Islington Council (202203097)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202203097

Islington Council

27 March 2023

Our approach

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

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

The complaint.

The resident has complained about:
1. the landlord’s handling of repairs to a leak which has caused damp and mould in his property.
2. the landlord’s handling of his request to be transferred.
The Ombudsman has also considered the landlord’s handling of the resident’s complaint.

Background and summary of events

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, his tenancy starting in July 2016. His property is a one bed flat on the fourth floor of five. It is solid brick built with concrete slab. The block has cantilever walkways, private balconies and a flat roof construction. The resident lives in the property with his child. His current rent is £127.09.
The tenancy agreement and the landlord’s Housing Repairs Guide, confirms the landlord’s statutory obligation to “Keep[ing] the structure and exterior of the property in repair, including:
1. External walls, external doors, external window frames and sills;
2. drains, gutters, external pipes;
3. access paths and steps to individual properties;
4. the roof and chimney (but not sweeping);
5. the internal structure; and
6. external decoration”.
The Guide states that “sometimes damp problems in the home are the result of a leak or water penetration from outside the property, for example a blocked gutter causes overflowing rain water to make an internal wall damp and mouldy. The council is responsible for repairing water leaks and water penetration issues affecting your home”.
With regards to repairs priorities and response times, the Guide states:
1. Routine Repairs “covers non-urgent repairs e.g. minor repairs to plasterwork or resealing around a bath. The service will attend on the next available appointment. Some jobs will need an inspection first”. These works should be completed within 20 working days.
2. Recall – “This category is assigned to any works which are believed to be a recall job. A recall is raised for work that needs to be repeated due to a problem with the work done originally or a failure of a part used” and should be completed within 5 working days.
The tenancy agreement confirms that the resident must “tell the council, as soon as possible about any problem that the council is responsible for repairing.”
The landlord operated a two-stage complaints procedure (dated February 2017) at the time of the resident’s complaint:
1. Stage 1 – The first stage is investigated and responded to locally by the service area in which the complaint originated. A full investigation will be conducted and a final response will be sent within 21 calendar days of receipt.
2. Stage 2 – Chief Executive’s stage this second stage of the complaints procedure gives the customer the right to request that an investigation of their complaint is undertaken by the Corporate Customer Service Team on behalf of the Chief Executive. A full response is provided to the customer within 28 calendar days of receiving the complaint (excluding bank holidays).
3. The complaints procedure further states that “the reasons for a request for an investigation at the CE stage and any new supporting evidence must be looked at by the receiving officer/service with a view to review the stage 1 investigation and its findings. This can be dealt with as a Stage 1 review and must be acknowledged within 3 working days and completed within 10 working days of receiving the new information”.
The landlord Compensation Policy (November 2019 and the updated version dated April 2022) states:
1. “Compensation is payable where any room is unavailable for use for 4 weeks or more as a result of Islington Council failing to take reasonable steps to carry out repairs. Compensation is not payable in cases where repairs cannot reasonably be completed within 4 weeks due to the nature of works required. Compensation should be calculated as follows: Weekly gross rent divided by (total number of habitable rooms + 1) x number of rooms affected x number of weeks out of use”.
2. “As a rule of thumb the following bands are considered reasonable (in cases of uninhabitable rooms)”:

Degree of inconvenience	Band to consider
Slight inconvenience	500 – 1000 per annum (pro rata)
Moderate inconvenience	1000 – 1500 per annum (pro-rata)
Severe inconvenience	1500 – 2500 per annum (pro-rata)

“In certain circumstances Islington Council may have no direct liability to make payment to a resident who has suffered damage or disturbance. As a good social landlord, however, it will sometimes be in our interests to make an ex-gratia payment on a ‘without prejudice’ basis”.

Summary of Events

Following an order raised on 26 April 2019, on 7 May 2019 the landlord carried out a damp inspection of the resident’s property. It noted brown water stains and damage to plaster to the walls and ceiling in the bathroom and the hallway at the side of the front entrance door. It attributed the dampness to water ingress from the property above, from the down pipe or the asphalt on the walkway above. It proposed water tests to the asphalt and visual inspections to the pipe work to the bathroom above.
On 10 May 2019 the landlord raised an order in the resident’s property for replastering and redecoration works, for retiling in the bathroom around the bath taps and for a panel at the tap end of the bath which had been damaged by water ingress to be replaced. The works were to be completed after the leak had been resolved.
On 13 May 2019 the landlord checked the asphalt around the rainwater pipe at the front of the resident’s property and sealed the joints on the cast iron downpipe.
The landlord’s repair records show that the leak to the resident’s property continued therefore it recalled its contractor on 24 June 2019 to investigate a leak from the balcony of the flat above. The contractor attended on 27 June 2019 and according to its records, did not gain access to the resident’s property but noted that the rainwater pipe had been repaired. Subsequently, on 28 June 2019 the landlord left a voicemail and text message for the resident to confirm that an appointment had been scheduled for 1 July 2019 at which it would inspect the damp. It advised that a plumber would inspect and repair an overflow pipe that roofers had identified as causing water to pool on the balcony above. The resident did not respond and according to the landlord’s records, when the contractor attended on 1 July 2019, it did not gain access to the property but cleared a blocked gulley at a neighbouring property. There is no evidence that the landlord left a card or otherwise notified the resident that it had not managed to gain access to his property.
The resident did not make further reports of damp and mould until his complaint of March 2021. Following separate reports by other neighbours the landlord had carried out roofing works in the interim.
In October 2020 the Council considered a request from the resident for the landlord to award him medical priority for his rehousing application. His request was denied.
On 23 March 2021 the resident raised a formal complaint. He advised that:
1. he had mould all around his property and that tiles had fallen off in the bathroom. He advised that he had previously been informed that this could had been caused by a leak from the roof.
2. roof repairs had been unsuccessful as the wall in his hallway went wet every time it rained. He believed the problem with the wall in his hallway was a consequence of walkways on the upstairs floor being open to the elements.
3. due to his vulnerability he had to stay indoors after Covid-19 but his property was damp and mouldy. He and his son had had persistent coughs, breathing and skin difficulties. His eyes were red, and his son had impetigo. He also noted that he was allergic to penicillium.
On 14 April 2021 the landlord sent the Stage 1 response to the complaint. The landlord outlined the works carried out in 2019 and advised that it had received no reports since. The landlord advised that a manager would inspect the resident’s property to determine the source of the roof leak, then after relevant works had been carried out, it would inspect the resident’s home and raise the required remedial works.
On 15 April 2019 the landlord visited but the resident was not at home.
The landlord resent the Stage 1 response on 20 April 2021 after being provided with the correct email address for the resident. The resident responded on 20 April 2020 stating that the works to the pipe in 2019 were not adequate as the problem was not with the pipe. He also advised that no one had carried internal works in his property in 2019 or informed him of appointments and that he had permanent damp in his hallway.
On 20 April 2021 the resident agreed to an appointment for 26 April 2021.
On 4 May 2021, the landlord sent the Review of the complaint at Stage 1 response. It noted that the inspection of 26 April 2022 had noted that the leak was emanating from a neighbouring balcony and that it would renew the area of balcony. After external works had been carried out, and there was no further water ingress, it would inspect and make good any damage from water ingress.
On 4 May 2021 the landlord raised a job to renew an area of balcony between two upstairs flat once scaffolding had been erected. Its roofing contractor commenced the work on 17 May 2021 and completed them on 29 June 2021 according to the landlord’s repair records.
On 10 May 2021 the resident emailed the Council’s Homes and Communities Team advising that he would like to be rehoused as his health was getting worse. He raised concerns that his points, 121, was not sufficient to bid on another property.
On 24 May 2021 the resident advised he had not heard from the landlord about damp and mould since the visit of 26 April 2021. On 26 May 2021, the landlord advised that the repairs team would contact the resident.
On 14 June 2021 the landlord inspected the resident’s property and confirmed that bathroom tiles had fallen and that tiles and the panel around the bath needed to be replaced. The resident has stated that the landlord advised that the Repairs Team would subsequently contact him.
On 21 June 2021 the resident wrote and phoned the landlord to speak about the damp and mould issues which remained unresolved..
On 22 June 2021 the resident escalated the complaint stating that he had received a response on 21 June 2021 which was not sufficiently detailed:
1. The landlord had not provided him with the names and contact details of staff responsible for ensuring the scope of works were carried out within time.
2. He had not been informed of a timeframe for works that were diagnosed at the visit of 26 April 2021.
3. He had not been provided the report from the inspection of 14 June 2021.
4. He had not been made aware beforehand of the failed appointments for a roofer of 27 June 2019 and a plumber on 1 July 2019. He would like to know why the landlord did not follow the procedure for making appointments and why it did not inform him it would not be taking further action.
5. He did not make further reports as the website recommended residents wait to be contacted by the landlord and because he did not expect the onset of Covid-19 which meant that he had to shield.
6. He would like the details of all actions the landlord had taken to deal with the mould issue and the contact details of all staff involved.
7. The health of him and his son had been affected and he would like to be rehoused.
On 14 July 2021 the resident advised the landlord that the agreed works had not been completed and water was still entering his property. On 15 July 2021 the landlord recalled the roofing contractor which had carried out the works to the upstairs balcony which was completed on 29 June 2021.
The landlord’s records indicate that the roofing contractor attended on 29 July 2021. The contractor carried out the balcony works again although in its view the leak to the balcony was due to the door frame of an upper floor property. On the same day, the landlord’s roofing team located a leak from an upstairs property’s door frame.
After reports of leaks from other tenants from July 2021, the landlord completed further roofing repairs including clearing the outlets and applying asphalt which took place on 13 September 2021.
On 18 January 2022 the landlord asked the roofing contractor to jointly inspect the works caried out.
On 20 January 2022, the landlord sent the Stage 2 response to the complaint.
1. It apologised for the delay in the complaint response and offered £75 compensation.
2. It noted that it had not gained access on 27 June 2019 and 1 July 2019 after which it closed the appointment and placed the onus of the resident to rearrange the appointment.
3. It was unsure why its Homes and Communities Team had not contacted the resident about his transfer request and would ask it to contact the resident directly.
4. It had recalled the contractor that had renewed the area of balcony above the resident’s property but the works remained outstanding as did the internal works. It apologised for the delay and noted it had chased the roofing contractor on 18 January 2022, and expected that an appointment for an inspection would be arranged within a month.
5. It offered £633.28 compensation for the delay in progressing works from the recall in July 2021, the resident’s time and trouble in chasing the complaint and the inconvenience/distress caused to the resident and his son. The landlord has advised this Service that this award comprised:
  1. July 2021 to February 2022 = 8 x £41.66 = £333.38. The landlord has advised that this period reflects the time taken for the works to be completed to the door frame of the neighbouring property following the report by the roofing contractor in July 2021.
  2. Time and Trouble = £150
  3. Inconvenience/Distress – £150
On 24 January 2022 the landlord inspected a balcony above the resident’s flat and did not see any damage.
On 27 January 2022 the landlord inspected the resident’s property. After the inspection, on 3 February 2023, the landlord raised an order to install a new larger weather board to the door of a flat above. It specified that the “asphalt gutter sole needs raised which first required a timber plate to be fitted inside” the flat.
On 8 February 2022 the landlord installed the weather board to the door frame of the neighbouring flat. On the same day, it inspected the roof for leaks from the upper walkway and found no defects to the roof. On 9 February 2022 the resident advised the landlord that he was not satisfied that the works to neighbour’s doorframe would prevent water passing through.
Following a request by the resident for another damp and mould survey, a surveyor attended on 3 March 2022 noting again dampness in the hallway and bathroom. The report indicates that there were potential issues with the gutter, drains and overflow pipework, and that the downpipes were under investigation. It carried out a dye test to the balcony and drains outside an upstairs flat.
After the visit of 3 March 2022, the landlord also identified remedial internal works to plaster around the front entrance door, retile the bathroom and painting to the hallway and bathroom. A job was raised with appointments booked for 22 & 29 April 2022.
The landlord carried out further dye testing on 17 March 2022 to a top floor balcony ascertaining that there was water penetration through a brick wall that was seeping into the resident’s flat, and that roofing works were required.
The landlord did not gain access for the appointments of 22 and 29 April 2022 as the resident was not aware of the appointments. It attempted to reschedule the works for 6 May 2022, but the resident refused access as the roofing team had not completed external works. On 17 May 2022 the resident declined another appointment for the same reason.
On 16 May 2022 the resident contacted this Service stating that he had damp and mould in his property caused by a leak from outside, and that the health of him and his son had been affected, including both being diagnosed with asthma in June/July 2021. He also noted that the condition of his property affected his ability to swap his property.
On 30 May 2022, the landlord visited the resident’s property and an upstairs property which was also reporting leaks to investigate further; it carried out a water dye test and found a defective stack pipe. The landlord after raised an order for a contractor to renew the cast iron rainwater pipe between the balcony floors. The contractor completed the works on 11 June 2022.
The landlord has advised this Service that a surveyor attended the resident’s property on 5 July 2022 to carry out an inspection but did not gain access. Surveyors next attended the resident’s property on 19 December 2022 and raised remedial works to the bathroom which had dry readings. However, the report noted “Hallway still has wet readings in areas on the right wall. It’s believed the previous downpipe which has since been replaced was causing these issues internally”. An appointment was booked for repairs to the bathroom and hallway for 4 January 2023, however, the resident cancelled the appointment, saying a mould test was required.
The landlord has further stated that an operative who attended on 1 February 2023 reported that the walls were drying out. An operative who attended on 27 February 2023 noted that the resident needed to go out therefore there was insufficient time to carry out repairs at that appointment. A further appointment is booked for 4 April 2023 to carry out remedial works to the bathroom.

Assessment and findings

This Service recognises that this situation has caused the resident severe distress as he has experienced damp and mould in his property over a prolonged period of time. Aspects of the resident’s complaint relate to the impact of his living conditions on the health of himself and his son. Where the Ombudsman identifies failure on a landlord’s part, we can consider the resulting distress and inconvenience. The Ombudsman accepts that the resident and his child have been diagnosed with asthma, but unlike a court we cannot establish what caused the health issue, or determine liability and award damages. This would usually be dealt with as a personal injury claim through the courts. Though the Ombudsman is unable to evaluate medical evidence, it will be taken into account when considering the resident’s circumstances.
Following the resident’s initial report in 2019, the landlord took appropriate steps to diagnose the source of the leak by inspecting on 7 May 2019. At this time it attributed the water ingress to the downpipe from the property above or the walkway above. It also noted that there were internal repairs required in the resident’s hallway and bathroom as the result of the leak, to be completed after the leak had been stopped.
As the works to seal the downpipe did not prevent the leak, it was appropriate that the landlord with its contractor sought to carry out another inspection. However, the landlord did not gain access to the resident’s property on 27 June 2019 and 1 July 2019.
After the failed appointments of July 2019 there is no evidence that the resident further reported damp and mould in his property and pursued works until March 2021, 20 months later. Tenants have a responsibility to pursue repairs with the landlord as confirmed by the resident’s tenancy agreement which states that he must report repairs. Indeed by doing so he is placing the landlord “on notice” for completion of the repairs in adherence of its repair obligations. In this case the resident has stated the (mis)understood that the landlord would be contacting him again, then could not pursue the repair due to his need to socially isolate when the Covid-19 pandemic arrives.
Notwithstanding the lack of contact by the resident in 2019, the landlord was aware that the water ingress had not been resolved, therefore it was unreasonable that the landlord did not make proactive efforts to inspect again and complete further works instead of relying on receiving more reports and then closing down the repair. Furthermore, the landlord was aware that it was required to make good the condition of the resident’s property after the leak and damp had been resolved. It is particularly important that landlords proactively seek to eradicate damp and mould in property because of the potential damage to property and the effect on health that can occur, as well as the general distress and inconvenience caused by outstanding repairs.
Where a landlord does not gain access to a property it is good practice for a card to be left so that the resident is aware that the landlord attended and how they can rearrange the appointment. However, there is no evidence that the landlord left a card at the resident’s property or otherwise notified the resident that it had not managed to gain access in 2019.
Through making his formal complaint in March 2021, the resident reported that the leak was ongoing and that his property had constantly been damp. There is no good reason for the landlord to have only arranged a new inspection until after sending the complaint response, three weeks later. Similarly, it was unreasonable that the landlord did not order works immediately after the inspection of 26 April 2021 but only did so after sending the further complaint response of 4 May 2021. The works ordered at this time – to renew an area of balcony on the upstairs floor – was not completed until 29 June 2021 outside the timeframe for routine repairs. Taken altogether there was a delay in the landlord responding to the resident’s further report of damp in March 2019.
The resident’s contact with the landlord of 24 May 2021, 21 June 2021 and escalated complaint of 22 June 2021 indicates that the landlord did not advise him of the progress of the works ordered after the inspection of 26 April 2021 or who he could contact to make enquiries. This added to his uncertainty and frustration, and time and trouble in pursuing his complaint.
The resident’s report of 14 July 2021 indicates that again the works carried out had not resolved the water ingress to his property. Although the landlord recalled the roofing contractor, there is no evidence that it ensured the contractor carried out a further inspection and works for several months. Moreover, although it now identified a new issue that may have caused or contributed to the leak – a leak from the upstairs’ neighbour’s doorframe – there is again no evidence that the landlord arranged or pursued this repair for several months. As such there was a further unreasonable delay by the landlord carrying out the works it had identified as necessary to resolve the damp and mould delay. Nor is there any evidence that it updated the resident on its actions or the status of his formal complaint, prolonging his uncertainty.
It was only in January 2022, six months later, that the landlord pursued its roofing contractor and responded to the resident’s escalated complaint. It took around eight months from the report, in February 2022, for it to complete the works to the neighbour’s doorframe. Whilst the landlord may have completed other works in the block due to separate reports from other residents during this period, this did not diminish the landlord’s responsibility to deal with the particular repair issues the resident had reported and update him about the progress of his open formal complaint. There is no evidence that the landlord took these actions.
The landlord’s further inspection of 3 March 2022 confirms that the dampness in the resident’s hallway and bathroom remained. Although the works to the neighbour’s doorframe had been completed, there were still repairs required to the gutter, drains and pipework to ensure the leak would be remedied. The landlord carried out dye tests on 3 and 17 March 2022 which was reasonable as dye tests are a useful way to diagnose the source and route of a leak. However, the landlord missed opportunities to conduct the test earlier, especially as such a test was recommended in the initial inspection of May 2019.
Following these dye test the landlord did not carry out further inspection of works until the end of May 2022 which represented another delay where nothing in effect was being done to resolve the leak and the damp in the resident’s property. The landlord sought to complete the remedial internal works to his property several times in April and May 2022. Whilst these works would have improved the condition of the resident’s property, all the works to the resident’s block had not yet been completed therefore there was a possibility of the repairs being rendered ineffective in the event of further water ingress. The resident refused the internal repairs on this basis and brought his complaint to this Service on this basis. Ultimately, it was not until 11 June 2021 that the landlord completed its investigations into the drains, gutter and pipework and carried out further works identified.
In summary, the Ombudsman accepts that in the case of leaks, it may take more than one inspection to ascertain and remedy the problem, particularly where the issue is complex with several potential sources of the leak and where the leak is concealed, as was the situation in this case. Nonetheless, the landlord has unreasonably delayed in resolving the leak and by extension the damp in the resident’s property. It failed to follow up works in 2019. The resident made further reports of water ingress and damp and mould from 2021 and on each occasion, there have been further delays in the landlord carrying out inspections and further works. Ultimately, the landlord did not complete its investigations into all the sources of the leak and complete the external works until 11 June 2022. Consequently, the dampness in the resident’s hallway and bathroom remained unresolved. This delay was particularly unreasonable given that the resident when escalating his complaint in June 2021 advised of health issues in his family which he attributed to the condition of his property, and for which the landlord offered no mitigation such as a dehumidifier. Compounding this delay was the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord not consistently updating the resident about the actions it was taking to resolve the substantive repair issues and formal complaint.
Where there has been service failure, it important that landlords take steps to offer redress in line with this Service’s Dispute Resolution Principle to “Put Matters Right”. In this case, the landlord made an award of £333.36. This was calculated pro-rata at lowest rate for slight inconvenience, £500 per annum. Whilst the hallway is not an area of the property where residents would not typically spend much time in, the bathroom was also affected. Also, the award only reflected the delay in completing repairs to the upstairs neighbour’s door, therefore did not reflect that the leak was reported in March 2021 and not fully resolved by the completion of the doorframe works, as confirmed by subsequent dye-testing. Furthermore as noted above the landlord did not act on the resident’s report that that his family’s health was affected by the condition of his property. Therefore, it is not considered that the landlord offered compensation that was proportionate to the circumstances of the case.
To place the resident’s complaint in its current context, this report has included recent actions taken by the landlord, from July 2022, and noted the current situation with regards to the repairs inside the resident’s property, which are pending at the time of writing. This indicates there has been further delay in the completion of works which the landlord has attributed to lack of access. The Ombudsman therefore considers it appropriate for the landlord to have the opportunity to investigate its actions during this period, and similarly for the resident to provide further evidence to the landlord. The landlord can then outline its position in a complaint response, taking into account any mitigating factors. Through this the landlord can offer redress for any accepted service failings and seek to resolve this aspect of the resident’s case locally. An order has been made to this end. Any further complaint response can take into account the works scheduled for April 2023.

The resident’s request to be transferred

It is noted that the resident raised concerns that he was not awarded enough points to be able to secure a transfer. In assessing this complaint this Service has not considered how the Council has assessed the resident’s transfer application. This is because applications for re-housing that meet the reasonable preference criteria (dealt with by the local housing authority or any other body acting on its behalf) which could include a housing association) fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman. This includes complaints about the assessment of such applications, the award of points, banding or a decision that the application does not qualify for reasonable preference.
In this case, the landlord noted that the resident was seeking a transfer request and agreed in its Stage 2 response to pursue the Council’s Homes and Communities Team. It was appropriate that the landlord assist the resident in this way as functional areas within a local authority are required to work together to provide services to residents. There is no evidence that the landlord then contacted the Homes and Communities Team or otherwise sought to assist the resident in progressing his transfer application. This lack of action was particularly unreasonable given that the resident had specifically mentioned health concerns in his complaint escalation which possibly warranted reassessment of his housing priority.

Complaint Handling

The landlord’s Stage 1 response was sent after a month, outside the timeframe for dealing with Stage 1 complaints. The landlord’s review of the Stage 1 response was sent on 4 May 2021 which was in line with the timeframe for this part of the complaints process. The landlord took seven months to respond to the Stage 2 complaint. This was well outside the timeframe for dealing with complaints. Complaint procedures provide a focus and framework for the timely resolution of complaints. In allowing the complaint to be delayed for so long before it was in a position to provide the Stage 2 response, the landlord failed to meet the objective of the complaints procedure.
The response timeframes outlined in the landlord’s complaints policy are not in line with the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) which specifies that stage one complaints should be responded to within ten working days and stage two complaints within 20 working days. However, the information on the landlord’s website currently states that Stage 1 formal complaints should be responded within ten days and Stage 2 complaints within 20 days. The website indicates that the landlord does not now require the landlord to review the Stage 1 response before allowing the complaint to be escalated to Stage 2. The website therefore indicates that the landlord’s current complaint procedure aligns with the Code. It is further noted that the landlord in its self-assessment against the Code dated 3 March 2023 stated that “The council’s complaints policy clearly states our target response times and are aligned with the Complaint Handling Code”. Nonetheless, the landlord’s Complaint Policy is not published on its website. It is therefore recommended that the Complaint Policy is published so that there is full transparency about its current complaint handling procedures.
The self-assessment further states that the landlord “is fully focused and committed to improving its response timeliness for stage 2 complaint responses. This is a key area of focus and improvement over the next 8 weeks”. With this in mind and taking account the significant delay by the landlord in dealing with the resident’s complaint at Stage 2, it is ordered that the landlord carries out a full review of its handling of this complaint to identify lessons learnt.

Determination (decision)

In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was severe maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of repairs to a leak which has caused damp and mould in the resident’s property.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme there was maladministration by the landlord in respect of its handling of the resident’s request to be transferred.
In accordance with paragraph 42 of the Housing Ombudsman Service there was maladministration by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Reasons

The landlord has unreasonably delayed in resolving the leak and by extension the damp in the resident’s property. It failed to follow up works in 2019. The resident made further reports of water ingress and damp and mould from 2021 and on each occasion, there have been further delays in the landlord carrying out inspections and further works. Ultimately, the landlord did not complete its investigations into all the sources of the leak and complete the external works until 11 June 2022. Consequently, the dampness in his hallway and bathroom remained unresolved. Compounding this delay was the distress and inconvenience caused by the landlord not consistently updating him about the actions it was taking to resolve the substantive repair issues and formal complaint. The compensation offered did not satisfactorily resolve the complaint.
Despite committing to do so in its Stage 2 response, there is no evidence that the landlord then contacted the Homes and Communities Team or otherwise sought to assist the resident in progressing his transfer application.
There were significant delays by the landlord in its handling of the resident’s complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Within the next four weeks, the landlord is ordered to:
1. provide a written apology by a senior member of staff to the resident.
2. pay the resident compensation of £1,201.00 for the delay in carrying out works. This is calculated as 15% of the resident’s rent for the period 23 March 2021 to 11 June 2022, which is 63 weeks. This takes into account the location of the damp and mould and the fact that the landlord has carried out some works.
3. pay the resident £500 for the distress and inconvenience caused by the handling of his case, including not addressing his report that his family’s health was affected by the condition of his property.
4. pay the resident £100 for the time and trouble caused by the delays in the handling of his complaint.

If the landlord has already paid the resident the compensation awarded in its Stage 2 complaint response, it should only pay the resident the difference.

seek to gain access to the resident’s property and complete all internal works.
raise a new complaint to investigate its handling of ongoing repairs that remained outstanding after the works of 11 June 2022.
collate details of all cases of water ingress and damp and mould in blocks of the same or similar construction as the resident’s block, across its housing stock. It should then carry out a comprehensive review these cases, analysing the causes of the water ingress, so as to carry out a lessons learnt exercise.
carry out a full review of its handling of this complaint to identify lessons learnt.

Recommendation

The Ombudsman recommends that the landlord publishes its full, most recent version of its Complaint Policy on its website.