Service can neither confirm nor disprove this assertion. Nevertheless, this Service does not consider it reasonable that, more than 18 months after the attack, the landlord remained in a position where its residents were unable to raise formal complaints. This would have impinged on the resident’s right to complaint, and ability to seek resolution and redress which is unacceptable.
The landlord’s stage one complaint failed to acknowledge the resident’s request for a transfer and made no reference to the household’s vulnerabilities despite these causing the outstanding repairs to have a greater detrimental impact.
The Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principle to “be fair” requires landlords to focus on the individual and ensure that individual needs are taken into account. The landlord did not acknowledge the household’s disability needs and this was a failing.
Internal emails discussing the case prior to issuing its formal complaint response noted:
1. staff had ‘washed their hands’ of resident contact
2. there had been a lack of coherent information sharing between teams
3. a lack of ownership and customer care
4. no customer focussed approach
Whilst it is encouraging that senior management and the complaints team noted these failings, it is of concern that the landlord failed to acknowledge or apologise for them in its complaint response. By failing to admit these failings to the resident, the landlord did not show an appropriate level of transparency, or acknowledgement of its failings.
In its stage one complaint response of July 2022 the landlord made assurances that the outstanding repairs would be carried out. This did not happen and so the landlord failed to fulfil its promise and put things right, this was a failing.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response of August 2022 did not address the resident’s complaint regarding her transfer request. It stated that it would contact the resident when it had received information from other teams but this Service has not seen evidence that it has done so. This was another failing as the landlord should address all aspects of a complaint.
The stage two complaint response again failed to bring about a resolution to the substantive issues. The landlord said that it would advise the resident of the details of her temporary decant, it has not done so. This was a further failing.
The landlord’s stage two complaint response increased its offer of compensation to £600. This Service considers that this amount falls significantly short of reasonable redress given all the circumstances of the case, particularly as the repairs remain outstanding.
This Service considers that the household were unable to fully enjoy the use of three of the five main rooms in the property:
1. One bedroom which was damp and mouldy
2. The kitchen which had uneven and unsafe flooring
3. The living room which had unsafe windows and balcony door.
Therefore, this Service considers that the landlord should pay the resident half of the rent, for each of the three rooms affected (a total of 30% of the rent) for the period from May 2021 (when the landlord carried out a virtual survey) until the date of this report. This amounts to £3,472 (rounded) and comprises:
1. £1,630 for 48 weeks from 1 May 2021 to 31 March 2022
2. £1,842 for 52 weeks from 1 April 2022 to 31 March 2023
Whilst the landlord’s complaint response identified and apologised for the unreasonable delays in resolving the resident’s outstanding repair reports, it has failed to make adequate efforts to bring about a resolution which is the primary purpose of a complaint process. Therefore, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was:
1. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the resident’s kitchen;
2. Severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows and balcony door and associated reports of damp and mould;
3. Maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s transfer application
4. Maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

The landlord failed to respond to the resident’s requests for repairs to the uneven flooring in her kitchen which prevented her disabled daughter from accessing the kitchen having a detrimental impact on her independence. The landlord therefore failed to ensure that the property met the disability needs of the household.
The landlord failed to respond within a reasonable timeframe to reports that the windows and balcony door in the resident’s property were unsafe and a hazard to the resident’s vulnerable children. It also failed to respond to reports that, as a result of the rotten window frames, there was damp and mould in one of the bedrooms.
The landlord failed to advise the resident that her transfer application had been suspended as a result of the cyber-attack and failed to communicate effectively with the resident about the transfer application process.
Whilst the landlord acknowledged and apologised for undue delays to carrying out the repairs, the complaint process failed to bring about a resolution to the substantive complaint or provide proportionate redress.

Orders

Within four weeks of the date of this report the chief executive of the landlord to apologise to the resident in person.
Within four weeks of the date of this report the landlord to pay the resident £5,722 comprising:
1. £3,472 for loss of amenities;
2. £1000 for distress caused by failing to carry out the repairs within a reasonable timeframe;
3. £750 for time and trouble in failing to reasonably respond to the resident’s request for a transfer;
4. £500 for time and trouble to the resident in pursuing the complaint.
5. This amount replaces the landlord’s previous offer of £600 for compensation related to this complaint. If the landlord has already paid the resident this amount, this should be deducted from the amount ordered and the landlord should pay the resident the remaining £5,122. The landlord should provide evidence of compliance with the above to this Service within four weeks of this report.
Within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide the resident with an update with regards to its position on her permanent transfer request.
Within two weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide the resident with suitable temporary accommodation. This accommodation should be confirmed to be suitable for the disability needs of the household by a suitably qualified OT and be available for the duration of the repair works to the property.
Within eight weeks of the date of this report, the landlord to provide evidence that it has carried out the following works:
1. Replace four windows
2. Repair or replace the balcony door
3. Level and renew the kitchen floor
4. Remove old plaster and re-plaster
5. Treat mould to blockwork
6. Install an extractor fan in the kitchen.
The landlord to carry out a strategic review of this case in order to identify opportunities, at minimum this should include:
1. Alert any applicants for a management transfer whose application has been suspended due to the cyber-attack.
2. Identify (using alternative records where necessary) and revisit all cases where there has been a disability need identified in a management transfer request. Reactivate and prioritise appropriately such cases.
3. Survey other properties within the block to identify and remedy where similar repair issues exist.