Hyde Housing Association Limited (202017021)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202017021

Hyde Housing Association Limited

20 July 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s:
1. Record keeping.
2. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated decant.
3. Complaint handling.

Background and summary of events

Background

The landlord provided an assured tenancy agreement for the resident that started in 2020. In its evidence the landlord noted that he “may well have held his tenancy longer than this” but that the records would be held by the managing agent who passed the property back to the landlord on the date the tenancy started. In his communication with the landlord, the resident said he had been living in the property since about 2001. The property is a one-bedroom flat with a communal garden.
The landlord believes the resident originally had a supported tenancy, but it had changed into a general needs tenancy by 2020. It told this Service that it had no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident; however, it said he had stated during its complaint investigation that he had autism and needed communication to be made in writing. In a recent witness statement to the court the landlord informed it that the resident had informed it that he had been diagnosed with various mental health issues, which include agoraphobia, depression, anxiety, PTSD, autism and a sleep disorder. To assist with his agoraphobia, he has an emotional support dog.
Until 2020 the resident had to report repairs to the managing agent, rather than the landlord. However, the landlord’s inspection of the property in 2019 suggests that it retained responsibility for repairs relating to ensure the structure and outside of the property are kept repaired including, among other things, outside walls, inside walls, floors and ceilings.
The landlord did not provide a copy of its repairs policy and/or procedure. Its website states the following:

Emergency repairs will be attended to within 4 hours and made safe within 24 hours. These are repairs which threaten health, safety or security or could cause significant damage to the property including flooding or total loss of electricity or water.

Non-urgent repairs will be attended to within 20 working days and arranged for the soonest available time slot convenient for the resident.

It may deal more urgently with some repairs for vulnerable residents.

The landlord did not provide any damp policies or procedures to the Ombudsman. Therefore, this Service has referred to best sector practice and this Service’s Spotlight Report on Damp and Mould (issued in October 2021 which encourages landlords to take a proactive approach to damp and mould) to determine the landlord’s repair obligations and timescales in regard to this issue.
The landlord also did not provide a copy of its decant policy. Its website states that residents may need to temporarily move out of their homes if they are having work carried out and moving out means that it can carry out the work faster and more effectively. It explains that a decant officer will get in touch with the resident to discuss their situation and the process. Then they will look at the most suitable temporary accommodation for the resident. It adds that the landlord will talk to the resident about the best option for them, before it does anything further. For stays that are longer than 14 days, the landlord may move the resident into another property belonging to it or a private let. It says it will offer the resident a property that matches their current home’s number of bedrooms and any adaptations required. It adds that it will try to find a suitable home in the borough the resident lives in, but unfortunately that was not always possible.
There is also a leaflet on the landlord’s website ‘Temporarily moving out of your home – what it means for you and how we can help’. This says, additionally, that the decant officer will give residents information about disturbance payments, if appropriate.
The landlord’s complaints and compensation policy statement in place from August 2019 said that the landlord has a two stage complaints procedure. Stage one (full investigation) was where it had not been able to achieve a swift service recovery resolution. Responses were from an investigating manager from the team providing the service to which the complaint related, and it aimed to respond within 20 working days. At stage two a more senior manager reviewed the case to determine if it warranted a review. If so, a head of service or director would respond within 20 working days from the escalation request.
The policy statement added that the landlord reserves the right to take a reasonable amount of additional time to investigate a complaint at each stage where the issues were complex. If it was unable to provide a full response within the target timescale it would advise the customer that additional time was required and ask how frequently they would like it to provide updates; if the target of 20 working days was reached without an update for the customer about the deadline, the complaint would be escalated to stage two of the procedure at that point.
The policy statement also said that the landlord might decline to investigate a complaint about a specific incident or service failure that occurred over 6 months prior to the complaint being made. However, it adds that discretion will be used, particularly if there was evidence of a long-standing or continuing problem.
Regarding compensation, the policy statement said that compensation payments may be paid at the discretion of service managers and senior managers. It may be offered where:
1. It has failed to deliver a service to the advertised standard.
2. In recognition of the time and trouble taken by the customer to make their complaint.
3. In recognition of distress and inconvenience experienced by the customer.
4. To reflect where a customer has suffered a loss because of a service failure by it.
On 23 March 2020 the UK government announced a national lockdown due to covid-19. This was eased from June 2020 when schools and non-essential retail outlets re-opened. The government introduced new restrictions from 22 September 2020 and a second full national lockdown was announced on 31 October 2020 that came into effect from 5 November 2020. While restrictions were lifted slightly over Christmas, there was a new national lockdown from 6 January 2021. While schools re-opened on 8 March 2021, the ‘stay at home’ order remained in place until 29 March 2021. On 19 July 2021 most legal limits on social contact were removed in England and the final closed sectors of the economy reopened.
In July 2020 the Ombudsman issued a new Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which set out good practice that allows landlords to respond to complaints effectively and fairly. This explained that a complaints policy should clearly set out the circumstances in which a matter will not be considered, and these circumstances should be fair and reasonable to residents. It gave as an example an issue that took place over six months previous to the complaint being made. It added, however, that where the problem was a recurring issue, the landlord should consider any older reports as part of the background to the complaint if this would help to resolve the matter for the resident. It added that it might not be appropriate to rely on this exclusion where complaints concern safeguarding or health and safety issues.
The Code also says that the stage two response should be within 20 working days from the request to escalate – if this is not possible an explanation and a date when the stage two response should be given. This should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
In May 2023 the Ombudsman issued a report ‘Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM)’. This identified numerous failings in landlords’ record keeping and made recommendations.

Summary of events

This Service understands that the resident started a disrepair claim in March 2019 and the landlord visited the property at that time to ascertain the condition of the property. In its recent witness statement to the court the landlord said that no access was given to the contractor by the resident at that time.
On 11 February 2021 the resident told the landlord that he could be decanted into a flat above his, which was empty. The landlord responded the next day explaining that its asset management team had taken immediate ownership of flats above once they had been vacated and refurbishment works were due to start. It added there was no possibility of him being temporarily rehoused into those flats. The landlord explained it had been working with its decants team to try and identify a suitable property; however, due to the pandemic and the demands it had placed on its service, it had been extremely difficult to achieve that. It added it was still awaiting a suitable property to decant him to that would accept pets. It said all works would start as soon as he was decanted.
On 15 February 2021 the resident thanked the landlord for confirming that it was refusing to let him move temporarily into the void flat upstairs; that no works would be done to the property until he was decanted; and that there was no deadline or timescale for the landlord to do that. He said that was enough to proceed with a formal complaint.
On 17 February 2021 a disrepair audit of the property was carried out by, the evidence suggests, an independent surveyor likely instigated by the resident’s solicitor. In relation to damp it noted the following:

Hallway – an ongoing leak on the internal wall possibly from the communal stairs; rising damp up to one metre in height on internal walls. Access could not be gained to the concrete flooring to see if that was contributing.

Kitchen – rising damp on the external walls by the rear entrance. Unsafe electrics – plug not accessible underneath the condenser dryer and a bowing ceiling from previous leak from the flat above; electrics were damaged.

Bathroom – bathroom had not been upgraded for over 20 years. Rising damp next to the sink/WC unit. Exposed copper piping which was allowing condensation to grow.

Living room – front bay window sashes were rotten, rising damp on external wall and lower chimney stack.

Bedroom – water penetration from external wall and the wall needed to be tanked.

On 9 April 2021, following contact from the resident, the Ombudsman contacted the landlord about his complaint and asked it to respond.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident acknowledging his complaint. It apologised for the time it had taken to respond explaining that it was working through a backlog of communication at that time and therefore its response times were longer than it would like them to be. It explained that a survey had been carried out (this Service has not had sight of any earlier surveys) but it had not told the resident when the works would take place or if he would be decanted. It said it would look into the work needed to be done and the decant and respond to him by 29 April 2021.
The complaint was recorded by the landlord the following day. It noted that the resident had reported that a survey was carried out in 2020 by a building restoration specialist which had identified major works were required to the property; the resident had been waiting for the landlord to action the repairs as the damp was getting worse but had not heard anything. The resident said he wanted a decant and for the landlord to fix the rising damp problem.
On 28 April 2021 the landlord told the resident it would carry out a damp inspection on 5 May 2021. On the same day the resident replied asking the landlord to forward to its surveyor its own survey report from December 2019 and the external rising damp specialist’s follow-up report from January 2020; he also enclosed an independent damp survey from February 2021. (We have not had sight of the reports from 2019 and 2020 nor was the landlord able to provide copies of them).
On 29 April 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident at stage one of its formal complaints procedure following his contact with this Service. The main points were:
1. It apologised for the late response which it said was due to a backlog.
2. It explained that its surveyor had an appointment on 2 March 2021 that the resident did not keep. The resident had agreed to another visit on 5 May 2021. It would consider the works required once the outcome of that visit was known.
3. It said it could not decant the resident to the flat above his, which was for sale. It explained that it had to follow an agreed process for every decant and while it understood this would be a solution, it was not possible to move him upstairs. It apologised that it could not provide the resident with what he had requested. It said it would discuss a decant with him further if this was required.
4. The landlord explained how the resident could escalate his complaint.
On 4 May 2021 the resident asked the landlord to escalate his complaint citing his unhappiness, among other things, with the landlord’s explanation of why it could not decant him to the empty flat above his.
On 7 May 2021 the landlord told the contractor that it should carry out a damp survey to the front lounge, kitchen, bathroom and bedroom at the property as soon as possible.
On 26 July the repairs log noted that a damp survey should be carried out ‘urgently’; on 1 June and 29 July 2021 the contractor wrote to the resident asking him to contact them to arrange a damp survey.
On 28 September 2021 the landlord spoke to the resident about the escalation of his complaint. There was a long note of this call; the main points were:
1. The complaint was about the rising/penetrating damp that the resident said had been in the property since he moved in 20 years ago. The damp rises as high as his chest on/in the affected walls.
2. He said he had been told that all walls/floors need to be removed and that no one could remain living there when the works were completed.
3. The legal disrepair claim had been withdrawn on 14 May 2021 and the resident was opting to resolve matters through the complaints process.
4. The resident wanted an independent survey of the works required to the property.
5. He added he had an assistance dog and a cat, along with lots of personal possessions, all of which the landlord would need to take into account if it was to decant him to carry out any works.
On the same day the landlord acknowledged the escalation request. It said that it would provide a response by 26 October 2021. It said, if it needed more time, it would contact him with an updated response date.
There were several internal discussions about this case. On 4 October 2021 the landlord acknowledged the second damp report had not been done; it noted a disturbance payment would be made if the resident stayed with his mother. At this time the landlord also noted that the resident had been agency supported but had since told it that he could manage the tenancy himself and no longer needed that support.
On 26 October 2021 the landlord had told the resident it needed to extend the resolution date to 23 November 2021. In that email, it told the resident that it would need to decant him and the two options were: to move in with his mother; or stay in a hotel (it acknowledged that his cat might not be able to stay with him, although his dog would). It added “unfortunately, decanting you into a similar property to the one you currently occupy does not appear to be an option here” and that included the flat directly above him that he had mentioned previously. The landlord acknowledged that this was going to be “a really distressing and inconvenient process for you, and we want to do all we can to support you”.
On 29 October 2021 the landlord noted that a hotel decant was out of the question due to the resident’s pets and suggested that he stay with his mother for a while and his possessions could be put in storage.
On 2 November 2021 the landlord noted that decants were on standby and awaiting its instruction, but it needed a clear plan of action with all timescales and logistics taken into account before it could proceed.
On 11 November 2021 the resident told the landlord that, before making his complaint, it had told him in writing that the works needed to the property were so extensive that he would have to be decanted and there was no limit of timescale it could commit to for finding a decant property. He said that at stage one the landlord had chosen to “reset the clock, all previous reports were somehow lost” and a second survey was arranged. The resident also confirmed that he was autistic and “just talking to people is quite difficult for me”. He also explained that he had an assistance dog.
On the same day the resident’s single point of contact replied by email. In it he said it was clear that a decant for him, his pets and some of his personal items would be required. He also said that “I have escalated this matter right to the top, as I’m not currently receiving the support I need in order to be able to support you …”
On 16 November 2021 the landlord told the resident it needed additional time to provide its final complaint response and would aim to respond by 21 December 2021.
On the same day the complaints team member sent an internal email chasing an update and saying “… I’m not getting the support I need on this one … I’m really concerned about the risk of us mismanaging this one.”
On 30 November 2021 the landlord noted that the resident had dismissed the idea of staying with his mother during the period in which the works would take place.
In a meeting on 1 December 2021 the landlord agreed to start again and have new damp and asbestos reports and scope the works required. It also referred to the “blockages” by the resident in relation to the decant such as not wanting to leave his cat and dog and refusing to live with his mother.
On the same day, in response to an enquiry from the landlord the same day, the contractor told the landlord that it had sent two appointment letters to the resident but had not had a response. It said it had cancelled the works order in August 2021 due to no access.
On 8 December 2021 the contractor noted an appointment for 20 December 2021. It later recorded this as a “no-show” by the resident.
On 15 December 2021 an asbestos refurbishment survey was carried out for the kitchen at the property. This identified bitumen in the kitchen flooring and recommended that its condition should be monitored. It noted this as being “very low risk”.
On 20 December 2021 the contractor wrote to the resident asking him to contact them to arrange a damp inspection.
On 21 December 2021 the landlord wrote to the resident extending the deadline for its final complaint response to 18 February 2022. It explained that it was getting all of the information it needed to give him a proper response, as well as confirming the actions it would take to resolve matters which was taking longer than it expected.
On 5 January 2022 the resident told the landlord that the sale of the flat above him had fallen through and that was a potential decant property.
On 7 January 2022 the landlord noted that the appointment did not take place as planned on 20 December and wrote to the resident. It said it understood his “feelings of both frustration and disappointment that this issue has been ongoing for so long, it’s really important that you work with us now to help us put things right, however in order to do that, we are going to need you to be able to honour all appointments that we agree and book in with you”. It stressed the need to arrange a new appointment.
On 10 January 2022 the landlord noted in an internal email, following contact from this Service, that the issue was rising damp impacting the basement flat and the resident would need to be decanted. It noted further that the contractor was not the problem here, it had “let this drag for too long and not been firm enough with the tenant and have allowed him to put blockers up to prevent progress – have had issues with no access recently for a contractor to inspect rising damp, but have inspected many times in the past so not a valid excuse for lack of progress …”.
On 12 January 2022 the landlord spoke to the resident. The note of the call said that it had sent him two possible dates to inspect the property, but the resident wanted an assurance that he would get a copy of the inspection reports as soon as they were completed and would not commit to a date that day but would contact it the following day. The landlord also told the resident by email that day that it would not undertake to decant him until the extent of the work required was known.
On the same day a senior manager at the landlord considered the case. He concluded that the position was clear – the case should be managed as a complaint; it should follow the good practice of a disrepair claim; urgently resolve a decant (temporary or permanent but the focus should be on urgent); and get the work done. He noted that the landlord should not get caught by the permanent or temporary decant – it should be about accepting a suitable property; the choice to move back or stay was a secondary decision.
On the same day the landlord had a meeting about the property. It noted, among other things the following:
1. It was trying to arrange a new date for an inspection and gave details of the works it expected would be required – external repairs to the damp proof course, internal remedials, redecoration, drain to be installed in the ground works outside and kitchen ceiling to be reinstated.
2. It stressed the importance of “getting this right now and that this had been allowed to go on for too long”.
3. It subsequently offered two appointment dates for an inspection to the resident.
4. It also noted that it could authorise a temporary decant to the flat above the property if it agreed that was the most appropriate solution.
On 13 January 2022 the landlord told the resident that an inspection of the property would take place on 21 January 2022.
On 14 January 2022 the local authority told the landlord that they had visited the property noted the following matters of concern:
1. There were extensive areas of dampness within the flat. These are caused variably by penetrating dampness due to high ground levels and rising dampness possibly as a result of an ineffective damp proof course.
2. There were defects evident to the electrical installation partly associated with the dampness and condition of plaster. One socket in the front living room has a defective switch. I have been informed that an electrician was not able to provide a satisfactory electrical installation report.
3. There was reported asbestos in the bathroom and kitchen flooring as confirmed in a report they had seen. Whilst this might be relatively low risk whist in situ it needed to be taken into account when planning works.
4. It asked for the landlord’s comments and proposals on these matters.
On the same day the local authority told the landlord that notices had been served in respect of the property and were under consideration.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord wrote to the resident, among other things, explaining that it hoped to give him a full complaint response by 15 February 2022.
On 20 January 2022 the resident told the landlord the appointment booked for the following day was not suitable.
On the same day it responded to the local authority; it gave details of the next steps it would take. The main points were:
1. “There is a clear issue with rising damp impacting the condition of [the property], along with electrical and asbestos concerns internally. These are all repairs that we are fully aware of, and are committed to putting right”. The landlord explained it needed to revisit the property in order to obtain a current understanding of this problem to ensure that it could take the most appropriate action to tackle it.
2. It had recently experienced difficulties on more than one occasion in terms of communicating with the resident and accessing the property, which has delayed its progress.
3. It had also found it difficult to agree a satisfactory decant location. The resident had and continued to express his desire to be decanted into one of its void properties within the same block that was currently in the process of being sold. It confirmed that, despite its intentions to sell this property, it had not disregarded this suggestion and it was being considered alongside other possible solutions.
On the same day the resident told the landlord he could not make the appointment arranged for 21 January 2022. In response the landlord asked him for three suitable dates.
On 25 January 2022 the landlord had a meeting about this case and noted that the offer of a decant would likely involve agreement on using the flat above the property on a temporary basis. However, it would not mention this to the resident until the logistics on that had been ironed out.
On 26 January 2022 the contractor told the landlord that an appointment had been made at the property for 8 February 2022.
On 4 February 2022 the resident chased a response to his complaint. He said the landlord had not made him a single offer of a decant while he continued to live in a property with penetrating damp.
On 8 February 2022 an inspection of the property took place. The contractor wrote to the landlord with the outcome of the survey on 17 February 2002. Their conclusions included that the readings obtained indicated that the walls were suffering from rising damp due to lack of an effective damp proof course; uncapped chimney pots were allowing moisture ingress via the flue; high ground levels were allowing lateral moisture penetration. They said that a more balanced regime of heating and ventilation was required within the property in conjunction with thermal board insulation and the upgrade of the existing extractor fans to assist in the control of condensation and mould growth. The contractor set out the work required.
Meanwhile also on 8 February 2021, the resident had given the landlord his minimum requirements for a decant which included a full-size bath for medical reasons; direct access to an enclosed semi-private back garden for his assistance dog; and that it should be a similar size to his current property. He also suggested the locality which he said would be the least disruptive as he had a support network there.
In a meeting on 9 February 2022 the landlord noted the following, among other things:
1. The resident was now willing to consider other areas to decant to besides the same block and Lewisham.
2. The reason for the dampness was bridging of the damp proof course on the flank wall.
3. It would support the resident with removal of items and allow him to choose which items he took with him to the decant property.
4. It should sign off and issue the stage two complaint response.
On 15 February 2022 the landlord issued its final complaint response to the resident. It partially upheld the complaint. It gave details of what had happened since the stage one response had been sent out. The main points were:
1. It said it was sorry if there was any confusion or misunderstanding in those early conversations about the saturation levels in the property. It said that it had been aware of this issue for some time and, regardless of the level of saturation, there was damp affecting the property that it intended to resolve.
2. It gave details of next steps including the need to decant the resident while works were completed.
3. It acknowledged that it did not progress with the required repairs to the property as soon as it should have. It noted that, at times, it had found it difficult to communicate with the resident to arrange access, which had stopped it moving things forward.
4. It acknowledged that it had failed to follow its internal complaints process in order to successfully find a solution to the problems that the resident had been experiencing until then.
5. It apologised for the delay in reaching that point and for the difficulties this experience has caused the resident.
6. It promised to replace the kitchen and bathroom in the property.
7. It acknowledged that it should have shown more commitment to finding a suitable solution for the issue with the decant and it apologised for the impact this had had. The landlord stressed this process required cooperation from all parties and it had consistently struggled to negotiate a decant process that met with his satisfaction. It added the resident had regularly responded to this specific element of the process to explain that he wished to be moved into one of the void properties within his block and it had had to reinforce its position on this each time, that this was not an option.
8. It awarded compensation of £750 which it said was to make up for what had happened. It added it would replace the resident’s bed as a gesture of goodwill.
The landlord signposted the resident to the Ombudsman.
In an internal email dated 14 February 2022 the compensation payment of £750 was broken down as follows: £50 for the delay in acknowledgement of the complaint at stages one and two; £100 for patience throughout the complaints process; £50 for time and trouble; £50 for the poor communications; £250 for the delays experienced and £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused.
On 16 February 2022 the landlord responded to the resident who was unhappy that it had called him when it had sent out its complaint response. He explained that he had autism and an assistance dog, and the Department for Work and Pensions classified him as “severely disabled;” he said the local authority regarded him as a vulnerable adult. It told him that as of that date, his profile on its system did not list his disabilities or any communication preferences and that it would update that information.
On 23 February 2022 the landlord sent the resident the plan of the work to be done on the property following the inspection on 8 February 2022. It explained that the contractor would not undertake any work within the property without a valid asbestos survey along and that all asbestos would be removed prior to the work starting.
In a meeting on 24 February 2022 the landlord noted that it had identified two decant properties in Lewisham and Deptford and offered him two properties the following day. On 3 March 2022 the resident gave the landlord a list of issues with the decant property before he could accept it. These related, among other things, to the removal of office furniture in the decant property, giving him permission to put up shelves and install a cat flap and details of disturbance payments. On 5 May 2022 the landlord told the resident the decant property was ready for occupation and confirmed all the requested repairs had been completed. It asked the resident to confirm that he would accept this offer of temporary accommodation. It warned that, if he did not do so, it would be left with no alternative but to issue legal proceedings by way of an application for an injunction compelling him to facilitate the necessary maintenance works in the property.
In May 2023 the landlord gave this Service an update. It explained that it had applied for an access injunction, a term of which was that the resident needed to move out of the property as the works could not be done with him in occupation. It said the resident had rejected “about five offers from us of both temporary and permanent moves as he wants a larger property”. It added he had previously been offered moves by tenancy management, which he had also rejected and that the properties offered were all suitable for his pets. The landlord said that the hearing was scheduled for 9 August 2023. It added that it was keeping a property in Peterborough on hold for the resident.
In its recent witness statement to the court, the landlord confirmed it had been aware of the condition of the property since 2019 when it was brought to its attention by the managing agent.
In February 2022, after the resident had approached the Ombudsman, he said the landlord had kept him in a property with rising and penetrating damp and asbestos among other problems for 21 years while he had paid his rent in full. He said its offer of £750 in compensation was “deeply insulting”. He added that, after the landlord recognised the rising damp problem and agreed to decant him, it had not offered any decant options.

Assessment and findings

Scope

The landlord told this Service that it has been working with the resident in persuading him to move from the property to allow the works to be carried out since 2019. This ties in with the resident’s view that the landlord had been aware of rising damp and asbestos in the property since January 2019. The report will therefore focus on events since that time up to the date of the final report. It is clear that there have been developments since that time, including legal action by the landlord; however, these events are not within our remit as they have not been through the landlord’s formal complaints procedure.
This Service has used its discretion to look at events since 2019. This is because of the related health and safety and safeguarding issues relating to the complaint. This Service considers that the landlord should also have used its discretion to look at older events when the complaint was brought to it; more detail is given in the assessment of its complaint handling, below.

Record keeping

When the Ombudsman requested evidence from the landlord, it provided information back to 2020 (apart from the repair log which included repairs back to 2009). It was clear from the evidence that earlier surveys and more information inspections had been undertaken but details of these were not provided. It was also noted that the landlord could not identify a tenancy start date for the resident or provide the original tenancy agreement.
The Ombudsman’s call for evidence for our Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management report highlighted that data was being lost or made inaccessible when contracts with managing agents are ended. The evidence suggests that this was likely the case here when the tenancy moved back to the landlord in 2000 from the managing agent.
The landlord noted that the resident moved from a supported tenancy to a general needs tenancy at that time. Given the apparent lack of records handed over from the managing agent to the landlord, it would have been good practice for it to have asked the resident about any ongoing vulnerabilities and communication needs. The evidence demonstrates the landlord did not do so and it only became aware of the extent of the resident’s vulnerabilities much later in the process. This potentially had an effect on the actions taken by the landlord who would have then had to consider its obligations under the Equality Act 2010 to consider a variation of its services due to the resident’s mental health impairments.
The landlord’s record keeping in this case was not appropriate. An order has been made below for the landlord to read the Ombudsman’s recent Spotlight report, review the recommendations within it and confirm any action it plans to take with regard to its knowledge and information management.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated decant

The landlord stated that it has been trying to arrange a decant from 2019; it therefore follows that it was aware of the extent of the repairs required by that time from surveys carried out at that time (which have been referred to in the evidence but copies of which were not provided to this Service).
The landlord has provided no evidence of any action taken in relation to any repairs relating to the damp in the property from 2019 to 2021, including its repair log. Its recent witness statement said that the resident would not provide access to its contractors during this period; the evidence also suggests that the landlord was also not aware of his vulnerabilities at that time. Despite its obligations under the tenancy agreement to keep the property is a good state of repair, the landlord did not take action during that time. This Service has not seen evidence of the resident not giving access at that time; however, there were options available to the landlord to take enforcement action through the court which, if ordered, would allow it access the property to carry out repairs. There is no evidence of such legal action until very recently. The lack of robust action by the landlord during that period is a failing.
The evidence demonstrates that, even before the second damp survey of February 2022, the landlord was aware of the rising damp as it referred to it in internal emails. It was not therefore reasonable or fair that it insisted on a second survey before decanting the resident.
The landlord’s first attempt to survey the property did not go ahead; the evidence does not explain why that was but could have been due to the reluctance of the resident at that time who was insisting, not unreasonably, that the landlord use the reports it already had. In the summer of 2021, the contractor asked the resident to contact it to arrange a survey; when he did not do so, it closed the works order. There is no evidence that the contractor told the landlord about that, and it was not aware of it until December 2021 some six months later. This shows poor oversight of the case and the contractor; as well as poor communication between those two parties.
A survey was arranged for December 2021 which the contractor marked as a ‘no show’ and for January 2022 which the resident cancelled as it was not convenient and another arranged for February 2022, which went ahead. In its complaint handling, the landlord acknowledged that it did not progress the required repairs to the property as soon as it should have. It noted that, at times, it had found it difficult to communicate with the resident to arrange access, which had stopped it moving things forward. However, it is noted some delays (summer of 2021 to December 2021) were as a result of the landlord’s failure to act. Further, the landlord itself acknowledged in an internal email of January 2022 that the lack of a survey was “not a valid excuse for the lack of progress”. It was not reasonable for the landlord to blame the resident for its delays in taking repair action or taking legal action to gain access to carry out the required work. The landlord should have been aware of the resident’s disabilities and taken steps to vary its services accordingly.
In summary the landlord’s handling of the repairs relating to damp were not appropriate. Its action once it became aware of the damp were not timely or reflect the urgency of the issue; it did not act on earlier accepted survey recommendations from 2019 in a timely manner nor did it take into account the resident’s vulnerabilities.
Turning to the decant, the evidence demonstrates that the landlord had conflicting views about whether one was required or not. Having acknowledged the need for a decant in the period up to February 2021, by April 2021 the landlord had changed its view and said the work needed would have to be established before it could be decided if a decant was required. By October 2021 the landlord – without a second survey – had decided that a decant was again needed. This caused evident frustration to the resident.
It was reasonable for the landlord to refuse to decant the resident to the vacant property above him in February 2021 given it was undergoing work and was then put up for sale. This Service also acknowledges that the restrictions imposed by the pandemic would likely have had an effect on its ability to secure a decant for the resident as quickly as it might otherwise have done so.
In its complaint handling the landlord said it had consistently struggled to negotiate a decant process that met with the resident’s satisfaction. However, the evidence shows that there was limited decant action taken by the landlord. In October 2021 the landlord put forward the options of a stay with his mother or a hotel. The resident quickly discounted staying with his mother and the landlord discounted a hotel due to the resident’s pets.
While it was not unreasonable for the landlord to suggest those options, when it was clear that they were not feasible, the landlord should have considered offering another property belonging to it or a private let in line with its decant procedures. There is no evidence that the landlord offered the resident any other decant option until after the final complaint response in February 2022.
In its complaint handling the landlord acknowledged that it should have “shown more commitment” to finding a suitable solution for the issue with the decant and it apologised for the impact this had had. The landlord also said that it “consistently struggled” to negotiate a decant process that met with the resident’s satisfaction and that it had to reinforce its position that moving into the empty flat above him was “not an option”.
However, that statement was not a true reflection of the situation. In January 2022 – both internally and in correspondence with the local authority (who were taking enforcement action against the landlord in respect of the property) – the landlord put forward its view that the empty property suggested initially by the resident could be a viable option. However, this information was not shared with the resident nor was it taken forward as an option. The reasons for that are not clear from the evidence provided to this Service.
The evidence does not demonstrate that the landlord gave adequate attention to the resident’s vulnerabilities which it was aware of by November 2021 at the latest. There is no evidence of communication with the resident about his needs and how it could accommodate them particularly given its obligations in the Equality Act 2010 to consider variation of its services. The decant procedures note that it will offer the resident a property with any required adaptations. The resident stated he required a full-size bath and the landlord noted that it had been unable to provide him with a property with one. In its recent witness statement to the court, the landlord referred to the full-size bath noting that it had no details of any physical disabilities recorded for the resident which it would need to cater for during the decant. There is no evidence of any conversation between the landlord and the resident about any such requirements; there is also evidence that the landlord had previously accepted that he required such a sized bath for “medical reasons”.
The Ombudsman notes the landlord again blamed the resident for “blockages” which had caused delays. The evidence we considered did not identify such blockages by the resident. It was within his gift to refuse to stay with his mother. By Spring 2021 the resident appeared to have accepted the landlord’s reasons why he could not move into the upstairs flat and only brought this issue up again once its sale had fallen through in December 2021. The landlord’s handling of the repairs as well as the decant were not appropriate for the reasons given above.
In relation to the failures identified, the Ombudsman’s role is to consider whether the redress offered by the landlord put things right and resolved the resident’s complaint satisfactorily in the circumstances. In considering this the Ombudsman takes into account whether the landlord’s offer of redress was in line with the Ombudsman’s Dispute Resolution Principles: Be Fair, Put Things Right and Learn from Outcomes as well as our own guidance on remedies.
The landlord offered the resident the sum of £750 for its repair and decant failures. This sum does not adequately reflect the impact on the resident who remained living in a property with rising damp for over two years after the landlord agreed to decant him. The delay in taking action to decant the resident so that repairs could take place has evidently caused distress, inconvenience and frustration to the resident.
The Ombudsman recognises that some of our residents’ circumstances mean that they are more affected by landlords’ actions or inactions than others. This might be due to their particular circumstances, or as a result of a vulnerability. Consideration of any aggravating factors (such as a resident’s mental health condition) could justify an increased award to reflect the specific impact on the resident.
Rent-related financial compensation is appropriate in this case. This has been calculated for a period of 123 weeks from September 2019 which would have given the landlord six months to have arranged an appropriate decant for the resident (the evidence suggests that it was not feasible to do these repairs with the resident living at the property). The period of compensation goes up to the date of the final complaint response in February 2022. The amount payable is:

25% of rent for 123 weeks at an approximate average of £115 a week – £3,536.

Compensation is also payable for the distress, frustration and inconvenience caused to the resident over these 123 weeks. The sum ordered of £1,845 takes into account the resident’s vulnerabilities as well as recognising that the landlord is likely to have experienced difficulties identifying a suitable decant during the pandemic lockdowns. These amounts are in addition to the sum of £750 offered by the landlord which remains payable to reflect the time and trouble he experienced in pursuing the repairs and the decant.

Complaint handling.

The landlord’s complaint handling was not appropriate. It did not use its discretion to look back at more past events that had led to the complaint which its policy statement allowed where there was evidence – as in this case – of a long-standing or continuing problem.
There were also significant delays in responding at both stages – a delay of over six weeks at stage one and of 37 weeks at stage two. At stage one it required an intervention by this Service for the landlord to acknowledge the complaint. At stage two the landlord kept the resident informed of its delays explaining that it required full information before it gave a ‘proper response’. However, delaying such responses is not in compliance with the Code which says that this response should not exceed a further ten working days without good reason.
It took exactly one year from the resident making the complaint to the final response. The time taken to issue the stage two response extended the overall timeframe of the complaints procedure and effectively hindered the resident escalating his complaint to this Service for investigation for a significant amount of time. It is also not clear that there was a benefit to this as these responses did not change the landlord’s position nor resolve the resident’s complaint. Delaying the final response also meant that the landlord missed an opportunity to improve the landlord/resident relationship. These significant delays have been assessed as severe maladministration.
While the landlord apologised for these delays it did not recognise the impact of them on the resident. Financial compensation of £750 is therefore appropriate here for the evident frustration these delays caused the resident and the time and trouble he experienced.
The evidence provided to the Ombudsman demonstrated that its complaints staff did not feel supported in their efforts to resolve this complaint and were concerned that the case could be ‘mismanaged’. This – along with the delays in its complaints handling – does not suggest a positive complaint handling culture within the landlord. An order has been made, below, for the landlord to undertake a review of its complaint handling in particular to establish what support is available to staff and how this could be improved. Further, it should identify a senior member of staff who complaints staff can approach direct when they believe a complaint is at risk of being mismanaged.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its:
1. Handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould in the property and the associated decant.
2. Complaint handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its record keeping.

Reasons

There was a failure to transfer adequate information from the managing agent to the landlord when the contract ended in 2000. This led to a lack of knowledge by the landlord in respect of the tenancy start date and length as well as the resident’s vulnerabilities.
There was significant delay by the landlord in taking robust action with regard to the required repairs and the decant. Its decision to obtain further surveys when it was aware of the penetrative damp was not reasonable. It also sought to blame the resident for the lack of progress.
There were also significant delays in the landlord’s complaint handling; it took one year for the landlord to provide a final response after the complaint was made. There was evidence of a poor complaints culture where staff felt unsupported.

Orders

The landlord should take the following action within four weeks of the date of this report and provide evidence of compliance with these orders to the Ombudsman:
1. The landlord’s Chief Executive to apologise in writing to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. A senior manager to take ownership of this case to urgently consider if an appropriate decant can be found for the resident.
3. Pay the resident the sum of £6,881 made up of:
  1. £3,536 for the rent related compensation.
  2. £1,845 for the impact on the resident of the delay in decanting the resident so that repairs could be carried out.
  3. The £750 previously offered for time and trouble.
  4. £750 for the impact of the complaint handling failures.
4. This sum should be paid direct to the resident and not off-set against any rent arrears in line with the Ombudsman’s guidance on redress.
5. Ensure that the resident’s vulnerabilities are updated on its systems.
6. Undertake a review of its complaint handling in particular to establish what support is available to staff and how this could be improved. Further, it should identify a senior member of staff who complaints staff can approach direct when they believe a complaint is at risk of being mismanaged.
7. Repeat its self-assessment in line with the Code and report the outcome to the governing body.

Recommendations

It is recommended that the landlord takes the following action:
1. Carry out works to remedy the electrical issues identified in the local authority’s report of January 2022 and obtain a satisfactory electrical installation report for the property (if this action has not been undertaken to date).
2. Considers whether it requires an overall framework, or policy, to address damp and mould.
3. Consider introducing a decant policy/procedure (if one is not in place already).