Hyde Housing Association Limited (202126531)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126531

Hyde Housing Association Limited

27 February 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 concerns the landlord’s handling of:
1. The resident’s reporting of damp and mould in the property.
2. Repairs to the front gate, the shrub acting as a divider to the neighbouring property and to the cracks in the ceiling and to the walls of the property.
3. The resident’s requests for a transfer due to overcrowding.
This report has also considered:
1. The landlord’s complaints handling.
2. The landlord’s record keeping.

Background and summary of events

Background

The resident has an assured tenancy which commenced on 7 April 2014 following a mutual exchange. The property is a first floor flat.
The landlord has stated it has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident. The resident has during the course of her communication with the landlord provided it with evidence that she has an ongoing lung condition and that one of the children living at the property has developed severe eczema which she says is as a result of the damp and mould.
The landlord’s complaints policy comprises two stages although it states it will “always try to put things right within 48 hours” of when a resident first contacted it with an expression of dissatisfaction. It adds this initial part is not part of the landlord’s formal complaints process.
Stage 1 of the complaints process involves a full investigation. The landlord states that the response will be from “an investigating manager from the team providing the service to which the complaint relates”. The landlord aims to respond to the complaint as soon as possible and no later than 20 working days. If the resident remains dissatisfied with the stage 1 response a manager will review the case to determine if it will be reviewed at stage 2 of the complaints process.
Stage 2 of the landlord’s complaints process is when the complaint and the stage 1 response is reviewed by a head of service or a director. The landlord aims to respond no later than 20 working days from the complaint escalation from stage 1.
The responsive repairs policy sets out that the landlord will assign one of three priorities to repairs. These are either an emergency repair, anytime repair or major repair. In relation to anytime repair the response time is noted to be “20 working days” and the policy sets out that “if a pre-inspection with a surveyor is needed this will be arranged at this time”.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out a number of circumstances in which financial compensation may be appropriate. This includes:
1. The landlord or its contractors have not taken the appropriate action or, if they did take the appropriate action it was delayed and this had an adverse effect on the resident.
2. The resident has suffered stress and anxiety.
The landlord’s compensation policy also sets out that factors in deciding the level of compensation include:
1. Distress and inconvenience which factors in:
  1. The severity of the distress.
  2. The length of time taken.
  3. The number of people affected (for example if it extended to the resident’s family in addition to the resident).
2. Time and trouble the resident has taken in pursuing the complaint.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out that in relation to service failures “staff are able to offer up to £25 to acknowledge service failures and/or resolve informal complaints at an early stage”.
In relation to discretionary compensation, the policy sets out that the amount payable for delay and distress was dependent on the degree of impact. The value of compensation for delay and also for distress ranged from up to £100 for low impact up to £500 for major impact. The compensation payment for time and trouble was up to a maximum of £50.

Summary of Events

The resident completed an online complaint form for the landlord on 30 July 2020. The resident explained that her complaint concerned “work on a communal fence, gate, my stairway ceiling which has now mould and mushrooms”. She also complained about mould in the bathroom. The resident stated a surveyor had looked at the issues on 20 July 2020 however she added that there was no update from either the landlord or its contractor on progress on the jobs.
The landlord’s repairs log from 3 August 2020 shows that a job was created to “hack off defective plaster”.
The landlord’s operative informed the landlord on 4 August 2020 that repairs to the bathroom and hallway/stairway were due to be carried out on 20 August 2020. The note from the operative said that the landlord’s surveyor would be raising an order “to cut back bushes and shrubs from the boundary, and to remove any roots so that the fence can be repaired”.
The landlord acknowledged the resident’s complaint about a lack of communication for the work proposed on 4 August 2020. Its letter explained that it would give its full response by 28 August 2020.
The landlord also sent an email to its surveyor on 4 August 2020 asking about his involvement in the matter since the beginning of that year including when he had attended and what works had been raised.
The landlord sent the resident an update on 11 August 2020. It explained that due to a period of annual leave it would not be in a position to reply by 28 August 2020. It stated it would reply by 10 September 2020.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 August 2020. She explained that the landlord took a long time to complete repairs and that its communication was poor. She added that she had spent considerable time on the phone trying to sort out the issues. The resident included correspondence with the landlord over previous repairs she had raised with it back in 2018.
The landlord’s internal communication from 1 September 2020, noted that the resident had contacted it during the time the complaints handler had been on annual leave. It asked for a response from its contractor to the resident’s email of 20 August 2020. It also asked the surveyor for an update as he had informed it on 13 August 2020 that a works order would be raised to the “grounds contractor to cut back bushes/ shrubs from the boundary, removing any roots so as fence can be erected”.
The landlord’s contractor informed it on 3 September 2020 that works for painting and also for a light fitting had been booked and agreed with the resident on 15 September 2020. It added that plastering works had been completed on 27 August 2020. Whilst it noted that the resident had been expecting the painting to be done at this time, it had explained that the plaster needed to dry before the painting could be done. The contractor added there was no other outstanding works.
The landlord’s internal communication recorded on 7 September 2020 that it had chased the surveyor again on the works to the shrubs and bushes and the fence.
The resident emailed the landlord on 8 September 2020. She acknowledged the works on the ceiling had been scheduled for the following week. She enquired about the work on the bathroom and the outside fence and gate as she had not heard back from the landlord’s contractor or sub-contractor.
The landlord’s internal communications on 9 and 10 September 2020 showed it had emailed its surveyor to ask him to call the grounds contractor. The email communication noted that there had been an issue with the ground contractor receiving forms and so the landlord asked the surveyor to call it regarding the work needing to be carried out. The landlord also enquired as to what work had been raised on the bathroom. The surveyor replied to say he had sent the grounds contractor the form on multiple occasions. He added in terms of the bathroom that this needed mould removing. On 10 September 2020 the surveyor informed the landlord that it would send a chaser email to the contractor on that day.
On 16 September 2020 the landlord confirmed internally that it had contacted the contractor that day and was “hoping for an attendance date tomorrow”.
The landlord exchanged emails with the surveyor on 17 September 2020. It asked if he had spoken to the grounds contractor about attending and clearing the area to allow work to commence on the fence/gate. In addition, it had asked whether the surveyor could make arrangements for the bathroom works raised by the resident to be completed. The surveyor explained the contractor had not received emails sent the previous month and it was working on a way to send the form out setting out the work required by another means.
The landlord’s repair logs show on 21 September 2020 a job was raised to replace the silicone sealant around the bath and for it to then be re-sealed. The repair log also mentioned the mould which was noted to have been completed by 19 October 2020.
The landlord issued the stage 1 response on 24 September 2020. It explained:
1. Most of the internal work had been completed, with the remaining bathroom issues being scheduled for 1 October 2020.
2. Its surveyor was arranging the fence area to be cleared so that the contactor could return to complete the repairs to the fence and gate. It added the surveyor would oversee the remaining jobs.
3. It should have done the repairs more quickly and it made an offer of £75 compensation. This was made up of £50 for the delays in the repairs and £25 for the inconvenience.
The landlord’s repair logs show that on 25 November 2020 a job was created to fit the gate following the fence replacement. The was completed on 26 November 2020.
There is a gap in the landlord’s records up to 23 August 2021 when it raised a number of works. This included the following:
1. To hack off defective plaster in the bedroom below the window, as well as carrying out a mould wash.
2. To replace the boundary fence on the right of the front garden, dividing the property from the neighboring one with fence panels, as well as raking out and repointing the corner of the front external wall below the bedroom windows.
The resident emailed the landlord on 5 November 2021. She explained that the landlord had “completely neglected” jobs both before and after the COVID-19 pandemic up to the present time. She added she had been offered money previously, however this was insufficient and did not even cover the cost of calls she had made to the landlord. She asked the amount offered to be reviewed as some of the jobs had yet to be resolved. In terms of the outstanding jobs, she set these out as:
1. There was mould in three rooms including the bathroom. The resident added that this had affected her child who has eczema, and she also enclosed a letter from her lung specialist which explained the issue was not suitable for her medical condition. She added that a surveyor had inspected the property over 12 months earlier and nothing had been done despite a number of calls and emails and “false promises” from the landlord. She wanted the mould looked at properly rather than the landlord to simply clean and cover it with paint, as it needed assessing since it was a serious problem.
2. The front garden gate had fallen due to the high winds.
3. A shrub being replaced by an external company. This had divided the property from a neighboring one and had left an open space. Whilst the landlord had stated it was looking to place a divider back, nothing had been done.
4. Cracks around the property on the roof as well as on the walls.
The landlord’s internal communication on 5 November 2021 noted the contents of the resident’s recent complaint as well as the previous complaint from 20 August 2020. It stated that not all of the work mentioned in the latest contact related to the previous complaint. However, it accepted that parts of it were linked. The landlord stated it had offered her £75 in resolution of the previous complaint. It proposed escalating the new complaint to stage 2 of its process at that time.
The resident sent the landlord a chaser email on 16 November 2021. She explained she had not heard back from her email of 5 November 2021, and that the matter was urgent and needed to be resolved.
The landlord contacted its surveyor on 16 November 2021. It recognised that there had been a lack of progress with carrying out the commitments which it had set out in the stage 1 response from September 2020. It asked the surveyor to contact the resident to progress the works. It also requested updates from relevant members of staff about a leak under the sink, which had been reported in December 2020 which did not appear to have been progressed. It also cited the resident’s reporting of damp and mould.
The landlord spoke to the resident on 18 November 2021 concerning the complaint. The resident mentioned during the call that the property was overcrowded, and she required another bedroom. The resident explained five people were living there and as a consequence the living room was also being utilized as a bedroom.
The landlord emailed the resident on 18 November 2021 to acknowledge the complaint and the telephone call with the resident. It stated it would aim to provide a response by 16 December 2021.
The surveyor emailed the landlord on 19 November 2021. He asked that relevant works were booked in and/or actioned. The surveyor also stated he would contact the resident to find out about the cracks around the property.
The resident emailed the landlord on 25 November 2021. She asked if a different surveyor could inspect the mould at the property, given the length of time taken for something to be done. She suggested a surveyor and asked the landlord if it was able to help with the costs. The resident added that mould was regularly occurring in the property.
The landlord emailed the resident on 30 November 2021. It explained that it may not be able to employ a specialist external company, however it would make enquiries about this.
The landlord’s surveyor sent an internal email on 15 December 2021. He explained that the shrub had been incorrectly removed and that following this he had instructed in August 2021 for a boundary wall to be installed. The surveyor added that the fence had been competed in November 2020, but that the job to hack off plaster had not been undertaken. He also explained that in terms of the mould in the three rooms, that “I only inspected the front bedroom I made reference to for plastering works below the window”.
The landlord sent an internal email on 21 December 2021 asking for dates for the work for the garden gate to be reinstated, job to hack off plaster in the bedroom and to address the mould in the property.
On the same day the landlord emailed the resident explaining that it had hoped to reply by that date, but it now needed to extend the response time to 18 January 2022.
The resident sent the landlord an email on 5 January 2022 enclosing pictures of the cracks in the ceiling which she explained were expanding. She also stated, “the mould is getting worse, and it is definitely having an effect on the health of some of the household members”. She added that the matter was urgent, and she had been waiting for two years for the work to be resolved.
The landlord emailed the resident on 6 January 2022 to explain it had spoken to its contractor who it understood had contacted her and was due to attend on that day. It added that after the visit it would raise the outstanding jobs which would be booked with the resident.
The landlord’s internal communication on 6 January 2022 confirmed that the work for the garden gate had been booked for 31 January 2022 and the work to hack off the plaster in the bedroom had been scheduled for 21 January 2022. The jobs to address the cracks in the ceiling and to address the mould had not been booked at that time. The landlord confirmed a week later that the job booked on 21 January 2022 would also include the mould wash.
The landlord issued the stage 2 response on 19 January 2022. It explained jobs for all of the required works had been booked in. The landlord awarded an additional £150 to the amount offered at stage 1 as it agreed it had not completed the repairs as quickly as it should have. It explained:
1. Following issuing the original stage 1 response in September 2020, it stated its contractor would now be in touch with regards to the remaining issues: this being the clearance of the garden and the repair of the gate and fence. It believed the other issues the resident had set out in her complaint had already been addressed.
2. The resident had contacted it in March 2021 to explain some issues had not been dealt with and that she had been told that she would receive two weeks rent free as compensation, due to the removal of the bush in the front garden. Whilst an informal complaint had been set up it had failed to progress it.
3. The resident had contacted the landlord again in November 2021 to chase up the matter. She had explained:
  1. There was a build up of mould within three rooms. This included areas which had previously had mould.
  2. The front garden gate had fallen due to high winds.
  3. An external company had removed the shrub dividing her property from her neighbour’s. This had left an opening which needed to be fixed.
  4. There were cracks in the roof as well as the walls which the resident was concerned about.
  5. The home was overcrowded, and the resident required another bedroom.
4. The area in which the shrub had been incorrectly removed had now been filled in on 17 November 2021. This was after the fencing had been installed.
5. The contractor had inspected the property on 6 January 2022 to assess the outstanding repairs which were required. It stated in terms of this:
  1. The job for the garden gate had been booked for 31 January 2022.
  2. The job to remove the defective plaster in the front bedroom had been booked for 21 January 2022. The appointment would also include mould treatment to the affected rooms in the property.
  3. No works had been identified with regards to the cracks to the roof following the inspection. It however added that this would be “discussed further so that any actions needed can therefore be taken”.
  4. That its surveyor would be overseeing the outstanding works and acting as the point of contact for the resident.
6. It accepted that as there were five people living there that there was overcrowding. It stated it did not operate its own transfer lists and it was therefore unable to consider a direct transfer. It instead referred the resident to register on the appropriate local authority scheme. It also provided links for the resident to consider a mutual exchange.
The landlord’s contractor completed the plastering works on 21 February 2022. It sent the landlord pictures showing the works had been carried out.
The landlord emailed the resident on 25 February 2022. It explained it had not heard back from the resident over its offer of compensation. It explained that should the resident wish to accept it she needed to return the form to it by 11 March 2022, otherwise the offer would be withdrawn.

Events after the end of the landlord’s initial complaints process.

The resident emailed the landlord on 21 October 2022. She explained that most of the jobs were still outstanding. She added that she had yet to receive the discount to her rent which had been promised by 2 different individuals, prior to the COVID-19 pandemic commencing. She added that the cracks were still there, and she was worried” that the ceiling might start to fall off”. The resident added whilst the surveyor overseeing the work had said that the jobs had been completed this was untrue.
The resident sent a chaser email to the landlord on 21 December 2022. She explained that she had not heard back following her email of 21 October 2022. She added that, despite the mould being cleaned, it was coming back.
The landlord’s repairs record show that a job for a repair was created on 21 December 2022. The job repair noted that mould treatment was needed for the bedroom and bathroom. The landlord also noted that it needed to install an airbrick under the window. An appointment was scheduled for the following day.
The landlord sent the resident an email on 22 December 2022 rescheduling the work for 3 January 2023 as it noted she had been unwell. It added in the email that it took “all reports of damp and mould very seriously along with safeguarding concerns to both you and your family”.
The resident emailed the landlord on 3 January 2023 to explain that the contractor had not attended at the agreed time, in the morning. She added she did not think the landlord took damp and mould or safeguarding seriously. The resident added she was on the local authority’s waiting list to get rehoused, however she was unable to speak to it about the matter.
The landlord emailed the resident on 3 January 2023. It explained it had attended to the property and that once it received the report from its operative it would “arrange any subsequent inspection or works needed”.
The landlord emailed the resident on 13 January 2023 concerning her complaint. It explained it had attempted to call her on 10 January 2023 and had left a voicemail on 12 January 2023. The landlord explained that it could not address the complaint until it knew more about it. It asked the resident to call it or email it. The landlord explained that if it did not receive a response within a week, it would close her complaint down.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 January 2023 to explain she felt exhausted in having to explain the matter again. The landlord replied on the same day apologising that the matter had been ongoing for some time. It explained that a surveyor would visit the property and following this it would contact her to arrange any necessary repairs.
The landlord’s internal communication from 26 January 2023 show that the property inspection was booked for 6 February 2023.
The landlord’s repair records show that a job was raised on 5 July 2023 concerning mould on the hallway ceiling.
The resident emailed the landlord on 20 July 2023. She explained the surveyor had visited the property in January 2023. Following this, work to undertake a mould wash had been booked. She added when the operative had arrived that morning (20 July) she had asked if they had the right equipment as the mould had got inside the silicone, which meant it needed to be scraped out. The landlord’s contractor had told her it had the right equipment, which was a strong chemical. However, after applying the chemical the landlord’s contractor had discovered that it had not worked. The resident added that, as she had a lung condition, the use of chemical affected her lungs. The resident said when she had tried to speak to the operative’s manager about the issue, the manager had put the phone down on her and refused to continue to talk to her. She considered this was a further example of poor communication from the landlord.
The resident sent a further email to the landlord on 20 July 2023 asking if she could move to alternative accommodation as the matter was causing her stress and had affected her mental health.
The landlord sent an acknowledgment email to the resident on 24 July 2023. It stated it had tried calling her on 24 and 25 July 2023 and left messages. It added if there was no response received by 1 August 2023 it would close the complaint.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 2 August 2023 explaining it had closed the complaint as there had been no response from her.
There was a further gap in the landlord’s records until it issued a complaint follow on response on 18 October 2023. In this letter the landlord stated it had increased its offer of compensation from the stage 2 letter issued on 19 January 2022 from £150 to £1,150. The landlord explained the award was made up as follows:
1. £300 for the complaint handling failures experienced.
2. £100 for the resident’s patience throughout the complaints and repairs processes.
3. £150 for the poor communication and for time and trouble.
4. £300 for the delays completing the resident’s repairs.
5. £300 for the distress and inconvenience.
The landlord’s letter set out:
1. Whilst it had plastered the lounge wall it had been unable to gain access to the property when it returned to decorate it. It provided the resident with a contact email address if the redecoration was still outstanding.
2. That it had added the new shrub divider in the front garden on 17 November 2021.
3. It had accepted that, after the resident had exhausted its internal complaints process, her experience had failed to improve, and it had not delivered on the list of actions which it had committed to carrying out. It stated the previous offer did acknowledge the delay in the repairs and took into account the distress and inconvenience suffered but it did not fully account for the entirety of her experience.
4. That the landlord also acknowledged it had taken too long to reply to the stage 1 and stage 2 responses and it had closed down a later complaint about similar issues in 2021.
5. It had not demonstrated accountable behaviours, including raising works and seeing them through as well as taking more time to support the resident and empathise with her situation.

Assessment and findings

Scope of Investigation.

The resident has continued communicating with the landlord since it issued the stage 2 response in January 2022. The landlord’s records show that it raised a complaint in January 2023 and again in July 2023. However it had then closed the complaints down on the basis the resident had not responded to it, setting out the exact nature of her complaint. The resident’s complaint from both late 2022 and again in 2023 included many aspects which she had previously raised with the landlord and the ongoing effect of it not having carried out the required works at that time.
The landlord issued a complaint follow up response dated 18 October 2023. Whilst it did make a revised offer in this correspondence, this was substantially after the resident had initially contacted this Service to refer her complaint. The landlord has confirmed that the resident has not yet accepted the offer as set out in that letter.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould in the property.

The landlord has provided this Service with evidence including its repair logs and communication, primarily by email with the resident. Whilst this has included information from the time that she initially made her complaint to the landlord in July 2020, the landlord acknowledged that she had contacted it earlier in relation to repairs. Whilst the communication logs noted that the resident had called the landlord on 13 January 2020 to chase up repair jobs which she stated she had raised towards the end of 2019, the landlord has not provided any details about this. The first records the Ombudsman has seen are from July 2020 and it is not clear when the resident first contacted it about the damp and mould. However, as the landlord’s later complaint responses focused on its handling of matters from July 2020 onwards the Ombudsman has also considered this period.
Following the resident’s complaint on 30 July 2020, in which she had listed that the repairs included mould to the stairway ceiling and bathroom, the landlord raised a job to hack off defective plaster on 3 August 2020. This work which was classed as an anytime repair commenced on 20 August 2020, within the 20 working days as set out in the landlord’s repairs policy. The landlord’s notes show the work had been completed on 15 September 2020.
The landlord in addition to raising this job, had also asked its surveyor for further information about his involvement since January 2020. Although the landlord later referred to having received a response from its surveyor on 13 August 2020, at which point the purveyor had said a work order would be raised, it has not provided to this Service either this or any earlier response from the surveyor.
The landlord’s stage 1 response was not appropriate. The resident had already informed the landlord at that time that it had taken a prolonged time to complete repairs and that its communication to the resident had been poor. Given this the landlord should have been more robust in following up on the progress and this would have involved it checking with both its surveyor and operatives on whether there was any reason for any delays and to regularly update the resident on this.
Whilst the landlord did raise a job in relation to the bathroom on 21 September 2020 which mentioned dealing with the mould which the resident had reported in July 2020, this had not taken place by the time the stage 1 response had been issued. The landlord did in that response accept that it had not handled things properly and, whilst this was at the time of the COVID-19 pandemic, some jobs had not been booked by it in the right way including the repairs to the bathroom.
Given the landlord had accepted that not all of the jobs had been booked correctly by it at that time, it should have taken steps to ensure that there were no further delays and that the work had been progressed. The landlord’s stage 1 response explained to the resident that its surveyor would be “overseeing these final repairs to completion for you”. This was an appropriate action for the landlord to take.
The landlord’s records provided to this Service do not contain any information between November 2020, when it was still arranging some of the other repairs for the resident in line with the stage 1 response, up until August 2021. The notes from August 2021 show that it was arranging a job to hack off defective plaster from the walls and to apply a mould wash. Whilst the job to do this work was raised in August 2021, the landlord’s records show that the job for the plaster was not completed until February 2022, after the landlord had issued the stage 2 response. No explanation has been provided by the landlord to support why there was such a lengthy delay.
The resident also asked for a different surveyor to attend the property in November 2021. Whilst the resident had been frustrated by the ongoing delays and the lack of progress by the surveyor appointed by the landlord, it did act appropriately in managing her expectations on this issue. It informed her that it was unlikely it could contribute to the costs of a different surveyor but it would check. Whilst the resident was ultimately able to instruct a different surveyor, if she so wanted, she was made aware by the landlord that it would be on the basis that she met the costs of this herself.
Although the landlord did offer an amount of compensation in the stage 2 response, the total offer of £150 in addition to the £75 offered at stage 1 was not reasonable given the circumstances. Whilst the landlord stated it had offered an amount in line with its compensation policy and specified service failures the further amount of £150 had not been broken down by it. Given this the landlord’s offer appeared to be £150 for service failures, £50 for delays and £25 for inconvenience. In other words the landlord considered the delay and distress to be towards the bottom to mid level for low impact. This was not appropriate, considering the length of delays in carrying out the work, and given the resident’s vulnerability together with that of her child as well as the repeated nature of the landlord’s failures. In the circumstances an award in keeping with the higher levels of medium levels of impact would be reasonable, especially as the work had still not been completely shortly after the landlord’s stage 2 response.
It is noted the landlord did make a further offer to the resident of £1,150 in October 2023. Whilst it was positive that the landlord took steps to put matters right, this offer was made to the resident 21 months after the end of its internal complaints procedure. This was not reasonable redress in these circumstances.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the gate, the shrub acting as a divider to the neighbouring property and to the walls and ceilings.

In terms of these repairs they were issues which the resident had raised as part of her original complaint. Whilst she had also raised the issue of cracks in the ceiling following the stage 1 response, the work on the walls and ceiling referred to the damp and mould on them.
In terms of the front garden gate the landlord’s records showed that the job to fit the gate had been completed by it in late November 2020. This was four months after the resident had made her online complaint to the landlord. However the resident stated in her later correspondence in November 2021 that the garden gate had fallen due to high winds. It is not clear when she had raised that issue and whether this was linked to the original issue she had complained about in 2020, as the landlord’s records are incomplete between November 2020 and August 2021. In terms of the latter request, the landlord had booked the repair for the end of January 2022. The resident’s correspondence to the landlord after this date did not mention the issue of the gate, which would indicate that the issue had been resolved for her at that time.
In relation to the timescales for this work, this would have been classed as a non urgent anytime repair. The landlord exceeded the response time of 20 working days in line with an anytime repair to complete the repair both in 2020 and 2021. It did not offer any explanation for the delays.
In terms of the issue with the shrub in the front garden, the resident stated an external party had incorrectly removed the wrong shrub. The shrub it had removed acted as a divider to the neighbouring property, this left a gap which needed to be replaced. The landlord has not provided this Service with details of all of the communication between the surveyor and the grounds contractor who was responsible for clearing the area in the garden to allow the front fence to be erected. However it has not disputed that the shrub had been removed in error. The removal would have been done by a party acting on behalf of the landlord, and therefore the landlord was ultimately responsible for the matter. The impact to the resident of the landlord incorrectly removing the wrong shrub was that it demonstrated a lack of understanding of the resident’s complaint and also that there was unclear communication with its operatives over the issue. This was a failing by the landlord.
Whilst the landlord did replace the shrub divider in November 2021, this was 16 months after the issue had first been raised by the resident. There were delays in the landlord making suitable arrangements with the grounds contractor. The landlord was aware of a communication issue with the contractor which took some time to be resolved. During the time the issue had not been resolved, despite it being aware of the issue, it had continued to communicate with the contractor via a non suitable means.
In spite of the landlord’s failings both prior to and after issuing the stage 1 response, it informed the resident in the stage 2 response that the same surveyor who it had previously said would be overseeing the works, would continue to act as her point of contact whilst the outstanding repairs were carried out. The landlord has not provided evidence of the contact with the resident or on how the repairs were managed. The lack of records regarding this matter are concerning, as it is unclear if the landlord had sufficient oversight of the issue to satisfy itself that the repairs were being carried out in a timely manner. The only surveyor’s inspection report of the property provided by the landlord was in February 2023, which was over a year after the landlord’s stage 2 response. The resident has stated that the surveyor had attended a number of times prior to this, however the landlord has not provided any notes or reports from any earlier site visits by either it or a contractor.
The resident reported concerns with the walls and ceiling including cracks. Whilst the issue of cracks in the ceiling was first reported following the stage 1 response, the landlord had considered the issue in the stage 2 response. It stated the contractor had visited the property on 6 January 2022 to assess the repairs but had not identified any issue at that time with the cracks. The landlord has not provided a copy of the inspection report which it conducted at that time. Whilst it stated in the stage 2 response that no issues were identified at that time, the surveyor’s report from February 2023 proposed works to the cracks in the ceiling. Without contemporaneous evidence from the landlord, this Service is unable to determine whether the cracks needed to be addressed at an earlier time. However, even if the ceiling had not needed addressing, there was no evidence that the landlord had clearly explained this to the resident, apart from in the stage 2 response. This was a missed opportunity for the landlord to explain the reasoning behind why it considered no works were required and why the cracks were not a concern.
In terms of the walls the landlord’s records show that it had on more than one occasion decided on hacking off defective plaster and ensuring a mould wash took place. Whilst this may have been appropriate, the landlord needed to address the underlying cause of the damp and mould. This would have required an inspection of the property. The landlord has failed to provide to this Service any evidence that it did this, until February 2023, considerably after the end of the landlord’s complaints process.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for a transfer.

Following the resident having contacted the landlord to make her complaint in November 2021, the landlord telephoned her to further understand the nature of the complaint. As the resident was unwell at the time the landlord instead spoke to her daughter. During the conversation the issue of possible overcrowding in the property was raised by the resident. She also explained that they had a level 2 banding.
The landlord accepted that as there was five people in the property and less than five bed spaces that there was overcrowding. It explained to the resident that it did not operate its own transfer lists and therefore directed the resident to register with their local authority. In addition it provided details of various sites where she could enquire about alternatives including via a mutual exchange. Overall the landlord’s approach was reasonable.

The landlord’s complaints handling.

Following the resident having raised her original online complaint on 30 July 2020, the landlord acknowledged the complaint within three working days and informed her that it would respond by 28 August 2020. This was in keeping with the landlord’s complaints policy of responding within 20 working days. It then contacted the resident a week later to explain that due to annual leave it needed further time and would reply within a further two weeks. Whilst this was reasonable the landlord did not reply by this date or update the resident on the matter. Instead it issued the stage 1 response two weeks after its extended deadline. In its response it did not apologise for the delay.
The landlord’s complaints policy does not set a timeframe in order for the resident to escalate their complaint if they remain dissatisfied with the stage 1 response. The resident did not appear to raise a further complaint, and express her dissatisfaction, until 14 months after the stage 1 response. At this time the landlord, in line with its policy, decided to escalate the complaint to stage 2. This was appropriate and whilst it acknowledged some issues, such as the issue of overcrowding had not previously been raised by the resident, other issues were linked to her original complaint. Given this whilst it could have therefore looked at the issue of overcrowding as a separate complaint, it considered all of the aspects under the existing complaint.
At stage 2 the landlord informed the resident it would aim to provide a response within 20 working days of the acknowledgment letter. This was in keeping with the complaints policy. It added that if it needed further information it would update the resident. The landlord became aware that the complaints handler would be on annual leave for 10 days. However it did not at this stage inform the resident that the matter and its response would be delayed. Instead it only informed the resident on 21 December 2021 (three working days after the deadline it had provided to the resident had passed) that it would reply by 18 January 2022, a further four weeks later. The landlord eventually provided the stage 2 response one day outside this extended deadline.
Although the delay in responding at stage 2 was only one day outside the extended deadline provided by the landlord, the response from it was just under 11 weeks after the resident had originally escalate the complaint. This followed on from the stage 1 response also being outside the time limits in the landlord’s policy. This was a failing on the part of the landlord. The landlord did not regularly update the resident on the matter. Whilst the landlord might have been awaiting at both stage 1 and stage for jobs to be raised and for some of the work to be completed before responding to the resident, neither the stage 1 nor stage 2 responses provide any apology from it for the delay. This would have caused the resident a degree of distress and inconvenience on an issue where the repairs had still not been completed despite the resident having raised the issues a significant period of time earlier.
The landlord reconsidered the complaint and made a revised offer to the resident following the resident having contacted this Service about the matter. Whilst it was positive that the landlord had looked at the matter again, it was concerning that the complaint process had not adequately put things right within a reasonable timeframe.

The landlord’s record keeping.

The landlord failed to provide complete records including inspection reports completed by its surveyor and contractors during the period covered by this investigation. The landlord also failed to provide clear communication from its operatives including between the surveyor and contractors concerning the repairs raised and details of any jobs raised by it. The landlord has also not provided the outcome of contractor visits and if any follow-on work was required. It has also not provided details of when the resident had first contacted it about the matter.
The landlord has also stated it has no vulnerabilities noted for the resident. However it has provided to this Service copies of the medical letter from the GP detailing her lung condition and photos of the eczema from the resident’s child.
Clear record keeping and usage of held records is essential to the effective operation and delivery of landlord services. This has not been the case in its management of the resident’s repair requests as well as the complaints handling. These record failures all amount to a failing in record keeping on the part of the landlord as they would have caused the resident further inconvenience and frustration over the time taken to resolve the issues which she had raised.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handing of the resident’s reporting of damp and mould at the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of repairs including to the gate, the shrubs dividing the property from the neighbour and the walls and ceiling.
In accordance with the resident’s request for a transfer there was no maladministration by the landlord.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s complaints handling.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s record keeping.

Reasons

Whilst the landlord did eventually respond and carry out repairs to the damp and mould to the property, it has not provided evidence that it initially looked into the underlying cause of the damp and mould. This is of particular concern given the repeated history of damp at the property. Although the landlord accepted that there were delays in it progressing repairs and that its communication with the resident was at times poor, its offer of compensation was not in keeping with its own compensation policy, when considering the degree of impact. The effect of the delay in dealing with the matter caused a detrimental impact on the resident and her vulnerable child.
The landlord also failed to progress promptly the other repairs raised by the resident. There was a lack of communication between its operatives and this led to errors and delays including removing in error the wrong shrub from the front garden which acted as a divider between properties.
In terms of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request to transfer, it informed her of the process she needed to follow. It also provided information on alternatives to transfer including a mutual exchange.
There was a delay from the landlord at both stage and two of the complaints process in terms of the landlord providing its response. It also failed to regularly update the resident on the progress of the complaint. The landlord did not make an apology for this at either stage 1 or stage 2.
The landlord also failed to keep contemporaneous records of any site visits carried out by its surveyor and/or contractors. The landlord also did not provide a clear audit of when the issue had initially been raised by the resident. There were also unexplained gaps in its communication history and it failed to note the vulnerabilities for the resident and one of her children.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

Within the next four weeks the Ombudsman orders the landlord to:
1. Arrange for a senior member of the landlord’s staff to apologise to the resident for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident an amount of £1,300. This offer replaces the previous offers made by the landlord at both stage 1 and stage 2, including the revised offer made by it on 18 October 2023. This amount of £1,300 is comprised of:
  1. £400 for its handling of repairs to the gate, walls and ceilings, and to the shrubs.
  2. £250 for the distress and inconvenience caused to the resident.
  3. £300 for the delay caused by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaint.
  4. £200 for the time and trouble.
  5. £150 for its failure in its records keeping.

Recommendations

The landlord should contact the resident in relation to her request for a transfer in order to discuss any alternative housing options. It should also check with the resident concerning the information which she wishes it to hold regarding her health conditions together with that of her household. It should update its records accordingly.
The landlord should contact the resident to obtain details of any further concerns which have not considered as part of this investigation. It should then carry out a further inspection of the property to check the effectiveness of previous works and assess any further actions it needs to take.