Harlow District Council (202304637)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202304637

Harlow District Council

9 August 2024

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 response to the resident’s:
1. Report of a leak.
2. Report of damp, mould and condensation.
3. Complaint and request for compensation.
The Ombudsman has also assessed the landlord’s record keeping.

Background

At the time of the complaint the resident lived in a 3 bedroom ground floor maisonette. She was assigned a secure tenancy on 9 November 2022. The resident obtained the property under the right to succeed under section 87(b) of the Housing act 1985. The property above the resident’s was a leasehold property rented to a private tenant by the leaseholder.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 to report a leak affecting her bedroom ceiling. An investigation by the landlord found there was no leak at the property although there was a damp patch in the airing cupboard believed to be coming from the leasehold property above. A request was made for the resident’s housing officer to contact the leaseholder and ask them to check for a “slight leak” at their property.
The resident contacted the landlord again on 6 February 2023 to report damp and mould at the property. It was reported there was a leak in the upstairs water tank allowing water to penetrate the front and back bedroom of the resident’s property. The resident reported this had been ongoing for months and asked for a surveyor to visit.
The resident complained to the landlord on 28 March 2023 (Complaint 1). She said when it had replaced a section of the building’s mains water pipe it had “put it in the wrong place.” The landlord thought the leak between the 2 properties had been coming from the replaced section of pipe and when it repaired it, it could not put it in the original position because there was a steel beam in the way. The resident was unhappy with the new position of the pipe. She said water condensed on it and dripped to the floor causing mould growth. She wanted the pipe removed and put back in its original position.
The leak worsened and the resident reported filling a 100 litre water butt each day. The landlord subsequently found that the leak was coming from a hot water supply pipe. The pipe was in the screed of the concrete floor of the leasehold property. The leak was fixed on 31 March 2023 by the leaseholder’s contractor. The landlord had supported this process and advised where the leak was coming from. It also turned the water off on several occasions before the repair, but this had been turned back on by the leaseholder’s tenant causing the leak to continue.
The stage 1 complaint response was issued by the landlord on 12 April 2023.Within this, the landlord said it had found a continuous flow of water coming through the concrete ceiling and had replaced a section of the rising main. When replacing the pipe, it had to reposition it due to concrete and metal beams in its original location. Following the installation of the new pipe it had “hoped the water would stop leaking within a few days,” but this had not been the case. A second investigation found a leak which was the responsibility of the leaseholder for the above property. It said it had told the tenant to keep the hot water turned off until the leaseholder had completed a suitable repair. The response upheld the complaint as although it initially inspected the property and replaced the pipe, further works, which were the responsibility of the leaseholder, were needed and this had caused the delay.
The resident made a second complaint on 21 April 2023 (Complaint 2). This related to the time taken by the landlord in completing necessary repairs to plasterwork damaged by the leak. The resident’s complaint centred around the landlord not attending when arranged. The landlord issued its response on 9 May 2023 and upheld part of the complaint relating to communication and offered an apology. It asked the resident to send it photos of the required plastering work once the walls had dried out.
The resident escalated Complaint 2 to stage 2 the same day (9 May 2023) as she did not believe the leak had been satisfactorily resolved. She added that the incident had caused her financial loss and that nobody had attended to clean the mould resulting from the leak. She said the mould had made her ill and this was ignored by the landlord. She was seeking financial reimbursement and damages for mental distress and lost wages. She also requested compensation for inconvenience and distress and asked the landlord to consider loss of use and enjoyment of the property.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response covering the issues from both complaints on 31 May 2023. It offered an apology for the resident’s inconvenience and said the delays in completing the repair was not its fault. It said the water leak was the responsibility of the leaseholder of the above property and it had contacted the leaseholder and his tenant “numerous times as a matter of urgency.” In relation to the repositioned pipe, while it offered an apology it said it had been necessary due to the impenetrable steel. It again said it would complete plastering work once the walls had dried out and would need photos before it was able to do so. It supplied the resident with its insurance details for her to make a claim for the cost of damaged items. It did not refer to the resident’s request for a rent reimbursement but said it “had gone above and beyond to resolve the issue.”

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident has said the issues in this case affected her mental health which led to her needing time off work. She additionally said the mould in the property impacted her health. The Service notes her concerns and acknowledges the impact the resident has reported the issue has had on her. While the Service is an alternative to the courts, it is unable to decide legal liability or if the landlord’s actions or lack of action have had a detrimental impact on a resident’s health. Nor can it calculate or award damages. The Ombudsman is therefore unable to consider the personal injury aspects of the resident’s complaint. These matters are likely better suited to consideration by a court or via a personal injury claim.
The resident may wish to seek independent legal advice if she intends to pursue legal action. The landlord has already provided the resident with information about making a claim to its insurer as part of its stage 2 response.

Report of a leak.

The landlord’s repair policy states where a tenant has a “plumbing water pipe leak” it is classified as requiring an emergency repair. The target time for emergency repairs is 24 hours.
The lease for the property above the resident’s requires the leaseholder to carry out any work necessary to remedy any breach of repairing covenants. The landlord can issue a written notice specifying the necessary repair work and it can say by when it should be completed. If the leaseholder does not carry out these works the lease allows the landlord to enter the flat and complete them. The lease allows the landlord to reclaim the cost of work it completes that the leaseholder was responsible for. The lease stipulates the landlord is responsible for the water pipes supplying the mains water, from the water company’s stopcock outside the block, up to and including, the main stopcock in the leaseholder’s flats. It adds the leaseholder is then responsible for plumbing and pipe work within the property from the main stopcock.
The resident contacted the landlord on 15 December 2022 to report a leak in her property. She reported the leak was in her bedroom and was affecting the ceiling. The landlord’s repairs policy defines roof repairs as falling under urgent work that should be completed within 5 working days.
The evidence provided to this Service shows that the call handler informed the resident that the roofing repair team were not available and she should call back the following day. The resident was advised that if she was concerned the ceiling may collapse or if electrics were affected then the call handler could send somebody out to make it safe. The evidence does not suggest that the resident relayed such concerns; however, it is noted that she had confirmed that she would call back the following day.
In this case the leak was coming through the bedroom ceiling. The resident’s property is a ground floor maisonette with another property above. It therefore unclear why the call handler considered that there was an issue with the roof. From the evidence it is not possible to ascertain what questions were asked of the resident about the water ingress. However, it would have been reasonable to ask where in the building the property was located. We cannot say with certainty whether this would have then led to a plumbing repair being raised – with a shorter response time. However, it was unreasonable that the repair was classified as a roof leak with a response time of 5 working days.
An appointment was made with the resident for the landlord to attend on 19 December 2022 to inspect for any leaks. When the landlord attended it noted that the source of the leak could not be found, but it did identify a damp patch in the airing cupboard which appeared to be from the property above. It recorded that the above property was a leasehold property and asked the housing officer to contact the leaseholder “to check for a slight leak going into [the property below].” It was right for the landlord to request contact with the leaseholder on behalf of its resident as it would be best placed to discuss their responsibilities under the terms of the lease. As the freeholder, the landlord had an interest in both properties, and it was right for it to ensure they were being kept in a good state of repair. Although the landlord found no leaks when it assessed the resident’s property speaking to the leaseholder would also have allowed it to see if they had experienced a leak or problem that would account for the damp patch.
However, the landlord has not supplied any evidence that it spoke to the leaseholder and there is nothing to suggest that it did so. It is unclear why it did not. As a result, investigations into the upstairs property and the source of the leak did not commence as early as they may have. It is unclear what action the landlord may have taken after it had it spoken with the leaseholder. However, that it did not speak with the leaseholder as it had agreed to do so at the time was a failing.
The resident called the landlord again on 6 February 2023 to report damp and mould. She added there was a leak from the upstairs water tank, and it was coming through the front and back bedrooms and had been “ongoing for months”. She requested a surveyor attend to check the issue. It was noted on the report that there was a “current ticket” due to an ongoing issue which had already been reported to its contractor (no heating). It also said the new problem sounded more like a leak than damp. It is positive the landlord reviewed existing repair matters and considered if the new report was potentially related. Assigning the new report to the existing one allowed for a more thorough and complete investigation as it could consider both issues. The log requested the resident was updated which showed a customer focused approach to its repairs. It was right for it to do this.
As a result of the call an email was sent to the contractor to escalate the matter. The contractor attended on 7 February 2023. This was within the correct response time for a water leak and showed the landlord’s commitment to responsive repairs.
Following the visit internal emails said the leak had been filling a 100 litre water butt container each day. The landlord has supplied photos to the Service of the resident’s homemade water collection system which included a tray collecting water in the airing cupboard with a hose leading from it and a water butt in a bedroom. The resident had various other containers collecting water situated around the first floor of the property. The amount of water being collected each day was significant and the emails reported the resident was told the contractor believed the leak was possibly on the rising main. It was positive that the landlord updated the resident, as keeping a resident updated can help to reduce distress if they know how and when an issue is likely to be fixed.
The contractor said it would have to go up through the ceiling of the resident’s property and into the flat above to look for the leak. As a result, the landlord contacted the tenant of the leasehold property to arrange for it to investigate the cause. As the landlord was responsible for the pipework up to the stopcock of the above property it was right for it to check this. It is however unclear when the landlord replaced the section of pipe. It has said it did this prior to delivering dehumidifiers on 15 February 2023 but has not supplied the repair log showing exactly when it was done. It is unreasonable that the Service have been unable to see if the repair was carried out in a timely manner as a result of inadequate record keeping by the landlord. As the leak was believed to be from the rising main and releasing a significant amount of water each day the landlord’s repairs policy deemed this to be an emergency repair. This is the highest priority of repair. As such we would have expected to see a contemporaneous record of the landlord’s attempts to contact the tenant or leaseholder for the above property, including details of any discussions.
As the record has not been supplied it is not possible to show if the landlord included this level of detail. It is unreasonable that it has not done so, and it is a failing in the landlord’s record keeping that it has not been able to demonstrate it has accurate and complete records of its actions. Having such records would have allowed it to show it had acted quickly and in line with its own policy.
When the contractor did replace the section of pipework between the 2 properties, the resident complained it was in the wrong place. This was because when the contractor drilled through from the above property to hers it did not come out in the airing cupboard where she expected it to. However, the contractor reported that it was unable to drill through in the cupboard due to the position of steel beams in the fabric of the building. As a result, the contractor said it had to drill to the side which meant the pipe coming out in the corner of the bedroom and running a short distance along the top of the wall at ceiling height back into the cupboard. While the resident was not happy with this, the fabric of the building restricted where the contractor could put it. It is noted that the resident is unhappy with the positioning of the pipes. However, it is noted from the evidence that the placement of the new pipe and the reason for needing to move it was explained to the resident at the time of the repair and also during the complaints process. This was reasonable in the circumstances.
The contractor had a duty to try to fix the leak and the reason it has given for having to move the pipe a short distance from its original position was reasonable. Replacing it in its original location would have caused more disruption and had a greater cost due to the need to interfere with the fabric of the building. The contractor was not aware it would need to do this prior to completing the work and as such they were not able to tell the resident about this in advance. Agreeing to box the new pipe in, as the contractor said it would, was a proportionate remedy to the new pipe’s location.
Once the pipe was replaced it was hoped residual water from the leak would stop dripping within a few days as the area drained. Two dehumidifiers were supplied to help dry out the property. However, the leak persisted. Although the landlord had replaced the section of pipe it was responsible for, it arranged a second investigation to be carried out by its contractor. This identified the leak was in a 22 mm hot water pipe that was “down service” from the pump. The pipe was in the screed of the flooring between the airing cupboard and bathroom. This was identified by the landlord and accepted by the leaseholder as not being part of the fabric of the building and under the terms of the lease as being the responsibility of the leaseholder.
As the leak was affecting the resident it was appropriate for the landlord to try and assist the leaseholder in identifying the cause. Identifying the cause of the leak enabled it to confirm whose responsibility it was to fix the fault and enabled it to offer support. Making the appointment showed the landlord’s commitment to support its resident and it was right that it did so.
Once the leak was identified as being in the hot water pipe the leaseholder and tenant were told by the landlord to keep the hot water turned off until the leak had been repaired. Isolating the feed to the hot water would have stopped the flow of water and therefore the leak to the property below. As the leak had been confirmed as being the responsibility of the leaseholder it was right for the landlord to offer advice as this was intended to prevent further damage to its property and distress to its resident.
On 28 February 2023 an internal email of the landlord said the housing officer had again attended the resident’s and the leaseholder’s addresses. This was because the resident was still having issues with the leak. The housing officer agreed to meet the leaseholder and his plumber at the address on 9 March 2023. The leaseholder had asked for the issue with the pipes to be explained to his plumber as he had been unable to find the leak. The landlord had previously explained this to the leaseholder.
As the leak was in an area it was not responsible for, it did not have a duty to help the leaseholder. However, to support its own resident a surveyor attended with the housing officer on 13 March 2023. This was rescheduled from the 9 March 2023 due to the availability of the surveyor. Following the meeting on 13 March 2023 the leaseholder’s plumber repaired the leaking pipe on 31 March 2023. The repair was examined by the landlord’s contractor who was “satisfied it was effective.” It believed the repair would “bring an end to this ongoing problem and we can move on.”
The resident said the leak and damage it had caused resulted in severe disruption and stress as she was always concerned the leaking water would overflow her collection containers. She worried this would cause further damage and as a result was reluctant to leave home.
The resident first reported her concerns in December 2022. The landlord categorised the job incorrectly, but the evidence does not suggest that the resident was negatively impacted a result. When the landlord attended it could not identify the source of the leak. However, it failed to take steps to make enquiries with the leaseholder as it had agreed to. When the resident contacted the landlord on 6 February 2023 it was clear the issue had worsened and the impact of the water ingress was significant. From this point it took nearly 2 months for the leak to be repaired. It is acknowledged that locating and repairing the source of the leak was not a straightforward process; and the evidence does not suggest that the matter was unduly delayed by the landlord. We are also satisfied from the evidence that is available that the landlord was proactively engaging with the leaseholder to ensure that the necessary repairs could be completed. However, given the initial failing to make enquiries with the leaseholder, we have found that there was service failure by the landlord.

Report of damp and mould.

The landlord’s repair policy says that penetrating or rising damp and condensation are a standard priority response. Standard priority response work should be completed in under 20 working days. The resident should be provided with an information letter and an inspection should be arranged to find the cause and arrange for repair work where required.
As the landlord found a “damp patch in the airing cupboard” during its visit on 19 December 2022 it should have considered conducting further investigations and/or remedial works. Recommendation 1 of the Ombudsman’s spotlight report on damp and mould (spotlight report) states “landlord should adopt a zero-tolerance approach to damp and mould interventions.”
The recommendation of the surveyor was for the housing officer to make contact with the leaseholder to check for a “slight leak” going into the resident’s address and causing the damp. The record also noted there was “previous history with the leaseholder” but did not elaborate what the “previous history” was. As detailed above the landlord has not provided a record of any contact or follow up it conducted with the leaseholder following the December report. As such it has not been able to demonstrate it took a zero tolerance approach to damp and mould and it was a failing it did not do so.
Following the repair of the water pipe in early February 2023 the resident reported that the new section of pipe in the bedroom dripped condensation onto the floor. She reported this caused mould which she had to clean. When the resident reported this, she was told the pipework would be boxed in but she did not feel this would stop the mould growth.
The replacement pipe did not solve the leak and as such the landlord refocused its attention on its cause. It was right that it did this as the leak was causing significant distress and inconvenience to the resident. However, it should still have completed the boxing in, and the landlord has not supplied any evidence to show it did so. As well as improving the aesthetic, boxing in the pipe may also have helped reduce the condensation issue. It would therefore have been reasonable for it to complete this work. The landlord could also have considered if it could additionally use any other techniques such as pipe insulation to reduce the condensation issue and again there is no evidence it did so. While the landlord was focusing on the substantive leak at the property it should still reasonably have considered if it could do anything to reduce the pipe condensation.
The landlord had installed the section of pipe and therefore it had a duty to ensure its repair did not cause a new issue, particularly damp or mould. Completing the boxing in and insulation of the pipe would have shown its adherence to the spotlight report guidance and recommendation 8. Recommendation 8 of the spotlight report states “Together with residents, landlords should review the information, materials and support provided to residents to ensure that they strike the right tone and are effective in helping residents to avoid damp and mould in their properties.” That the landlord did not complete the necessary work to resolve the condensation was a failing by it.
The leak damaged plasterwork and caused water marks on walls and ceilings within the property. Once the leak was fixed the landlord supplied the resident with 2 industrial dehumidifiers. This was to dry out the property before it could complete any necessary repairs. This was appropriate. The landlord’s policy states that any internal decoration required following repair works should follow on from any leak related repairs. This should only be in the affected area and is a standard priority response. It was therefore right that before it did any decoration work it ensured the area was dry and it had repaired any damaged plasterwork.
Damage and water staining from a leak is not the same as damp and mould caused by rising or penetrating damp or condensation. It was therefore correct for the landlord to supply the dehumidifiers to dry the area where damage had been caused by the leak. It was also reasonable that it did not deal with this issue as damp or mould and that it was treated as part of the repair issue.
The landlord’s approach to remedial works required as a result of damage caused by the leak was appropriate. However, its initial handling of the damp and mould investigation was not sufficiently robust and amounted to service failure. It did not demonstrate it took a zero tolerance approach as it did not complete identified follow up investigations, or box in the pipe or seek to stop or reduce the condensation the new pipe it had installed. The evidence shows that the landlord’s handling of the matter was the cause of distress and inconvenience to the resident. We have therefore made a series of orders aimed at putting things right.
We encourage landlords to self-assess against the Ombudsman’s Spotlight reports following publication. In October 2021, we published our Spotlight on damp and mould. The evidence gathered during this investigation shows the landlord’s practice was not entirely in line with that recommended in the Spotlight report. We encourage the landlord to consider the findings and recommendations of our Spotlight report unless the landlord can provide evidence that it has self-assessed already.

Complaint and request for compensation.

The landlord’s complaint handling policy states it has a 2 stage process. At stage 1 the policy requires the landlord to acknowledge the complaint within 3 working days and give the resident its response within a maximum of 10 working days. If the resident remains unhappy with the response they should escalate the complaint to stage 2 within 28 days. Once a complaint is escalated to stage 2 the landlord should again acknowledge it within 3 working days. The full response should be issued within 20 working days of the escalation.
Where a complaint is upheld the landlord policy says it will:
1. Apologise for the failure in service.
2. Explain what went wrong.
3. Say what it has done to put things right.
4. Where appropriate, say how it has learnt from the complaint.
The resident made a stage 1 complaint during a phone call with the landlord on 28 March 2023. As the complaint was raised in a phone call it was acknowledged at that point. The resident reported that the landlord’s contractor “attempted to fix a leak which was clearly coming from the flat above but attempted to drill a hole through the concrete via the flat upstairs. It was done in the wrong place, but the contractor proceeded to stick a pipe down the hole and into the water tank cupboard which now gets condensation and mould drips onto the bedroom floor.”
The landlord issued its stage 1 complaint response within the timeframe in its own policy and the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code). In the response the landlord said it had upheld the complaint. The reason for this was because although it had carried out the first inspection it did not solve the issue and further works and investigations were required. The further investigation found the issue was the responsibility of the leaseholder from the property above.
Although the landlord appropriately acknowledged what had gone wrong and what it was going to do to put things right in terms of the repair, it did not apologise for the failure in service. As the complaint was upheld, the landlord should have apologised in accordance with its policy. Apologising for a mistake or failing, helps to show a landlord recognises the distress the issues may have caused and in this case, would have been appropriate to recognise this.
The response explained that if the resident remained unhappy with the response, she could escalate the matter to stage 2 within 28 days. It was added that the resident would need to explain what she thought the landlord had got wrong, why the response had not resolved the issue and what she thought it should do to put the matter right. It was right for the landlord to explain this to the resident to allow her to understand how it was best to structure a stage 2 complaint request.
The resident made her second complaint (Complaint 2) on 21 April 2023. She said she was unhappy the landlord’s contractor had not attended to complete plastering work on 17 April 2023 as she had expected. She said she had contacted the landlord and its contractor but had not had a reply. The resident said she wanted an apology and explanation as to why the landlord wanted to complete the plastering work before the walls had properly dried out. She was unhappy at the poor communication from the landlord and its contractor.
The landlord issued its response on 9 May 2023 which was the 10th working day following the complaint being registered. This was therefore again issued within the correct timeframe.
The complaint response apologised for the inconvenience caused by the lack of communication from the landlord and its contractor about a missed repair appointment. It was right for the landlord to do this and was in line with its policy. The response also asked the resident to contact the landlord’s contractor directly once the walls had dried out to arrange for the plastering work to be completed at her convenience. The response acknowledged it had upheld the complaint in relation to poor communication. It again advised the resident how they could escalate the complaint if she remained unhappy. It was right to do this as it had only partially upheld the complaint.
The resident escalated her concerns to stage 2 after receiving the stage 1 response to Complaint 2. She was unhappy the leak in the above property had not been resolved sooner and that she had had poor communication from the landlord.
The resident believed:
1. The water should have been shut off sooner, as it had caused damage to her property and required her to spend money on containers to collect the water.
2. The pipe had been installed in the wrong place and dripped condensation onto the floor and required her to clean mould off it.
3. She should be reimbursed for her expenses caused by the leak.
4. The landlord should compensate her for the mental distress caused by the incident.
5. The landlord should also compensate her for the time she had to spend at the property. She had felt she had been unable to go out because she was concerned the buckets and other containers would overflow.
6. Any compensation could be in the form of a partial rent rebate.
The landlord issued its stage 2 response on 31 May 2023, in accordance with policy timescales. The response offered an apology for any inconvenience the resident had been caused. It explained how it had investigated the complaint and what it understood it to be about. It was right for it to do this to enable the resident to understand what had been considered.
The response detailed how it had reconsidered both stage 1 complaints. As these related to the same substantive issue it was right for it to do so. The response set out its decision and that while it had upheld the stage 1 complaints it felt it had done more than it was required to do and had continuing to work with the resident regarding the plastering repairs. Therefore, it did not uphold the stage 2 escalation and advised the resident she could appeal the case to the Housing Ombudsman Service if she remained dissatisfied. The response also signposted the resident to its insurance company in relation to claiming compensation for items she had purchased, the illness she had suffered and inconvenience she had experienced. This was appropriate.
The landlord did fail to offer an apology at stage 1 of the complaint handling process, as its policy said it should when it recognised a failing. This was not a significant failing given that the landlord had appropriately acknowledged what had gone wrong. As such, it was a shortcoming in its overall handling of the complaint. Other than this one issue the landlord showed good complaint handling, and it dealt with the matter in line with its policy and the Code. We have therefore found no maladministration by the landlord.

Record keeping

The Ombudsman’s Spotlight Report on Knowledge and Information Management (KIM spotlight report) was issued in May 2023. The record keeping failures in this case occurred before the spotlight report was published and as such it cannot be expected to have implemented the recommendations from the report. Nevertheless, the evidence provided to the Service demonstrates poor record keeping practices by the landlord.
Recommendation 11 of the KIM spotlight report states landlords should “review existing databases for capability and capacity to record those key data requirements”. They should ensure databases are capable of adequately capturing information about homes – e.g. repairs and stock condition.
Recommendation 13 of the KIM spotlight report states landlords should “ensure databases are easy to interrogate, and that the data can be extracted and used”. This is to allow staff to “easily access the information they require. This is essential for evidence-based practice and informed decision-making. Where systems can be interrogated effectively, this produces crucial insight regarding patterns, themes and potential shortfalls.”
The landlord’s record keeping and failure to supply requested documents, such as the repair log and details of communications with the leaseholder and tenant about the leak, does not appear to meet appropriate standards. It is a failing that it does not have a record keeping system that it can easily identify communications with residents or leaseholders about repairs. The landlord’s system should contain details of all interactions with residents including letters it has sent, notes of housing officer visits, inspections, and telephone call notes. Contacts with a resident should detail the reason for the contact, details of the discussion and any agreed actions – e.g. an undertaking to look for available grants. It would also be reasonable for the landlord’s system to record all complaint handling communications, correspondence, and responses. That the landlord has not been able to produce records that contain this level of detail is indicative of poor record keeping, amounting to maladministration.
An order has been made for the landlord to review its current record keeping practices and systems and ensure they are robust.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation its response to reports of a leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure by the landlord in relation to its response to reports of damp, mould and condensation.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in relation to its complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in relation to its record keeping.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of the report the landlord should:
1. Apologise to the resident for the service failure identified by this investigation.
2. Pay the resident £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused by its response to the damp and mould issues within the property.
3. Share the outcome of this investigation with repairs staff so that steps are taken to ensure that any future follow-up actions or tasks following an inspection are acted on.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this determination, the landlord must:
1. Conduct a review of its record keeping processes, considering the findings in this report and this Service’s spotlight report on knowledge and information management. It should consider:
  1. current record keeping practices and systems in relation to resident contact and correspondence,
  2. whether system improvements are required,
  3. whether staff require further training to ensure that they are keeping and maintaining an accurate audit trail.

The review should show any learning highlighted and it should confirm to the Service and the resident how it aims to address these.