Haringey London Borough Council (202120409)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202120409

Haringey Council

20 March 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:
1. The landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, cracks in the brickwork, wiring, and the resident’s request for the landlord to install loft insulation.
2. The landlord’s complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident occupied a three-bedroom house with her daughter under a secure tenancy which began on 8 November 2010. There were no recorded vulnerabilities for the resident. The complaint was made by the resident’s daughter on her mother’s behalf. For the sake of clarity, this report will refer to both mother and daughter as the resident.

Legal and policy framework

Under the tenancy agreement, the landlord had an obligation to keep the structure and the outside of the property (including drains, gutters, and outside pipes) in repair and to carry the repairs out within a reasonable period of time.
Under the repair policy, the landlord categorised repairs as a) emergency repairs which would be addressed within 24 hours b) reactive repairs to be addressed within 28 days. Examples of reactive repairs included roof leaks, tiling, and water running from overflows. C) planned minor repairs which needed to be assessed, for example joinery, and would be inspected within 28 days and a date given for the works to be carried out at the inspection.
According to the landlord’s website, the landlord recommended insulation and almost all the utility companies ran discount schemes to encourage their customers to install loft and cavity wall insulation. It was suggested it would be “probably best” to contact the relevant energy supplier in the first instance.
According to the complaints policy, the landlord aimed to respond quickly to a complaint by providing the service required and keep residents informed of progress. It was a two-staged process. Having investigated the complaint, the landlord would aim to propose a resolution to the complaint. It would send a response within 10 working days. The resident could request a review which could include a summary of the steps the landlord would take to resolve the service failure and provide the service required. The final response would be given in writing within 25 working days from the request to escalate.

Scope of this report

The evidence showed that there had been a lengthy history to this complaint. The resident had been making reports for a number of years. This report will focus on the period from October 2018 to the conclusion of the landlord’s complaint response, as the complaint the landlord responded to in October 2021 was first made in October 2018. Furthermore, the Ombudsman considers that this is a reasonable period of time to consider. The Ombudsman, in particular, will take into account any reports of issues that do not appear to have been resolved.
On 22 October 2018, the resident wrote and reported as follows:
1. Flooding caused by a leaking boiler from the attic in December 2017 following the property being re-wired. Her mother suffered an electric shock as a result of exposed wiring, which was reported at the time and which had not been investigated or repaired since.
2. Plastic which held up the loft insulation had been ripped off, causing the insulation to fall down. The resident requested that, as the insulation had been damaged, the landlord should install insulation. Their energy provider would not put in insulation as the boards on the attic floor meant insulation could not be installed.
3. The resident believed that dampness had been caused by cracks in the ceiling walls underneath the attic, due to the boards in the attic floor having been taken up.
4. A tree outside had become overgrown causing damage to the foundations.
5. The gutters had not been cleaned.
6. The front door was never replaced under the landlord’s programme for the previous year and cold air was coming through the cracks in the door.
On 24 October 2018, a job was raised to inspect the cracks in the property and report to the landlord. The job was marked as completed on 28 February 2019. A surveyor was due to attend the property on 30 October 2018.
On 2 November 2018, the resident requested that the landlord inspect the cables in the attic and an inspection of the loft insulation which had been damaged following the re-wiring jobs.
On 6 November 2018, the resident reported that the surveyor did not go up to the attic, further cracks had appeared and the timber trusses holding up the roof appeared to be damp and seemed to be saturated.
The subsequent repair records stated as follows:
1. A job to repair the external door frame was raised 22 November 2018 and marked as completed on 29 November 2018.
2. A gutter repair was raised on 12 November 2018 and was marked as completed on 2 January 2019.
3. A job was raised also on 12 November 2018 to repair the roof and refix tiles and marked as completed on 3 January 2019.
4. A job to check the cable wires in the loft and report back was raised on 22 November 2018 and marked as completed on 31 January 2019.
On 12 November 2018, the resident wrote summarising that appointments had been booked for 2 January 2019 in relation to the gutters and 3 January 2019, to inspect the attic for a suspected leak. She reported that she was concerned about the weather getting colder.
According to the landlord’s email of 27 November 2018, the landlord wrote with its response to the resident’s email of 12 November 2018 which it treated as a complaint, but the response itself was not provided to the Ombudsman. The resident stated she found it helpful and asked for updates.
On 20 January 2019, the resident reported that cracks in various rooms had been filled but not in the bedrooms and parts of the kitchen wall. Works to a tree had not been completed. She reported the house was cold. The landlord had arranged to repair the crumbling brickwork outside on 27 February 2019. The door was inspected on the 29 November 2018. An electrician attended on the 3 January 2019 and stated he would be returning on 31 January 2019 to board up all the exposed wiring. The roofers also attended on the 3 January 2019 and reported that there was no dampness when they inspected. However, they stated there was evidence of possible historic dampness as the slates were stained. The resident was told to call back when it rained in order to request another inspection.
On 31 January 2019, the resident reported a “uncontainable” leak from the roof, damaging the ceiling. A job to repair or refix roof tiles was raised and marked as closed on 8 April 2019.
On 6 March 2019, the resident reported cracks throughout property. A job to inspect and report the findings was raised and marked as closed on 13 March 2019.
On 2 October 2019, a job to repair the gutter was raised and marked as closed on 4 October 2019.
On 9 August 2020, the resident made a further complaint as follows:
1. The cracks had reappeared. She had replastered most of the walls in the house.
2. Following a surveyor attending, the resident had been told that the brickwork required repointing.
3. A contractor had attended the property on 28 August 2019. The resident had understood the visit was in preparation for carrying out works, including repointing to the property, including to the attic. He agreed to get rid of the existing insulation in the attic which had become damaged as a result of damp. However, the works were never carried out, and he “disappeared”.
On 13August 2020, a job was raised for a surveyor to inspect several cracks in the property and was not marked as closed until 12 August 2021.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 19 August 2021 that a surveyor’s inspection has been raised to assess the cracks. A roofing job to inspect the gutters had been raised for 21 August 2020.
The surveyor’s inspection was rescheduled for 17 September 2020.
The resident reported on 22 September 2020 that the surveyor informed her that:
1. He would speak to the landlord to check when the insulation works in the loft were carried out.
2. The ceiling trusses and flooring were “fairly saturated” which he advised was not normal and needed to be addressed.
3. Scaffolding would be arranged for a further investigation.
4. A tree surgeon was required to look at the tree by the house entrance to ensure this was not contributing to the problem.
5. Plastering and painting would resolve the cracks in the internal walls.
6. The resident considered this would not resolve the issue and reported that there was increased cracking along bricks above windows and the parapet wall, and cracks to the lintels. She requested an inspection by structural engineer.
On 23 September 2020, the landlord informed the resident it had arranged for a structural engineer/surveyor to attend on 21 October 2020.
The resident wrote on 22 November 2020 chasing feedback. She reported that the condensation in the attic had caused the wooden panels to become soaked. Both the surveyor and structural engineer had recommended an inspection by a tree surgeon.
The resident wrote on 11 December 2020 chasing feedback. The operative did not attend to repoint the brickwork, as per the job raised on 13 August 2020 (which job according to the repair records was to be an inspection). The resident reported a leak in one of the bedrooms from the roof into the attic and then into the bedrooms. The earliest appointment was 14 January 2021. She asked what was the status of her complaint.
On the same day, a job was raised to inspect the roof and not marked completed until 6 April 2021. The landlord wrote to the resident stating that it would seek to address the leak as a matter of urgency and that the complaint was at Stage 1 of its complaints procedure, and she had up to 6 months to raise it to Stage 2 after its initial response.
On 13 December 2020, the resident provided pictures and a video of exposed roof tiles. She reported that the attic floor and wooden beams were wet and there were holes in the roof.
The resident wrote on 26 January 2021 as follows:
1. A roofer attended on 14 January 2021 (the job raised 11 December 2020) who was unable to inspect the attic as scaffolding was required. She requested details and a timescale.
2. A subcontractor attended on 13 January 2021 who had taken photos and videos. While he had been asked to carry out repointing works, he considered it better to find the root cause as repointing was not a satisfactory resolution.
3. He had suggested instructing a tree surgeon to inspect the tree just outside the house as this might be a contributing factor to the damage to the house.
4. She requested a copy of an asbestos report. She was very concerned as she had replastered most of the walls.
On 28 January 2021, the landlord raised an asbestos refurbishment survey which report was completed on 3 February 2021.
The resident wrote on 31 March 2021 to chase and to report that the “Tree had worsened”. Cracks were repaired 1-2 years ago but had since reappeared. Scaffolding had been put up the previous day but she did not have the landlord’s action plan. She requested a copy of the asbestos report.
On 6 April 2021, the resident reported that the operatives had attended that day to inspect the cracks (the job raised 28 February 2019). She requested an update. The roof issues had not been addressed and she queried the standard of repointing.
On 26 April 2021, the resident chased a response to her emails of 26 January 2021, 31 March 2021 and 6 April 2021. The works had not been completed. The works were being held up in the meantime as they were awaiting the asbestos report. She had highlighted the issues on 27 February 2019 and which were yet to be resolved. She requested that her complaint be escalated.
On 11 May 2021, the landlord wrote with tis first stage response as follows:
1. It apologised for its lack of response.
2. It upheld her complaint.
3. No asbestos was found in her property and it provided the asbestos report.
4. A roofer attended on 14 January 2021, to assess a leak from the roof into bedroom. The roofer attended on 31 March 2021 and carried out repairs to the roof including unblocking a gutter, which was full of leaves. The roofer also reported that the arch had slipped in which a bricklayer attended on 06 April 2021, and completed the repair.
5. The tree issue had been referred to the local authority to assess whether the tree required excavating.
6. The relevant team would keep her updated directly.
On 23 August 2021, the resident wrote as follows:
1. The tree had yet to be inspected.
2. The attic was still damp and water was leaking from the second floor ceiling, directly under the attic. The attic had not been inspected.
3. The gutters at the back of the house were still not fully repaired. The water was coming out halfway through the pipes which ran down the house. The exit hole was right outside a window which meant water came into the house through the window. This had been “supposedly” repaired a few months ago, but “obviously” not done correctly.
4. At the front of the house, while a new pipe had been installed, water was coming out, again causing dampness to the external brick work and internal walls of the house.
5. The complaint had been open for the last two years and had not been resolved and she asked to escalate the complaint. The damage to the house internally was costing her money and causing her distress.
On 31 August 2021, the resident reported that the rear guttering was blocked. A job was raised on the same day which was marked as closed or completed on 25 October 2021. A job to attend to loose bricks and holes to the brickwork in the front and rear of the property which was marked as closed on 4 October 2021.
On 24 September 2021, a job was raised to inspect the wiring in the loft following the report of dangerously exposed wires, which was marked as closed on 13 October 2021.
The records showed that a job was raised on 8 October 2021 in response to the resident’s complaint of the roof leak into the property. It was marked completed on 13 January 2022. The landlord informed this service that the job to attend to the roof leak from gutter and downpipe raised on 8 October 2021 was completed on 13 January 2022.
On 8 October 2021, the landlord wrote with its review of the resident’s complaint as follows:
1. In relation to the exposed wires raised in 2018. it had raised a job on 24 September 2021 and had been scheduled for 13 October 2021. The landlord tried to call the resident to make this appointment but there was no response and a voicemail was left. An electrician would inspect the electrics and address any concerns. It understood that an electrical safety test was completed 16 April 2021 and passed as satisfactory, however, the test would not have involved access to loft area.
2. In relation to the plastic holding up the insulation, and her request for insulation as it had fallen down, it could not comment on any missing plastic due to the length of time since the rewire. The landlord did not install loft insulation, but this was something tenants could arrange with their energy provider.
3. In relation to the dampness causing cracks in the ceiling walls underneath the attic, a survey inspection took place on 13 August 2020 (sic). The inspection did not identify causes of damp and therefore no remedial measures were put in place. Works were appointed to the contractor, to erect scaffolding and carry out external brickwork repairs, internal plastering and decorations to bedroom, living room, and hallway landing. The job was closed as an inspection only as the contractor was unable to arrange access. The external brickwork job had been scheduled for 4 October 2021 but the resident had refused the works and requested a further survey instead. Internal plastering works were planned; however, current lead times were Jan/Feb 2022. It would provide a further update by the end of October 2021.
4. In relation to dampness spreading to the floor below and causing cracks, the landlord anticipated that the repointing would “help with” any dampness.
5. In relation to the tree being overgrown, the tree referred to was a “street tree”. It was on a two-year pruning programme and was due to be pruned during autumn 2021. The batch of works that included the tree had already been issued to a contractor. There was also another large tree in the rear garden of a neighbouring property which was privately owned. It was awaiting a response as to whether the tree could be causing damage to the foundations and would update the resident.
6. A job to the inspect gutters was due to be carried out on 25 October 2021 as well as to inspect the roof leak.
7. In relation to the damaged insulation, the landlord did not install loft insulation, nor take up the boards, as this would have to be done by the registered tradesperson installing the loft insulation.
8. In relation to the front door not being replaced under a programme the previous year, the landlord had inspected the door on 29 November 2018, when no faults were found. A further inspection had been arranged for 4 October 2021.
The landlord reported to this service on 5 August 2022 that a survey inspection was raised on 25 October 2021. The inspection only noted an issue with the back gate. The surveyor attended but did not raise “the necessary follow-on works for bricklayer”. Bricklayers to inspect any external and internal “concerns” were due to attend on 24 August 2022.
The resident reported to this service in January 2021 that the house felt cold and that she felt “unheard”.

Assessment and findings

The repairs.

While the landlord provided this service with the repair records and correspondence, this investigation was hampered by the lack of surveyor and inspection reports. Moreover, the repair records set out what jobs were raised but did not indicate what works were carried out, or the reason a job was closed. It was not clear whether that indicated the jobs had been carried out or simply closed for another reason.
The resident had reported damp, in particular in the loft space, from October 2018 onwards. It was reasonable that a surveyor inspected the property on the 3 January 2019, 13 August 2020, and October 2021. While it was indicated that the surveyor did not identify any damp, or causes of damp, it did identify that a) there was evidence of damp, b) an inspection by a structural engineer was warranted and c) that repointing was required that would “assist” with the damp. However, it was not satisfactory that it was not sufficiently clear what was the extent of the survey or its findings or that this was property communicated to the resident. It was also unsatisfactory that, despite the resident’s focus on the condition of the loft, that the surveyor did not inspect the attic, certainly on the initial occasion in 2019 and that the roof was not inspected until 6 April 2021, following the resident’s report of 11 December 2020, which also represented an inappropriate delay.
While the landlord’s final complaint response stated that the landlord had not identified any “causes” of damp, and it subsequently reported that there were “no issues”, repointing works were due to take place which, according to the landlord, would assist in addressing the damp. This, in itself, was contradictory. While there was a lack of clarity about the extent and causes of damp in the property, the evidence showed it had suffered from roof leaks, overflowing gutters, poor condition of the brickwork and there was the resident’s own account and no clear counter evidence by the landlord. In the circumstances, while there were repairs to the gutter and roof tiles, and a repointing job was raised, which the report will detail further below, the Ombudsman is not satisfied that the landlord properly addressed the issues the resident raised.
While it was reasonable to repair the tiles, there were unreasonable delays between the resident’s reports and the works being carried out, including from January 2019 to April 2019, and from 11 December 2020 to 6 April 2021.
It was reasonable of the landlord to attend to the guttering. However, given the number of occasions that the resident reported the gutters overflowing or becoming blocked, the Ombudsman would have expected the landlord to note the frequency of the reports, in particular during the winter months, and to consider proactively monitoring the guttering. The Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
While it was reasonable of the landlord to inspect and raise jobs to repoint the property, again, there were unreasonable delays to the works and again a lack of communication with the resident, so she had to chase. The delays included an inspection raised on 24 October 2018 which did not appear to have been carried out until 28 February 2019 or 13 March 2019. Even then, the conclusion was not evidenced.
While it was reasonable to raise another inspection raised on 13 August 2020, there was a significant, inappropriate and unexplained delay to 21 August 2021, a year later. Again, the outcome was not clear. A structural engineer/surveyor attended on or around 21 October 2020 but again there was no evidence of a conclusive outcome. It was also inappropriate that, while acknowledged by the landlord, the landlord had overlooked raising the “necessary follow-on works for bricklayer” following the inspection in October 2021. While fault is not attributed to the landlord that the works did not take place on 4 October 2021, there was an overall inappropriate and significant delay to the 22 August 2022, given the resident reported the issue in 2019 and 2020. It is still not known whether those works were carried out in August 2022 and while the Ombudsman appreciates that some time has since passed, the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
While there was some delay in addressing the overgrown tree that the resident has reported in October 2018, to January 2019, it was reasonable some works took place. If the “street tree” was subject to a regular pruning programme, this was reasonable but the landlord did not make this clear to the resident. However, the real issue was whether the tree was damaging the fabric of the building. Given the landlord itself considered that a possibility, there was an unreasonable delay from September 2020 to when the landlord referred the issue of the tree to the relevant department of the local authority on or around 11 May 2021 in inspecting both the property and the tree. While it was reasonable to inspect the property, there was no evidence of any outcome and the resident was left to chase as solution.
Given the health and safety issues involved, the Ombudsman considers that there was an inappropriate and significant delay from December 2017 in addressing the exposed wiring. The evidence indicated that it was not addressed until 13 October 2021. This was despite her reporting it again on 22 October 2018 and 2 November 2018, an attendance by an electrician on 3 January 2019, and the job being marked as closed on 31 January 2019. While an electrical safety test was completed on 16 April 2021 and passed as satisfactory, however, also according to the landlord, the test would not have involved access to loft area. It was therefore inappropriate that the electrical safety test did not include the loft. Again, it was not clear whether the repair was carried out in October 2021 and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
The landlord’s response that it did not carry out insulation works as a matter of practice and referring the resident to their energy supplier was inappropriate. The Ombudsman has not been provided with a policy stating that the landlord did not install insulation. Furthermore, the landlord’s website simply suggests that the resident approaches their energy provider in the first instance. Moreover, while a resident can apply for grants from their energy company, the Ombudsman would expect a landlord to consider measures to address damp and thermal comfort. Moreover, the resident had reported the damage on 22 October 2018 and again in August 2020 and 22 September 2020 and that it was the landlord or its operatives or contractor that had caused the damage during the rewiring works. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider remedying any damage it had caused. There was no evidence that the landlord inspected the insulation as a result of the resident’s report. While the resident may or may not have reported this sooner, and it may have been too late to assess damage that had occurred 8 months previously, it was inappropriate of the landlord to have ignored the resident’s report and then nearly three years later, state that it was too late for the landlord to consider it. The resident requested assistance with the boards in the attic which may have fallen under its repair obligations in any event. In the circumstances, the landlord’s response that it would not address the insulation, or the attic floor boards, was inappropriate and the Ombudsman will make an order in that regard.
There was no explanation why the door was not replaced during the programme. However, it was reasonable that the landlord inspected the front door and carried out repairs. It was inspected again on 4 October 2021 but the outcome was not recorded in the landlord’s complaint response of 8 October 2021 and the Ombudsman will make a recommendation in that regard.
It was unreasonable not to have shared the outcome of the asbestos report with the resident until 11 May 2021, some three months after it was carried out, and without any explanation for the delay. This would be a source of anxiety for any resident, who in this case had specifically requested it and expressed her concerns.
While the extent of the damp was not clear, which appeared to be mainly in the attic, the extent of the surveyor’s inspections was not clear either. The Ombudsman is not therefore satisfied that there has been a satisfactory inspection of the property and will make an order in that regard, particularly as there was evidence of recurrent reports of damp and water ingress. While the resident attributed the cold in the house to the front door and lack of insulation, damp would be a factor in the temperature. There were considerable delays to works together with a lack of communication by the landlord which meant that the resident had to chase it several times, which added to her frustration and distress, that was also evidenced by the frequency of her reports of damp. The delays, and the electrician and a surveyor not reattending, demonstrated a lack of monitoring by the landlord of the repairs. In the circumstances, the Ombudsman finds severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports.

The landlord’s complaint handling

While there appeared to be a response of a kind on 27 November 2018, which was not provided to the service, and which the landlord itself appeared to have lost sight of, there was an exceptionally inappropriate delay to the complaint response from 12 November 2018 to 11 May 2021.
The complaint responses were inadequate. The first response made no reference to the delay in its response, it was not clear what issues it was addressing. It did not offer an overall resolution, did not explain why and in what way the complaint was upheld, it did not consider the issue of compensation, and did not monitor the outcomes. In the circumstances, it failed to offer a resolution and put things right.
There was no evidence that the landlord properly reviewed the complaint in the final response. It did not take into account the issue of the exposed wiring that had been raised in 2017 and the damaged insulation in 2017/2018. It referred to an inspection taking place on 13 August 2020 when that was the date the job was raised, not the date it took place which was in August 2021. It referred to the resident not giving access but only referred to one specific occasion. The response focused on attributing delays to the resident rather than reviewing the works and its own delays.
The effect of both responses was offhand and dismissive in tone and content and did not offer a proper and accurate history, analysis, resolution or explanation. The responses provided service updates, rather than monitor the repairs so as to ensure there was a proper resolution to the resident’s complaint. The responses missed the opportunity to put matters right.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, cracks in the brickwork, wiring, and the resident’s request for the landlord to install loft insulation.
In accordance with Paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was severe maladministration in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.

Reasons

There were significant delays to the works that were raised and a lack of communication, so that the resident had to chase the outcome of any inspections. For example, an inspection was raised in August 2020 and did not take place until August 2021 and the resultant work was not scheduled until October 2021 and August 2022. There was no evidence of the landlord providing timescales and updating the resident with outcomes of inspections.
There was a significant delay in responding to the resident’s complaint. The response consisted of providing little more than an update on the then appointments. The response did not address the substantive issues in relation to the standards of its service, including its delays and level of communication. It did not provide an overall resolution or take ownership of events.

Orders

The Ombudsman makes the following orders:
1. Within 2 weeks of this report, the Chief Executive of the landlord should write to the resident and apologise for the failings identified in this report and the landlord should provide a copy of that letter to the Ombudsman.
2. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should confirm with the Ombudsman, with a copy to the resident, that the repointing work has been carried out or, if it has not been carried out, provide a date to the resident and the Ombudsman that it will be carried out, on a date within four weeks of this report.
3. Within 2 weeks of this report, the landlord should confirm with the Ombudsman, with a copy to the resident, that the exposed wiring in the loft has been addressed and boarded up, and, if it has not been done, provide a date to the resident and the Ombudsman that it will be carried out on a date to be within four weeks of this report.
4. The landlord is ordered to pay the resident compensation in the amount of £1,400 within 4 weeks as follows:
  1. The sum of £1,000 in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp, cracks in the brickwork, wiring, and the resident’s request for the landlord to install loft insulation.
  2. The sum of £400 in relation to the landlord’s complaint handling.
5. The landlord should carry out, within 4 weeks of this report, an inspection of the property, by an appropriately qualified surveyor, in order to consider both preventing water ingress and alleviating damp, such assessment to include:
  1. The condition of the roof and guttering and any repairs required to prevent leaks.
  2. Any remedial works to carry out to alleviate damp such as ensuring the radiators are adequate and assess the need for extractor fans.
6. The report should be sent to the resident and the Ombudsman within 2 weeks of the inspection, together with a schedule of any works with timescales.
7. The landlord should repair the attic boards and, with the assistance of an energy company or local authority grant, if available, install roof insulation within 8 weeks of this report.
The landlord should confirm compliance with the above orders to the Housing Ombudsman Service within 4 weeks and 8 weeks of this report, as appropriate.

Recommendations

The Ombudsman makes the following recommendations:
1. The landlord should, if it has not done so already, write to the resident with the outcome of the front door inspection of 8 October 2021.
2. The landlord should ensure that it reacts proactively in response to multiple reports of the same issue and investigates whether there is an underlying cause of repeated reports.
3. The landlord should update the resident within a reasonable period following any further inspections of the property, including in relation to the condition of the trees that caused her concern.
4. The landlord should consider carrying out a regular gutter clearance in the property.
5. The landlord should ensure that it monitors its repairs and that it provides time scales to its residents for those repairs, as set out in its policy, and provides an explanation for any delays.
6. The landlord should consider a review of its record-keeping so that it has a clear record of outcomes of any inspections and repairs, so that it can provide accurate feedback to the resident and monitor its repairs.
7. The landlord should share with its repair staff and senior management the Ombudsman’s report Spotlight on damp and mould, Housing Ombudsman Spotlight report on damp and mould (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
8. The landlord should review its complaints handling, if it has not done so already, to ensure that it:
  1. Responds within its policy timescales.
  2. Undertakes a meaningful Stage-2 review.
  3. Considers outcomes in light of the Ombudsman’s dispute resolution principles: be fair, treat people fairly, and follow fair processes, put things right and learn from outcomes.
  4. Ensure all relevant staff are aware of the Complaint Handling Code Complaint Handling Code – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk) and consider attendance at training events, such as a Learning-From-Complaints webinar Learning from complaints webinar with HQN – Housing Ombudsman (housing-ombudsman.org.uk).
9. The landlord should notify the Ombudsman of its intentions regarding these recommendations within 4 weeks of this report.