Islington Council (202126288)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202126288

Islington Council

31 October 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 handling of:
1. The resident’s mutual exchange.
2. Repairs to the external doors.
3. Repairs to the rear garden wall.
4. Repairs to the electrical socket in the basement.
5. Repairs to the windows.
6. The resident’s reports of dampness in the property.
7. The resident’s concerns about the render and mortar on the external walls.
8. The resident’s concerns about not being decanted during major works to the property.
9. The resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative.
10. The resident’s complaints.

Jurisdiction

What we can and cannot consider is called the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction. This is governed by the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. When a complaint is brought to the Ombudsman, we must consider all the circumstances of the case as there are sometimes reasons why a complaint will not be investigated.
After carefully considering all the evidence, in accordance with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, the complaint about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s mutual exchange is outside of the Ombudsman’s jurisdiction.
The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner, which would normally be within six months of the matters arising. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states: “The Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion… were not brought to the attention of the member as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within six months of the matters arising”. In this case, the mutual exchange occurred in September 2019 and the resident submitted her stage one complaint on 5 February 2021, which was over 16 months after the mutual exchange took place.

Background

The resident’s secure tenancy began on 23 September 2019 following a mutual exchange. The property is a three-bedroom house, which was built in the 18th century and is a grade 2 listed building. This means that certain repairs and improvements, such as window renewals, require the written consent of the local planning authority. The property has four levels (the basement, ground floor, first floor and the second floor). Part of the basement is listed by the landlord as a storage space and is described by the landlord as non-habitable space.
The landlord has advised this Service that there are no vulnerability alerts on its system for the resident. However, the resident advised the landlord shortly after moving to the property that she was registered disabled, and had two disabled children. She later advised the landlord that she had a disability due to a chronic health condition.
The tenancy agreement states that the landlord is responsible for keeping the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including external walls, external doors, external window frames and sills and the internal structure. The tenant is responsible for maintaining and repairing the inside of the property, including internal doors and internal fittings, such as skirting boards, architrave to doors and windows.
The landlord’s repairs policy states that emergency repairs are made safe within 2 hours, urgent repairs are completed within 24 hours and routine repairs, i.e. non-urgent repairs, are completed within 20 working days. Planned works, such as high value repair jobs or complex repairs, are completed within 60 working days. The policy states that an appointment will be offered for repairs that are in the ‘right to repair’ or routine categories.
The landlord has a three stage complaints process: stage one, stage one review and a Chief Executive stage. Stage one complaints are responded to within 21 calendar days, stage one reviews are completed and responded to within 10 working days and at the Chief Executive review stage, the reply is sent within 28 calendar days.

Summary of events

The resident wrote to the landlord on 8 October 2019 to report various repairs including defects to the front door, basement door and garden door, defective windows and dampness. The resident stated that she was registered as disabled and that she had two disabled children. The landlord replied on 11 October and confirmed that it had raised orders to trace and rectify the various defects reported by the resident.
On 15 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to ask whether its contractor would fit a new bathroom suite if she paid for it. Also, the resident said she had previously been informed by the landlord that she would need to be decanted in order for dampness remedial works to proceed. She stated that her son’s bedroom had been left with exposed brickwork and the window sills at the front of the house had rotted.
The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that the decant had been agreed and it was sourcing suitable alternative accommodation. It anticipated starting the damp works in October 2020. The landlord sent a further email on the same day and stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in identifying suitable alternative accommodation, which was due to COVID-19.
2. The landlord confirmed that it would not be able to install the resident’s own bathroom suite. However, she could apply for permission to install her own suite.
3. The plastering in the son’s bedroom had to be done using lime plaster (due to the listed building status) and therefore the matter had been referred to its contractor.
4. Works orders had been raised for the window sills the resident had reported as rotten.
5. The landlord was waiting for listed building consent from the council to renew the bedroom box sash window.
Between 15 and 17 September 2020, the landlord and the resident exchanged further emails regarding the repairs. The resident requested compensation because her hallway had been without a radiator for 11 months, the three external doors were letting in water and there were various other defects. She advised the landlord that its contractor had not attended an appointment to replaster her son’s bedroom. The landlord noted that the resident was dissatisfied with the window repairs carried out, but advised the resident that there was minimal rot on the windows and therefore the contractor had been able to carry out resin repairs. The landlord confirmed it was addressing the following repairs:
1. Dampness in the basement bathroom.
2. Plastering and renewal of the box sash window in the son’s bedroom.
3. Plastering in the hallway (after the works to the bathroom have been done).
4. Renewal of the back door near the washing machine (after re-routing the washing machine waste pipe).
5. The landlord had inspected the front external walls and agreed to carry out repairs.
6. The bottom sash window in the hallway had received resin repairs.
7. A membrane solution would be applied to address the damp in the hallway and once dry, redecorations would be done and the radiator reinstated.
The landlord provided further clarification to the resident on 25 September 2020, in which it confirmed that the resident was being decanted to allow damp proofing work to the basement bathroom. The landlord apologised that its contractor had not attended the appointment to plaster the son’s bedroom due to material shortages and offered the resident £15 in vouchers.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 September 2020 and requested a copy of a survey report that had been produced following a detailed inspection of the property on 21 September 2020. The resident pointed out that there were still outstanding works, including:
1. The main hallway had been without a radiator since October 2019.
2. Lime plastering in the upstairs hallway.
3. Damp works in the main hallway.
4. Damp works to the basement.
The landlord replied to the resident on 30 September 2020 and stated that it could not share the survey report with the resident due to the volume of surveys it was carrying out. The landlord apologised for the delays and once again confirmed the works that were planned to the property.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 19 October 2020 to ask for repairs to the upstairs hallway to also be included in the scope of works. The landlord replied on 21 October 2020 to confirm that it had approved a quote for the work and an order had now been raised for plastering to the upstairs hallway. The landlord had asked a contractor to commence the work as soon as possible along with redecorations to the son’s bedroom.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 26 October 2020 to ask whether the bathroom would be redecorated. She reminded the landlord that she was chronically disabled and clinically vulnerable in relation to COVID-19. The landlord replied on the same day to confirm that decorations were not required in the bathroom as its contractor had re-tiled the areas that had been disturbed. The landlord stated that its contractor was on-site finishing work to the bathroom and the basement hallway.
On 5 February 2021, the resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord, in which she stated the following:
1. The landlord was only planning to replace 2 out of the 11 windows in the property even though all of them were rotten.
2. The external masonry and window ledges were crumbling.
3. The resident had not been decanted as was previously agreed (despite being in a pandemic) and the standard of the work carried out had been poor.
4. The resident had reported all of the defects to the landlord in September 2019.
5. The resident stated that she was disabled and had two disabled children and therefore needed to live in healthy conditions.
On 19 February 2021, one of the landlord’s surveyors inspected the property and reported the following in an internal email:
1. The radiators had been removed by the landlord’s contractor in 2019 to carry out damp works and the radiators could not subsequently be found. The resident had therefore purchased her own radiators and arranged for them to be fitted.
2. The surveyor said he was unable to comment on some of the repairs as they had been covered by decorations, flooring or skirting.
3. The resin treatment to the windows at the front of the house had been done to an acceptable standard, but the sealant applied around the windows had been finished to a poor standard.
4. He had taken damp meter readings of the walls, windows and sills and the only evidence of damp was a ‘wet patch’ on the staircase wall in the basement adjacent to the bathroom.
5. The flooring in the bathroom looked alright but the bath had been chipped when it had been removed to carry out the works.
6. The tiles in the bathroom above the wash hand basin did not cover as much of the wall as had previously been the case and this had left an un-tiled area with adhesive showing, which had now been painted over.
7. There was a section of bare plaster on the staircase wall that needed work (the landlord stated that the resident may have used a steamer to remove wallpaper, which may have dislodged some plaster).
8. The surveyor stated that the windows were in reasonable condition.
On 1 March 2021, the landlord sent its response to the stage one complaint and stated the following:
1. The landlord confirmed that its mutual exchange process was “resident led” and it was the incoming resident’s responsibility to inspect the property before acceptance.
2. The landlord stated that following the lifting of the national restrictions, outstanding repairs to the property were resumed.
3. On 18 September 2020, an order was raised to make the rear door watertight, an appointment was agreed for 18 October 2020 and an operative attended on this day to fit a draught excluder.
4. The resident had confirmed to the landlord that damp works to the basement area had been carried out in June 2020 with the resident in situ (even though she had originally been advised that the family would be decanted to allow the works to take place). The resident stated that her family had slept in one bedroom during the works as the other 2 bedrooms were uninhabitable.
5. The landlord explained that during 28 and 30 September 2020, the resident had written to the landlord and expressed concerns about the scope of the works. During a joint visit between the landlord’s surveyors and the contractors, it was accepted by the landlord that the original scope of works had been incorrect and the landlord had apologised to the resident for this error.
6. The landlord said it was happy to assess any additional information provided by the resident to show that rooms were unusable.
7. The landlord’s records confirm that the radiators had been removed on 5 November 2019 ahead of damp works and upon completion of the works, the radiators could not be located. The landlord attended on 11 December 2019 to rehang the radiators and was advised by the resident that the radiators could not be found. The resident had purchased new radiators, however, the landlord had advised her that it could not hang the radiators she had purchased.
8. The landlord’s contractor had attended on 18 September 2020 to carry out a gas safety check and found that the resident had installed a new boiler and that the certification of the installation was required.
9. There had been an issue with the external render at roof level as the brickwork had darkened, however, there were no internal signs of this causing a problem and the landlord was confident that it had resolved the issue.
10. The landlord said it had not identified any service failures in relation to its handling of repairs to the property.
11. The landlord said it would provide a further update on 5 March 2021 following a scheduled visit on 2 March 2021.
The resident replied to the landlord on 1 March 2021 and stated that she was dissatisfied with the landlord’s stage one response on the following basis:
1. The resident felt she should have been decanted as some of the rooms were unusable while the contractor carried out work on three floors to remove defective plaster and replaster the walls in the children’s bedrooms and the hallways. According to the resident, the contractor also left one of the bedrooms with no radiator, exposed brickwork and a rotten window. Finally, she stated that the bathroom had been “ripped out”.
2. She also mentioned that the windows had not been repaired properly, there was damp in the hallway caused by defective render at the front of the house and there was damp on the ceiling.
3. The landlord had inspected the windows on various occasions but had not repaired them adequately.
4. The resident said she had provided the relevant documents to the landlord regarding the new boiler and that she had to replace the ‘missing’ radiators in order to avoid a winter without radiators.
5. The resident requested the landlord to erect scaffolding to address the issues with the external render and masonry and to replace the windows. She also requested the landlord to address the damp in the basement and to provide electrics.
6. The resident requested compensation for the landlord’s handling of the repairs since 2019 and an apology.
The landlord’s repairs log states that an operative attended the property on 2 March 2021 and was on the phone outside the property to a colleague. The notes stated that the resident opened one of the windows and told the operative that she wanted to speak to the person who was on the phone. The operative refused, told the resident she was being rude and left the property.
On 8 March 2021, the resident wrote to the landlord and stated that she had a degenerative lung condition and therefore the property needed to be damp free. She outlined the issues regarding the windows, external rendering and other matters.
The landlord sent its stage one review letter on 16 March 2021, which included the following points:
1. The landlord acknowledged that the resident refuted claims that she had refused access for repairs and the landlord said it would investigate this matter further if the resident provided additional information.
2. The landlord had reviewed photos of the work carried out in the bathroom and was satisfied the work had been carried out to an acceptable standard.
3. As the resident had access to cooking and washing facilities, a decant was not warranted and therefore the correct policy and procedures were followed. The landlord noted that the resident had been carrying out her own works in the property at the same time as the landlord and this may have made the situation more challenging for the resident.
4. Following a dampness inspection in November 2019, the entrance hallway was hacked back and replastered in February 2020 after a drying period. Similar works were done in October 2020 and at this time the wall was tanked to prevent reoccurrence. The works in 2019 were deemed suitable at the time and when the problem returned, a different solution was applied.
5. Following concerns that were raised after the landlord’s inspection in February 2021, a further assessment of the high level external render had been arranged.
6. Following the landlord’s repairs to the rear door in 2019, there had been a further visit on 9 October 2020 to resolve water ingress through the rear door.
7. The landlord had investigated the resident’s complaint about the conduct of one of the contractor’s operatives and he had complained about the resident’s behaviour towards him.
8. The landlord apologised for the misunderstanding in relation to the documentation which the resident had already supplied for the new boiler.
9. The landlord confirmed that two sash windows were being replaced on 16 March 2021 and a further inspection would be carried out on 24 March 2021 to assess whether any of the other windows were rotten.
10. The landlord did not consider a replacement of the rear doors was warranted as the doors had been assessed on 19 October 2020 and were deemed to be safe and watertight.
11. No further works were planned to the basement area as it was designated as an uninhabitable area. However, an electrician would check for any electrical repair obligations.
12. The landlord did not uphold the complaint as it said it had not identified any service failures.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated because:
1. She disputed the repair operative’s account of the events when he had attended the property.
2. The resident stated that the back doors were letting in water and one of them had a plastic panel held on with mastic.
3. There was a rusted plug socket in the basement, which had been inspected on various occasions by the contractor.
4. The resident disagreed that a decant was unwarranted, particularly after initially being advised that she would be decanted.
The resident also wrote to the landlord on 16 and 18 March 2021 to provide footage from her video doorbell to substantiate her account of the incident involving the contractor’s operative who she said had been threatening and aggressive. She asked why the same operative had been sent to her property given that she had previously complained about him.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 March 2021 and confirmed that two of the windows had been replaced on 19 March 2021, but gaps had been left around the windows. She also confirmed that one of the contractor’s carpenters had inspected all of the remaining windows in the property. The resident stated that the electrics in the basement were rusted and dangerous and the garden door was warped and therefore letting in water.
The landlord replied on 25 March 2021 and said it was aware there was still some ‘making good’ required around the windows and it was waiting for a quote from a sub-contractor.
During April 2021, the resident chased the landlord for a reply to her complaint, which had been escalated to the Chief Executive review stage. The landlord sent a holding response to the resident on 30 April 2021.
On 12 May 2021, the resident contacted the landlord to confirm that the contractor was on site repairing the threshold to the door to prevent water ingress. The landlord replied to the resident on 16 May 2021 and stated that the repairs to the habitable part of the property were now completed, apart from decorative works to the outside of the property that would be addressed during the next round of cyclical works.
On 30 July 2021, the landlord and the resident exchanged emails to agree on the scope of an inspection that was planned by an external dampness consultant. It was agreed that the consultant would inspect the whole of the basement area on 3 August 2021 and the resident would be sent a copy of the consultant’s report.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021 and provided her with a copy of the dampness consultant’s report. The report’s conclusion was that the damp protection (tanking) applied to the basement area in 2006 had not failed, but there were small areas of damp where the tanking system had been punctured by fixtures and fittings. The landlord outlined the works that it would carry out in the bathroom and stairwell lobby area and confirmed that it had instructed a sub-contractor to re-do the tiles in the bathroom (this work would be done in 3-4 weeks’ time). Finally, the landlord confirmed that the repairs to the bathroom window were awaiting listed building consent from the council.
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (18 August 2021) and stated that she wanted the bathroom suite to be renewed and wanted the landlord to address the basement external door and the hallway, which she said the landlord had not mentioned in its letter.
On 20 August 2021, the landlord sent its Chief Executive review (final stage complaint) response in which it stated the following:
1. The landlord apologised for the delay in replying and offered the resident £75 as redress for this.
2. The landlord listed various repair orders that had been booked during 2019 and 2020 and apologised for any unannounced visits by contractors’ operatives.
3. The landlord apologised that the resident was initially told she would be decanted and then, following an inspection by surveyors and contractors in early October 2020, she was advised that the decanting was unnecessary.
4. Works to the bathroom had initially been passed to the landlord’s major works team on 16 July 2020 to arrange. However, in October 2020 the landlord determined that a previous survey had incorrectly diagnosed damp and that the cause of water ingress in the bathroom was a lack of tiling and sealant around the bath and wash hand basin.
5. The landlord carried out a further inspection of the bathroom on 5 August 2021 and noted the following:
  1. The bathroom walls were generally in good condition and mostly measured dry with a damp meter.
  2. The bath surround walls had elevated moisture readings and as a result tiles in this area had de-bonded from the walls.
  3. There were elevated moisture readings at the base of the stairwell where a previous repair had taken place and some additional spots where there were holes in the wall.
6. Patch repairs would be carried out around the windows but the landlord had no evidence of any other water ingress through the brickwork. Full wall and render works would be completed as part of planned cyclical works, which had not yet been programmed.
7. The landlord accepted that the defective garden wall had been noted by the landlord in November 2020, however, the landlord had not referred the matter to the council’s party wall team for repair. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed that the landlord would now send the referral.
8. As the resident had chosen the option ‘prefer not to say’ to the question about disabilities on her mutual exchange form, the landlord had no disabilities listed for the resident, apart from the resident’s son being autistic. Also, one of the landlord’s surveyors had noted in 2021 that the resident suffered from ‘joint trouble’. The landlord therefore concluded that it had not failed to consider the resident’s health or apply appropriate health and safety protocols when carrying out repairs to the property.
9. The landlord agreed to carry out the following works:
  1. Remove tiles from the bathroom and dehumidify the room, then take moisture readings of the wall to identify the root cause of any damp.
  2. Isolate any timber in contact with the concrete floor slab, including doorframes.
  3. Spot repair any areas where the tanking system had been punctured in the stairwell lobby and basement.
  4. Further works would be required to establish the exact cause of any damp.
  5. Further repairs to make the recessed door in the basement area sound and watertight as the landlord now accepted it was an external door (rather than an internal one) and was therefore the landlord’s responsibility.
10. The landlord concluded that repairs were not carried out in a systematic or timely way, particularly in relation to the windows and therefore offered the resident £350 compensation for delay, time and trouble.
The resident replied to the landlord on 24 August 2021 and stated that the landlord had not covered some of the issues she had raised, such as her report that one of the contractor’s operatives had been aggressive and the loss of 2 out of the 3 bedrooms during the works.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 3 September 2021 and stated the following:
1. The contractor would attend on 20 September 2021 to carry out works to the bathroom.
2. The bathroom suite did not warrant renewal.
3. The works to the tiling and window could be done with the resident in situ. The landlord’s surveyor did not identify any signs of internal rot on the bathroom window.
4. The landlord requested the resident to provide details and supporting documentation of any health concerns that would need to be considered before the works started.
5. The basement external door had been repaired on 11 May 2021.
6. In reaching the decision not to decant the resident, the landlord took into account the location of the works and the ability of the resident to use essential areas of the property (kitchen and bathroom) at the end of each day.
7. The landlord said it would raise an order to inspect the drains and cement outside (the resident had indicated that these needed to be lowered).
The resident replied to the landlord on the same day (3 September 2021) and advised that the landlord was referring to the wrong door (the door that had been repaired was the door leading to the garden). The resident stated that the basement rear door was rotten and still needed replacement. The resident informed the landlord that she had a condition affecting her joints and organs and the dust and damp had caused her to become chronically ill.
On 3 September 2021, the landlord sent an addendum to its final complaint response, in which it stated:
1. The landlord acknowledged that it had not written to the resident to ask for further details about her disabilities. However, it had not seen evidence of the resident objecting to the works on the basis of her disabilities.
2. The work to the bedroom was carried out in two parts and therefore the landlord did not consider that the room was unusable. The plastering works to the bedroom wall were to hack off and renew 12 square metres of lime plastered walls. The work was raised on 20 August 2020 and completed on 2 October 2020.
3. In terms of the issue regarding staff conduct, the landlord stated that the resident’s recollection of events on 3 March 2021 differed from the operative’s and therefore the landlord was unable to verify either version of events. The landlord apologised that the resident found the incident upsetting and confirmed that the operative would not carry out further work to the property.
The resident replied to the landlord on 3 September 2021 and stated that she had written to the landlord several times to request a decant due to her disabilities. The resident disputed that the bedroom was usable during the work – she stated that the room had no radiators and the window was letting in water. The resident advised that she had submitted doorbell video footage to verify her version of events regarding the incident she had complained about.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021 and commented as follows:
1. The landlord had been notified by its contractor that the resident had cancelled the appointment to carry out remedial works to the bathroom on 20 September 2021. The resident had apparently stated that she wanted the damp remedial works to also be carried out. The landlord advised the resident that no damp proofing was required to the bathroom.
2. The landlord confirmed that it had instructed external surveyors to complete an application for listed building consent to replace the bathroom window. The landlord was expecting to hear from the council by the end of October 2021. In the meantime, the landlord stated that the window was safe, functional and watertight.
3. The landlord confirmed that the damp course had been breached in a small area in the basement hallway (about one square metre). The landlord would therefore request its dampness specialist contractor to produce a schedule of repairs. The landlord confirmed that the work was not required to the whole basement area.
4. The landlord confirmed it would not be carrying out work to the non-habitable part of the basement.
The resident and the landlord exchanged emails on 4 October 2021 and the main points included in the emails were:
1. The landlord reiterated that there was no rising damp in the bathroom. Its contractor had been instructed to remove the tiles, allow the walls to dry and retile the walls. The landlord said it would ask the contractor while on site to check a crack in the bathroom ceiling and to inspect the floor covering.
2. The landlord said that the bath, wash hand basin and toilet had been removed to carry out major works and were then reinstated without damaging them. The bathroom was not yet due for replacement as part of the landlord’s planned maintenance programme.
3. The landlord said it would fit a blank plate to the socket in the non-habitable part of the basement and would replace the basement rear door as a goodwill gesture but the resident would have to relocate her washing machine first as the waste water from the machine was causing damage to the door.
4. The landlord said it would not amend the drainage near the door as the problem was being caused because the drain was unable to cope with the amount of waste water coming from the washing machine.
5. The resident reiterated that in her view the drainage needed to be lowered, however, she would relocate the washing machine.
6. The resident requested a response to her previous question about whether the landlord would be raising the skirting and doorframes in the hallway away from the floor slab in order to prevent moisture absorption.
Further emails were exchanged between the resident and the landlord in October 2021. The resident requested a detailed schedule of works and for answers to her previous questions. She also confirmed that the washing machine had been moved away from the basement rear door. The landlord confirmed on 28 October 2021 that it was still awaiting listed building consent for the bathroom window and enquired about the resident’s availability for the contractor to remove and then replace the bathroom tiles.
From 2 – 4 November 2021, the resident and the landlord exchanged further emails regarding the repairs. The resident provided a photo showing that she had relocated the washing machine and mentioned that the defective garden wall was still outstanding. She also requested a guarantee that the contractor would replace the basement rear doorframe as well as the door itself. The landlord again outlined the work it intended to carry out. It also commented that the resident had refused to allow access for the contractor to carry out the tiling work and to inspect the bathroom ceiling and flooring.
During December 2021 and January 2022, there were further exchanges of emails between the resident and the landlord and the main points from these emails were:
1. The resident chased the outstanding works, including the socket in the basement and the garden wall.
2. The landlord had instructed its specialist dampness contractor to carry out repairs to resolve the area of dampness in the basement hallway and work was due to begin on 17 January 2022. It would request a quote for the redecorations after the works were completed.
3. The landlord confirmed that the basement rear door would be replaced on a like-for-like basis and it had requested a quote for the door but the resident had refused access. The landlord also stated that the resident had refused access to attend to the bathroom ceiling as an emergency (the resident had reported that the ceiling was hanging down).
4. The resident denied refusing access. She stated that she had been at work when the operative attended the emergency order to look at the ceiling and she had requested a callback regarding the door but no one had contacted her.
5. The resident advised the landlord that she did not want the contractor to carry out the works until she had received a full schedule of the works.
On 28 January 2022, the landlord wrote to the resident to confirm that its dampness contractor had confirmed it had completed the damp work and it would take about 3 weeks to dry out. The landlord requested the resident to provide access for its contractor to quote for the redecorations. The landlord said it was still waiting for listed building consent for the bathroom window replacement.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 2, 3 and 14 February 2022 to request updates about the bathroom window and other outstanding work to the bathroom, including the basement rear door, the external making good around the windows that had been replaced, the reconnection of the radiator and the fire alarm in the hallway and the garden wall. The resident repeated that she was disabled due to chronic health conditions. Finally, the resident complained that operatives were still arriving without appointments.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2022 and stated:
1. It had received listed building consent to replace the bathroom window and had therefore instructed a contractor to carry out the work. The contractor would also pick up the internal and external making good around the windows.
2. The damp works in the basement hallway should be dry by week commencing 21 February 2022 as this would have been three weeks since the work was done.
3. The other issues mentioned by the resident were considered to be cosmetic and would be picked up during the cyclical programme.
The resident replied on 16 and 21 February 2022 and advised the landlord that the hallway radiator and the fire alarm had still not been reconnected. She also mentioned other outstanding repairs including the garden wall.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 21 February 2022 and repeated that the making good around the windows was cosmetic as it was not causing any internal issues. The landlord confirmed that its contractor had disconnected the fire alarm and had failed to reconnect it. The landlord apologised for this and confirmed it had asked the contractor to reconnect the fire alarm as soon as possible. The landlord said it had no record of the contractor disconnecting the radiator.
During February 2022, the landlord and the resident exchanged emails about the garden wall. The landlord advised the resident that the council required photos of the wall and therefore it would visit the property. The resident stated that the contractor had visited without an appointment to photograph the wall and therefore she had not provided access. The landlord apologised for this and the photos were taken by the landlord on 1 March 2022. The resident also submitted photos of the wall on 17 March 2022.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2022 and listed outstanding works, including the bathroom tiles, the garden wall, isolating the skirting and woodwork from the floor slab in the basement, peeling floor covering in the bathroom and that the new windows had not been sealed or painted.
The landlord replied to the resident on the same day (16 March 2022) and stated that the bathroom tiling would be dealt with on 18 March 2022 as part of the making good around the windows. The landlord stated that its contractor had reported no visible defects to the floor covering in the bathroom.
The landlord advised this Service that an order was raised on 16 February 2023 to take down the upper section of loose bricks in the rear wall and remake 3 m². However, the resident advised this Service on 11 April 2023 that the rear garden wall had still not been repaired.
As part of its information submission to the Ombudsman during 2023, the landlord provided this Service with a copy of its repairs log showing repairs that had been raised in relation to the property. The log contained details of several repairs and therefore, in order to keep this report as concise as possible, some of the repairs have not been specifically referred to in the summary of events. However, the repair orders and their outcomes have been considered by the Ombudsman and, where appropriate, they have been referenced in the assessment and findings.

Assessment and findings

Scope of the investigation

The resident reported various repairs during 2019. The Ombudsman encourages residents to raise complaints with their landlords in a timely manner. This is because with the passage of time, evidence may be unavailable and personnel involved may have left an organisation, which makes it difficult for a thorough investigation to be carried out and for informed decisions to be made. Therefore, taking into account the availability and reliability of evidence, it is considered fair and reasonable for this assessment to focus on the landlord’s handling of the repairs from 2020 onwards. Reference to the events that occurred prior to 2020 is made in this report to provide context.
The Ombudsman has received information regarding various events that occurred after the landlord sent its final complaint response on 20 August 2021 and its addendum to the final response on 3 September 2021. A key part of the Ombudsman’s role is to assess the landlord’s response to a complaint and therefore it is important that the landlord has had an opportunity to consider all of the information being investigated by the Ombudsman as part of its complaint response. Therefore, events that occurred during 2022 and 2023 have not been investigated, except where the Ombudsman has considered it fair and reasonable to do so, for example because the evidence is not disputed or is very clear.
The resident reported to the landlord on 3 September 2021 that the conditions in the property had made her chronically unwell. The Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments regarding her health, but this Service is unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or liability for, impacts on health and wellbeing. This would be better dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. The resident may wish to consider taking independent legal advice if she wishes to pursue this option.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the external doors

On 15 September 2020, the resident wrote to the landlord to report that the three external doors to the property were letting in water. The landlord’s repairs log shows that orders were raised on 18 September 2020 to make the front door and the basement rear door watertight. The repairs were completed on 9 October 2020 and involved easing and adjusting the front and garden doors and overhauling the basement rear door. The landlord therefore raised an order to repair the doors within a reasonable timescale and the repairs were carried out within the 20 working day target for routine works. The Ombudsman has noted that the job notes state that the resident was initially offered an appointment for 28 September 2020, but was unavailable on this date and therefore the appointment was booked for 9 October 2020.
The job notes in the log stated that both front and back doors were left safe and waterproof. The repairs log stated that the external doors were assessed by the landlord on 19 October 2020 and were deemed to be safe and watertight. The landlord therefore responded appropriately in carrying out repairs to the three external doors in October 2020 and checking that they were weathertight.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 September 2020 to confirm that the basement rear door had been referred to its major works team for renewal, but the door renewal could not be done until the resident’s washing machine waste pipe had been re-routed by the resident. The evidence indicates that the washing machine was situated near the door in question and waste water from the washing machine had caused damage to the door over a period of time. Under the landlord’s repairs policy, residents are responsible for plumbing to washing machines and therefore it was reasonable for the landlord to request the resident to re-route the washing machine waste prior to replacing the basement rear door.
The resident formally complained on 5 February 2021 about various repairs to the property and, as a result, a surveyor inspected the property on 19 February 2021. The only comment about the doors related to the rear garden door. The surveyor noted that the resident had fitted a canopy over the door as she said that the new sill and weatherboard that had been fitted by the landlord were inadequate to prevent water ingress. The surveyor did not identify any problems with the door. Given that the resident had raised concerns about the condition of the external doors (and other repairs), it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange an inspection by a surveyor and it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on his advice that there were no further problems with the door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 March 2021 and stated that the back doors were letting in water and one of the doors had a plastic panel held on with mastic. The repairs log shows that the door was inspected by the contractor on 24 March 2021 and the operative concluded that no further work was needed to the door as the threshold that had been fitted by the contractor would prevent any water ingress. The operative advised the resident that the door was not rotten. As the basement rear door had been inspected by the contractor and found to be sound, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on these findings.
As mentioned previously, the landlord had agreed in September 2020 to replace the basement rear door once the resident had moved the washing machine. The evidence suggests that there was a prolonged period during which the replacement of the door was not progressed because the resident had requested the lowering of the drain near the door, which she thought was contributing to the damage to the door. The landlord had refused the request as it did not believe this was warranted. As the landlord was responsible for the maintenance of drainage serving the property, it was reasonable for the landlord to rely on the inspections by its surveyor and contractor and decide not to lower the drain.
The landlord’s letter dated 4 October 2021 suggests that the landlord had initially taken a view that the basement rear door was an internal door and was therefore the resident’s responsibility. However, the landlord accepted this was an error in its final complaint response and that it was an external door. It is not clear from the evidence whether the landlord’s error added to the delay in progressing the door replacement as it had agreed to replace the door as a goodwill gesture despite considering it to be an internal door.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 28 October 2021 to enquire about the replacement of the basement rear door and confirmed that she had moved the washing machine. The landlord replied on 3 November 2021 and requested a photo to show that the washing machine had been moved. The resident supplied the photo on 3 November 2021 and the landlord acknowledged receipt of the photo on 23 November 2021. The landlord confirmed it had requested its contractor to supply a quote for the new door. As the landlord wanted to ensure that the replacement door would not be damaged by water from the washing machine, it was reasonable for it to request evidence that the washing machine had been moved away from the door.
The contractor measured the door in January 2022. However, the landlord wrote to the resident on 28 January 2022 and stated that the washing machine had not been moved. The resident replied on 2 February 2022 and confirmed once again that it had been moved and that although the waste pipe was still present, it was no longer in use. This Service understands that the basement rear door was eventually replaced during the summer 2022. Given that the resident had confirmed to the landlord on 3 November 2021 that the washing machine had been moved and had submitted a photo showing this on the same date, the time taken by the landlord to replace the door was unreasonable. In terms of mitigation, the Ombudsman has taken into account that repairs had been carried out to the door by the landlord to ensure it was weathertight and that the new door had to be manufactured, which would have added to the delay. Nevertheless, even taking these mitigating factors into account, the overall time taken for the landlord to replace the door after the resident had relocated the washing machine was unreasonable.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the rear garden wall

The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident reported that the rear garden wall was defective and the landlord raised a repairs order on 25 November 2020. The notes in the log state that the resident was initially offered an appointment for 30 November 2020 as it was booked on a 7-day priority, however, the resident was unavailable on this day and therefore it was rebooked for 8 December 2020. The contractor attended on this day and noted that the wall was secure and there were no loose bricks. The operative did, however, state that the wall had been damaged by roots from trees and bushes.
The landlord had therefore arranged an inspection of the wall within an appropriate timescale and was entitled to rely on the contractor’s findings that the wall was secure. However, the landlord subsequently accepted in its final complaint response on 20 August 2021 that as the wall had been damaged by roots, the matter should have been referred to the council’s party wall team, but the referral had not been made. The landlord apologised for this error and said that it would raise the referral.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 24 November 2021 and stated that the garden wall was crumbling. The landlord replied on 8 December 2021 and stated that the landlord was not responsible for repairs to boundary walls, apart from making them safe. The Ombudsman recognises that the maintenance of boundary walls was dealt with by the local authority’s party wall team rather than the landlord. However, this Service considers the maintenance of the wall to be a landlord responsibility because the condition of the wall impacted on the resident’s use of the garden. Therefore, the delay in repairing the damaged wall and the lack of communication with the resident regarding the wall were unreasonable as it had been over a year since the resident raised the issue in November 2020 and the landlord had accepted there was damage to the wall.
At the request of the council, the landlord took photos of the garden wall on 1 March 2022 and the resident also submitted photos of the wall on 17 March 2022. However, this Service was advised by the resident in April 2023 that the wall had still not been repaired, despite the landlord raising an order on 16 February 2023 to repair the wall. Therefore, based on the information seen, the time taken to repair the wall has been excessive and this has impacted on the resident’s use of the garden.
The resident informed this Service that she was advised not to let her children play near the wall. Although the Ombudsman has not seen evidence verifying this advice, the resident’s emails indicate that she was anxious about allowing her children to play near the wall. The time taken and the lack of communication with the resident regarding the wall were therefore unreasonable. In making its finding, the Ombudsman has considered the following mitigation:
1. The landlord inspected the wall in November 2020 to ensure it was secure;
2. The garden wall is a party wall and therefore had to be referred to the council;
3. The wall partly backs onto a private property and therefore requires the council to liaise with the owner of the property.
Nevertheless, even taking not account these mitigating factors, There was an unreasonable delay and lack of communication regarding the damaged garden wall.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the electrical socket in the basement

Under Section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, the landlord is obliged “to keep in repair and proper working order the installations to the dwelling house for the supply of water, gas and electricity…”
The repairs log shows that the resident called the landlord on 13 August 2020 to report a defective electric socket in the non-habitable part of the basement. The contractor attended on 14 August 2020 and made the electric socket safe. The job notes state that the operative’s observations were that the socket was totally rusted away. The landlord responded appropriately by raising an urgent order and the contractor attended within 24 hours, which was appropriate as the order had indicated that the socket was unsafe.
The landlord raised a follow-on order on 4 September 2020 to inspect the electrical circuits. The contractor visited the property on 7 and 8 September 2020 but was unable to obtain access. The contractor therefore left a card in each case. It was reasonable for the landlord to arrange a follow-up visit as the previous visit had highlighted that the socket was completely rusted.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 1 March 2021 and requested that it provide electrics in the non-habitable area of the basement. The landlord replied on 16 March 2021 with its stage one review and advised that no further works were planned to the non-habitable area in the basement. However, it would arrange for an electrician to check the property for any electrical repair obligations. The repairs log shows that an order was raised on 30 March 2021 and attended on the same day to check the electrics. The job notes state that the electrics were made safe and a new order would be raised for a permanent repair. It was appropriate for the landlord to arrange a further visit by an electrician given that it had agreed to do this in its stage one review letter. However, it is unclear why it took two weeks after its letter to raise the electrical order. This was therefore a shortcoming on the part of the landlord.
A further order was raised by the landlord on 7 April 2021 to repair the electrics. The electrician had been instructed to install a new back plate and a blank plate to the basement socket. However, the job notes state that the work was not carried out because the resident wanted a working socket to be installed (this is disputed by the resident). The landlord later wrote to the resident on 4 October 2021 and clarified that it would fit a blank plate over the socket as it was not safe to have a live socket in the non-habitable part of the basement.
While this Service can see that the resident was unhappy with the landlord’s decision, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord was entitled to consider its safety obligations and to decide in the interests of safety that it was inappropriate to fit a live socket. Furthermore, as the area in question was designated as a storage area and was deemed by the landlord not to be part of the habitable premises, the landlord was entitled, in the Ombudsman’s view, to fit a blank plate rather than a live socket.
Overall, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord acted reasonably in its handling of the electrical repairs to the basement area. The resident has advised this Service that the blank plate was not fitted and therefore the Ombudsman has recommended that the landlord fit a blank plate to the socket in the basement storage area.

The landlord’s handling of repairs to the windows

The resident wrote to the landlord on 15 September 2020 and reported that the window sills at the front of the house were rotten. The landlord replied on the same day and confirmed that it had raised works orders (on 15 September 2020) to repair the window sills and that it was awaiting listed building consent to renew the bedroom box sash window. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that the contractor attended on 22 September 2020 and made the window sills watertight by applying a resin. The landlord therefore responded appropriately by carrying out repairs to the window sills in a timely manner. The job notes also show that the job was given additional priority by the landlord because there were 3 children under 7 years of age in the household.
The repairs log shows that the resident reported a defective rear window on 18 September 2020. The landlord raised an order on the same day and its contractor attended on 9 October 2020 to ease and adjust the window. The job notes state that the window was left safe and functional. The landlord had therefore responded appropriately within its 20 working day target for routine repairs.
The emails that were exchanged between the resident and landlord in September 2020 show that the resident believed the windows to be rotten and in need of replacement. However, the landlord’s reply was that there was minimal rot on the windows and this could be addressed with resin repairs. The landlord indicated that it had inspected the resin repairs carried out to date and was satisfied with the standard of work. It confirmed that full painting of the windows would be carried out as part of the cyclical maintenance programme. The landlord’s response to the resident’s concerns were, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, reasonable as it had carried out repairs to the windows and checked the standard of the work in order to satisfy itself about the quality.
It is clear from the evidence seen that the resident wanted the windows to be replaced rather than repairs to be undertaken. However, the Ombudsman is aware that landlords have limited financial resources and need to ensure best use of these and that it is not possible to agree all requests. Therefore, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs to the windows as part of its responsive repairs service and to plan to carry out window replacements and painting under its planned/cyclical programme.
The landlord’s repairs log shows that the resident phoned the landlord on 20 January 2021 to report that the windows throughout the property required repairs. The log shows that in response, the landlord raised an order on the same day and attended on 5 February 2021 and 24 February 2021 to carry out various repairs to the windows and frames. The repairs log indicates that the landlord’s contractor attended and completed various repairs to the external parts of the windows, including replacing rotten sills and applying resin. However, the notes also state that the resident refused to allow the contractor to carry out repairs to the windows inside the property. Again, it was reasonable for the landlord to carry out repairs to the windows, sills and frames to ensure they were weathertight and it was appropriate that the landlord had carried out the repairs within its 20 working day timescale for routine repairs.
One of the landlord’s surveyors inspected the property on 19 February 2021, which was appropriate given the concerns that had been raised by the resident regarding the windows. The surveyor noted that the windows were in reasonable condition and the resin treatment to the windows had been done to an acceptable standard. However, he also noted that the sealant applied around the windows had been finished to a poor standard. The surveyor took damp meter readings of the walls, windows and sills and did not find evidence of damp (apart from along the internal wall adjacent to the bathroom). This suggests that although the finishing of the sealant around the windows was poor, it was not allowing water to penetrate into the property. The landlord had therefore taken reasonable action to ensure that water ingress did not occur via the windows. Nevertheless, the poor appearance of the sealant around the windows would have detracted from the appearance of the property and therefore the poor finishing of the sealant was a shortcoming on the landlord’s part.
Following further concerns raised by the resident about the windows in March 2021, the landlord stated in its stage one review on 16 March 2021 that two of the sash windows were being replaced by its major works team on 16 March 2021 and that a further inspection would be carried out on 24 March 2021 to assess whether any other windows were rotten. The landlord’s repairs log shows that the inspection was carried out on 24 March 2021 and the contractor noted that the two windows had been renewed by the major works team, but there were gaps around the windows that needed to be filled. The contractor also noted that additional works were needed to some of the other windows, including filling and replacement of some sills. The log indicates that the sill replacements and other additional work was carried out on 19 and 20 April 2021, which was within the 20 working day target timescale following the inspection on 24 March 2021 and therefore the timing of the works was appropriate.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 25 March 2021 and advised that it was awaiting a quote for making good around the two new windows. The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2022 and stated that it had instructed the contractor to carry out this work. It is unclear from the information seen by this Service when or if the making good around the windows was carried out, however, it had not been done a year after the landlord had said it was awaiting a quote for this work. This was therefore unreasonable because although the windows were weathertight, the resident was concerned about the appearance of the unfinished work and was anxious about the potential weather damage to the windows because of the gaps around them.
In terms of the bathroom window, the landlord wrote to the resident in September 2020 to confirm that it was waiting for listed building consent to replace the window. The resident chased the landlord on various occasions to ask for a progress update in relation to the window. The landlord replied on each occasion to advise the resident that it was still awaiting listed building consent. However the landlord wrote to the resident on 17 September 2021 and stated that it had issued an instruction to external surveyors on 28 July 2021 to complete a listed building application to replace the bathroom window and the process could take up to 12 weeks to obtain consent. As listed building consent applications are dealt with by the local authority’s planning department, the Ombudsman accepts that the landlord could not control the process once the application had been submitted.
However, the information seen suggests that the application was not submitted until after 28 July 2021, despite the landlord advising the resident in September 2020 that it was waiting for the consent. The delay in submitting the application was therefore unreasonable and resulted in the resident waiting much longer than necessary for the bathroom window to be replaced. The Ombudsman has, however, taken into account that the landlord had checked the window on 9 July 2021 and confirmed that it was safe, functional and weathertight.
The landlord wrote to the resident on 16 February 2022 and confirmed that it had received listed building consent to replace the bathroom window and had instructed its contractor to carry out the work. The information seen by this Service indicates that the window was renewed in March 2022.
The landlord accepted in its final complaint response that the repairs, particularly the window repairs, had not been carried out in a systematic way and therefore offered the resident £350 compensation for delays, time and trouble. The Ombudsman’s view is that although the landlord responded within the appropriate timescales to carry out individual window repairs, it did not carry out the repairs in a systematic way by assessing the overall condition of the windows and coordinating the work to minimise the number of visits. This resulted in the resident having to report window repairs on various occasions, chase the landlord for progress updates and provide access for repairs on a number of occasions. It was therefore right that the landlord recognised its failure to deal with the windows in a systematic way and offered compensation to put things right.
The landlord offered the resident £350 compensation, however, the Ombudsman does not consider the landlord’s offer to have been a proportionate offer given the level of disruption experienced by the resident over a long period of time. Also, it did not adequately reflect the landlord’s delay in submitting the listed building application for the bathroom window and the delay in making good around the two new sash windows. The lack of coordination in relation to the window repairs/renewals and the delays resulted in significant disruption for the resident. The Ombudsman has therefore found there was maladministration and has made an order for proportionate compensation to be paid to put things right in relation to the landlord’s handling of the window repairs. The Ombudsman has taken into account mitigating factors, which include:
1. The landlord attended within appropriate timescales to carry out repairs to the windows to ensure the windows were weathertight.
2. The landlord’s surveyor and contractors had inspected the windows to ensure they were weathertight.
3. The landlord had to obtain listed building consent to replace the two bedroom windows and the bathroom window.
However, even taking into account these mitigating factors, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s overall approach to the window repairs was piecemeal and was unreasonable because of the significant disruption to the resident.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of dampness in the property

The correspondence from the landlord in September 2020 states that it intended to address dampness in the basement (including the bathroom) by damp proofing. However, the landlord attended the property on 6 October 2020 and established that the issue with damp in the bathroom was not caused by rising damp, but by water from the bath/shower. The landlord’s repairs log states that the re-specified works started on 19 October 2020 and finished on 16 November 2020. Therefore, having established the cause of the dampness in the bathroom, the landlord carried out remedial works within a reasonable timescale.
The resident wrote to the landlord on 5 February 2021 to express various concerns about the condition of the property. As a result, the landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 19 February 2021 and took damp meter readings of the walls, windows and sills. His findings were that the only evidence of damp was a wet patch on the staircase wall adjacent to the bathroom. It was reasonable that the landlord had arranged a surveyor inspection following concerns expressed by the resident and it was also reasonable that the surveyor appears to have carried out a thorough inspection of the damp by taking meter readings.
In terms of the bathroom, the landlord carried out a further inspection on 5 August 2021 and reported that the bathroom walls were generally in good condition and mostly measured dry with a damp meter. However, it found that there was excess moisture on the bath surround walls and as a result, some of the bathroom tiles had de-bonded from the wall. The landlord therefore agreed to remove the tiles from the bathroom, dehumidify the room and take further damp readings.
Given that the resident had already experienced disruption in the use of the bathroom, it was unsatisfactory that the tiles had de-bonded from the wall due to moisture and that the landlord had not resolved the cause of the problem. The landlord had agreed to put this right by arranging for the tiles to be removed, for the walls to be dried, for the cause of the damp to be established and for the walls to be re-tiled. The Ombudsman recognises that it can be difficult to diagnose the cause of damp and sometimes work has to be redone. However, this Service has not seen any evidence that the landlord appropriately acknowledged the disruption caused to the resident because of the need to re-tile the bathroom and did not offer appropriate redress to put things right. It was therefore unreasonable that the landlord had not offered financial redress to the resident to recognise the disruption caused by the additional works to the bathroom.
In terms of the wider basement area, the landlord had arranged for a dampness consultant to inspect the basement on 3 August 2021 and the consultant’s report concluded that the damp protection (tanking) system that had been applied to the basement in 2006 had not failed, but there were small areas of damp because fixtures and fittings had punctured the tanking system. The landlord wrote to the resident on 18 August 2021 and outlined the proposed works, which included carrying out spot repairs with a cementitious tanking system where the tanking had been punctured. The landlord instructed the damp specialist to carry out these works and the works were completed in January 2022. As the resident had written on various occasions about damp, it was reasonable for the landlord to arrange for dampness specialist to inspect the basement.
However, following the inspection on 3 August 2021, it then took over 5 months for the work to commence. In the Ombudsman’s view, this was too long as the resident had advised the landlord about dampness in the basement area on several occasions. The Ombudsman recognises that during the period from August 2021 to January 2022, the landlord had to obtain quotes to carry out the remedial works, however, the delay was nevertheless unreasonable as the resident had written on various occasions about the detrimental effect the dampness was having on her family.
The dampness specialist had highlighted that the timber elements in contact with the floor slab in the basement should be raised to prevent moisture being absorbed by the timber. The landlord therefore agreed in its final complaint response to isolate any timber in contact with the concrete slab and wrote to the resident on 8 December 2021 to confirm that part of the skirting and architrave would be renewed. This was reasonable as the landlord had acted on the recommendations of the dampness specialist. The Ombudsman understands that the resident was dissatisfied that some of the timber elements in the basement were not being renewed, however, the view of this Service is that the landlord acted appropriately by considering the report produced by the dampness specialist and arranging repairs accordingly.
The resident wrote to the landlord on various occasions that she was unhappy with the condition of the bathroom vinyl flooring as she reported that it was no longer secured to the ground. The landlord’s surveyor inspected the property on 19 February 2021 and noted that the flooring in the bathroom looked in reasonable condition. The landlord wrote to the resident on 4 October 2021 and stated that the dampness consultants had also not identified any issues with the bathroom during their inspection. Finally, the landlord wrote to the resident on 16 March 2022 and stated that its contractor had inspected the flooring in January 2022 and had not seen any visible defects to the flooring. Based on the inspections carried out by the landlord’s surveyor, its contractor and the consultant, the landlord took reasonable steps to check the condition of the bathroom flooring. Having arranged the inspections, the landlord was then entitled to follow the recommendations from the inspections. The landlord’s actions in relation to the flooring were therefore reasonable.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the render and mortar on the external walls

On 15 September 2020, the resident reported that scaffolders had caused damage to the front of the house by making holes in the brickwork. The landlord confirmed it had inspected the front external wall on 16 September 2020 and said it would raise the matter with the scaffolding contractor. It is unclear from the evidence seen by the Ombudsman whether the landlord pursued the matter with the contractor. The landlord stated in its stage one reply on 1 March 2021 that the render/brickwork had been inspected and no internal issues had been found. The landlord had therefore acted reasonably by inspecting the property to ensure there was no water ingress or dampness as a result of the render/brickwork. However, it was a shortcoming that the landlord appears not to have followed up contacting the scaffolding company and communicating the outcome to the resident.
The resident wrote again to the landlord on 8 March 2021 and reported problems with ‘blown’ render and holes in the brickwork. The landlord stated in its stage one review of 16 March 2021 that it had asked its repairs team to carry out an assessment of the external render damage. The resident subsequently wrote again on various occasions to report that the render was defective at the front and back of the house. She stated that the walls needed to be completely re-rendered rather than the landlord carrying out ‘patch’ repairs. The landlord’s repairs log shows that it attended on 11 June 2021 to inspect the render again and found that although there was staining at high-level on the brickwork and render on the outside wall, there was no corresponding evidence of staining on the inside.
While the Ombudsman understands that the reported defects to the render and brickwork may have detracted from the external appearance of the property, the landlord had carried out appropriate inspections and concluded that any defects were not causing internal issues. The evidence shows that the landlord carried out various external patch repairs to the render and advised the resident that comprehensive external work to the render would be carried out as part of its cyclical programme. As there was no evidence of the external defects to the render/brickwork causing internal issues, it was reasonable for the landlord to plan to address them through its planned cyclical programme, which is recognised to offer better value for money compared to undertaking responsive repair work.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about not being decanted during major works to the property

The landlord’s major works transfers policy states that major works transfers will occur where work is required to a property which cannot be done with the tenant in occupation.
Where extensive works are required, the Ombudsman would expect landlords to consider the individual circumstances of the household, including any vulnerabilities, and whether or not it is appropriate to move residents out of their home at an early stage. The Ombudsman would expect the landlord to consider factors such as the level of disruption of the works, the likely time period over which the works will be carried out, access to basic facilities and whether there are health and safety reasons for the resident to be decanted.
It is not the Ombudsman’s role to decide whether the resident should have been decanted during the work. The role of this Service is to assess whether the landlord followed its policy, legal requirements and good practice in deciding whether the resident should have been decanted prior to works commencing.
The main works carried out to the property following the landlord’s inspection on 6 October 2020 were replastering of the hallways and work to the bathroom. The landlord’s repairs log indicates that these works started on 19 October 2020 and were completed by 16 November 2020. The log also indicates that the replastering of the children’s bedrooms had been completed prior to this period.
The landlord confirmed in its emails dated 15 September 2020 and 25 September 2020 that the resident would be decanted to allow the damp proofing work to the bathroom to be carried out. However, during an inspection on 6 October 2020 the landlord established that the damp in the bathroom was caused by overspill from the bath/shower rather than rising damp. It is not clear from the evidence at what point the resident was advised that she would not be decanted during the works, however, the evidence seen shows that the works were carried out to the hallway plaster during October 2020 and the works to the bathroom took place during October and November 2020.
The resident submitted a stage one complaint to the landlord on 5 February 2021 and stated that the standard of work had been poor. She also stated she was unhappy about not being decanted as the works went on for weeks and there were significant levels of dirt and dust, which she had to clean each day. The resident felt that the “national lockdown” made it even more important for her to have been decanted. The landlord replied on 1 March 2021 and confirmed that the original scope of works had been incorrect and had apologised to the resident for this. The landlord stated that all rooms were habitable during the works and said that the resident had given permission for the contractor to store items in the bathroom as she had indicated she would be showering elsewhere.
Although the landlord had initially agreed to decant the resident, it was reasonable for the landlord to review this decision after it had inspected the property on 6 October 2020 and had changed the specification of works. Also, it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for its error. However, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the landlord considered the resident’s individual circumstances when making its decision to carry out the work with the resident in situ. Although the resident had notified the landlord in 2019 that she was disabled and had 2 disabled children, there is no evidence that the landlord discussed the nature of the disabilities with the resident and how the work might impact on the family. This was unreasonable as without this information the landlord could not make an informed decision on whether to decant the resident.
If after considering the resident’s individual circumstances, the decision had still been not to decant her, the information about disabilities would have helped the landlord carry out the work in a way that minimised the impact on the family taking into account their disabilities. Based on the evidence seen, it was not until 3 September 2021 that the landlord asked the resident whether there were any health concerns prior to carrying out works. A mitigating factor is that the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the resident raised objections either immediately before or during the works about the landlord’s decision not to decant her.
The resident mentioned that the national lockdown had exacerbated the problems caused by the landlord choosing to carry out the works with the family in situ. The Ombudsman understands that due to COVID-19 many residents were concerned about contractors entering their home at the time, however, on 1 June 2020, the Government had issued guidance to social landlords to say that they could resume wider repairs as long as they were carried out in line with public health advice. This advice did not change during either the second or third lockdowns. Therefore, under the COVID-19 guidelines issued to landlords, the landlord was able to carry out works during the periods in question. However, the resident had stated in her email to the landlord on 26 October 2020 that she was clinically vulnerable to COVID-19 and therefore this should have formed part of the landlord’s assessment of the family’s vulnerabilities.
In the addendum to its final complaint response, the landlord accepted that it did not have evidence to show that it had written to the resident to seek clarification about her disabilities. It also stated that the landlord had not seen any record of the resident objecting to the works on disability grounds. Although the input of residents is important in making such decisions, ultimately the landlord had a duty of care towards the resident. For example, under the Defective Premises Act 1972 a landlord has an obligation to prevent personal injury caused by defects to the home. Also, landlords have a duty under the Equality Act 2010 to make reasonable adjustments to enable disabled people to use their services. It was therefore incumbent on the landlord to carry out an appropriate risk assessment taking into account the individual circumstances of the household. The landlord did not apologise for this omission and offer redress to put things right. The Ombudsman has therefore made an order for compensation to recognise the landlord’s failure to consider the family’s disabilities when deciding to carry out the works with the family in situ.
In the resident’s request to escalate her complaint on 1 March 2021, the resident stated that some of the rooms had been unusable as the landlord had carried out extensive plastering in one of her children’s bedrooms and the hallways, one of the bedrooms had been left without a radiator, and had exposed brickwork and a rotten window. She also stated that the bathroom was unusable. The landlord’s response was that the rooms were habitable and that a decant had not been warranted as the resident was able to access the property and had access to cooking and washing facilities. The Ombudsman is unable to determine the extent to which the resident had access to facilities in the property during the works, however, for the reasons already stated, the landlord had not taken into account whether the family’s disabilities affected their ability to access the facilities.
The landlord stated in its final complaint response that the resident had answered ‘prefer not to say’ in relation to the disability question on her mutual exchange application form. However, the Ombudsman’s view is that the resident was entitled to decline to provide details of her disabilities on the mutual exchange form and this did not prevent the landlord from subsequently obtaining information from the resident, particularly as she had advised the landlord on various occasions in 2019 and 2020 that the family had disabilities.
It is noticeable that the landlord’s major works transfers policy does not mention the need to consider residents’ individual circumstances, including vulnerabilities, when making decisions about whether to decant them. A recommendation has therefore been made for the landlord to review its policy in order to ensure this is included.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative

The resident spoke to the landlord on the phone on 5 March 2021 and made a complaint about one of the contractor’s operatives. The landlord sent it stage one review reply on 16 March 2021 and stated that the operative’s supervisor had spoken to the operative on the day of the incident. The landlord stated in its letter that the resident had followed the operative to his van and he had then asked the resident to stop following him. The resident wrote to the landlord on 16 and 18 March 2021 and disputed this version of events and she also provided footage from her video doorbell, which she said confirmed that the operative had been threatening and aggressive. She stated that she had not followed the operative to his van.
Where there are differing accounts of events, it is difficult to determine which of the accounts accurately reflects the events that occurred. Therefore, the Ombudsman has focussed on whether the landlord responded appropriately when the resident reported her concerns about the operative’s conduct. In this case, the operative’s supervisor investigated the matter by speaking to the operative on the day. Ideally, the Ombudsman would have also expected the supervisor to contact the resident, however, this Service accepts that the resident does not appear to have made a complaint about the operative’s conduct until 5 March 2021. Therefore, the initial action taken by the operative’s supervisor was, in the Ombudsman’s view, reasonable because he had interviewed the operative shortly after the incident and made contemporaneous notes of the interview.
It is, however, concerning that the account of the incident outlined in the landlord’s stage one review letter differs from the notes in the landlord’s repairs log, which did not mention the resident following the operative to his van. It was therefore a shortcoming on the landlord’s part that it had not identified this discrepancy as part of its investigation.
The landlord stated in its addendum to the final response that the operative and the resident had different recollections of the incident and it was unable to verify either version of events. However, it apologised that the resident had found the incident upsetting and gave an undertaking that the operative would not attend the property for future repairs. This was a reasonable response by the landlord as it apologised and reassured the resident that the operative would not be sent to her property in future.
The resident advised the landlord and this Service that there was a subsequent incident involving the same operative. However, the landlord stated that it had no record of this and the operative may have been attending another property in the vicinity. The landlord said it would investigate this if the resident could provide the date and approximate time the operative was present. This was a reasonable approach by the landlord as it had investigated the resident’s report and was unable to find any record of the operative having attended the property again.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaints

The resident submitted her stage one complaint on 5 February 2021 and the landlord replied on 1 March 2021. The landlord therefore took 24 calendar days to respond, which was longer than the target timescale of 21 calendar days. However, the landlord had carried out an inspection of the property in the intervening period and therefore there had been contact with the resident. Nevertheless, it was a shortcoming that the landlord did not reply to the resident on time or did not send an interim reply.
The resident requested a review of the stage one complaint on 1 March 2021 and the landlord replied on 16 March 2021. The landlord therefore replied within the appropriate timescale of 10 working days.
The resident contacted the landlord on 16 March 2021 and asked for her complaint to be escalated to the Chief Executive review stage. The landlord replied on 20 August 2021, which was over 5 months after the resident’s request to escalate the complaint and was considerably longer than the landlord’s deadline of 28 calendar days. Although the landlord sent an interim reply on 30 April 2021 and corresponded with the resident during the intervening period, the time taken to respond to the complaint was nevertheless unreasonable because the resident had complained about various defects within the property which she said were affecting her health. In its final response, the landlord apologised for the delay in replying and offered the resident compensation of £75.
The evidence shows that during the period of delay, the contractor inspected the property on 24 March 2021, arranged for a dampness specialist to inspect the property on 3 August 2021 and carried out repairs to the property. This suggests that the delay did not have a significant effect on the landlord’s handling of the substantive repair issues. Therefore, given that the landlord was progressing the repairs, had sent a holding response and was in communication with the resident during the period, the Ombudsman’s view is that the landlord’s apology and offer of £75 was a proportionate and reasonable offer of redress for the delay in replying to the complaint.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was a service failure by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the external doors.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the rear garden wall.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the electrical socket in the basement.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of repairs to the windows.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s reports of dampness in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the render and mortar on the external walls.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about not being decanted during major works to the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s concerns about the conduct of an operative.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, and in the Ombudsman’s opinion, there was reasonable redress offered by the landlord in relation to its handling of the resident’s complaints.

Reasons

Although the landlord had carried out interim repairs to the basement rear door to ensure it was weathertight, it took too long to renew the door after the resident had relocated the washing machine.
There was a significant delay and lack of communication regarding the damaged garden wall and this affected the resident’s use of the garden as she was anxious about allowing her children to play near the wall. Despite the landlord raising an order to repair the wall, the Ombudsman has not seen any evidence that the wall has been repaired.
The landlord responded within an appropriate timescale to make the socket safe and for safety reasons agreed to fit a blank plate over the socket as a permanent repair.
The works to the windows were not approached in a systematic or coordinated way and this resulted in several visits to the property to carry out works or inspections, which was very disruptive for the resident. There were also delays in the landlord applying for listed building consent for the bathroom window and a delay in making good around the two new windows. Although the landlord apologised for its failings and offered compensation, the amount offered by the landlord was insufficient to put things right.
The landlord did not appropriately acknowledge or offer redress for the additional disruption caused to the resident by having to re-tile the bathroom. Also, there was a delay in the start of the dampness remedial works following the inspection by the dampness specialist in August 2021.
The landlord carried out inspections to ensure that any defects to the external render and mortar were not affecting the inside of the property. The landlord carried out various ‘patch’ repairs to the render and advised the resident that comprehensive work to the exterior of the property would be carried out under its cyclical/planned maintenance programme.
The landlord failed to request details of the family’s disabilities and therefore did not adequately consider the family’s individual circumstances when deciding whether a decant was appropriate. Also, as the landlord did not have details of the disabilities it could not take the family’s circumstances into account when planning and carrying out the works with them in situ.
The landlord investigated the resident’s complaint about the contractor’s operative, apologised that the resident had been upset by the incident and assured the resident that the operative would not carry out further repairs in the property.
There was an unreasonable delay in the landlord replying to the resident’s complaint at the Chief Executive stage of the process. However, during the period of delay the landlord continued to carry out repairs to the property. The landlord apologised for the delay and offered proportionate financial redress to put things right.

Orders

The landlord is ordered within four weeks of this report to:
1. Pay the resident a total of £2,100 (including the £350 already offered by the landlord) for distress and inconvenience caused to the resident by the landlord’s handling of:
  1. Repairs to the external doors;
  2. Repairs to the rear garden wall;
  3. Repairs to the windows;
  4. Reports of dampness;
  5. The resident’s concerns about not being decanted.
2. Write to the resident to apologise for the failings identified in this report.
3. Carry out repairs to the rear garden wall if these have not yet been completed.
4. Review its major works transfers policy in order to include the importance of considering a household’s individual circumstances, including vulnerabilities, when deciding whether to decant them.

Recommendation

It is recommended that the landlord fits a blank plate to the electrical socket in the basement storage area.