Islington Council (202335068)

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202335068

Islington Council

15 August 2024

Our approach

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

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

The complaint

The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of:
1. Damp and mould.
2. A faulty window.
3. A sewage leak.
4. A leak in the communal area.
The resident’s request for rehousing.
The Ombudsman has also considered the associated complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord, who is a local authority. The property is a 1 bed first floor flat. The tenancy commenced in October 2017. There are 2 adults and 2 children living in the property.
The landlord has no vulnerabilities recorded for the resident on its systems. The resident has told the landlord that he has a neuro diverse condition.
Prior to the time this investigation focuses on, the resident had reported issues with a leak in the communal area and faulty windows in his property. The landlord attended to these and completed repair orders on its system.
In March 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould inspection at the property. It concluded that the property suffered from condensation due to the number of people (4) living there. It agreed to overhaul or upgrade the bathroom fan. The fan had already been replaced in July 2022 so there was no further action. Another damp and mould inspection was carried out in August 2023 and the landlord concluded no follow-on works were required.
In April 2023 the resident reported a leak into the communal stairwell had returned. In September 2023 the resident called again to report the leak. The landlord attended on the same day and noted that the cement joints between the bricks needed mastic (sealant) applied. Scaffolding was required and it was put in place on 31 October 2023.
In October 2023 the resident attended a meeting with the landlord to discuss his housing application. He wanted to move his family to a bigger property where they would feel safe and secure. The meeting discussed the points the resident had and how he could secure more points. It advised on other ways to move and explained the housing shortages in the area. The next day the landlord sent the resident the notes from the meeting and a medical form to complete. The landlord offered to help with the form.
The resident complained to the landlord on 30 October 2023. This complaint was mainly about his boiler (that is not part of this investigation) but was also about the communal area leak. The resident was not happy that the leak had not been resolved. The landlord responded agreeing to repair the leak quickly. Orders were raised to reflect this and at some point, the landlord called the resident and told him the work would be completed by the 17 November 2023.
At the end of November 2023, the resident reported a sewage leak coming through his bathroom ceiling. The landlord attended on the same day (30 November 2023) and traced the leak to the neighbour above and carried out a repair. That month the landlord also inspected the resident’s lounge window and said that there was nothing that could be done about the drafts.
The communal leak was not repaired by 17 November 2023 and the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the complaint process. In the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 December 2023, the landlord acknowledged that the leak had not been fixed and that there had been previous reports and work orders for the issue in previous years. It apologised, said the work would be completed within the week, and offered £500 for the delays to the communal repair and £300 for distress and time and trouble in pursuing a complaint. The resident was not satisfied with the outcome as his desired resolution was a move to a new property.
Work was carried out to fix the communal leak on 16,19 and 22 December 2023 and the landlord completed the repair on its system.
The landlord had carried out another damp and mould survey in December 2023 and found high humidity levels in the living room and bedroom. Actions from this survey included the installation of ventilation units in the bedroom and living room, mould wash and treatment to the bedroom ceiling and window restrictors for the bedroom window.
The resident made a new complaint to the landlord in January 2024 and his requested resolution was to be moved to safe and secure accommodation. The complaint included the following issues:
1. That the scaffolding had been removed but the leak in the communal area was not resolved, despite the number of people who had attended to it.
2. The wrong tradesperson attended to repair the damaged ceiling.
3. His lounge window was still broken and was letting in the cold.
4. Why had he not been given welfare points for re-housing considering the damp and mould, sewage leak and freezing temperatures.
The landlord responded and acknowledged its failings in relation to the sewage leak and offered its apologies and £400 compensation. It offered appointments for the lounge window to be inspected again and for the ceiling decoration to be completed. The resident escalated the complaint to stage 2 of the complaints process as he was felt the response did not cover all aspects of his complaint. The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 21 February 2024 did not uphold the complaint as it felt that since the escalation to stage 2 the landlord had followed the correct procedures. It said the stage 1 response addressed the issues appropriately and the compensation was fair and proportionate.
The proposed works from the damp and mould survey were all completed by the end of February 2024. Following the resident’s complaint about the windows letting in the cold, the landlord installed temperature and humidity monitors in the property. Following a further leak from the neighbour’s property the landlord replaced the resident’s bathroom light and carried out further ‘making good’ works to the bathroom and hallway ceiling. This work started on 11 January 2024 and was completed by 3 March 2024. The lounge window was reglazed and adjusted in April 2024.
Throughout January and February 2024, the leak continued to occur in the communal area and to the Ombudsman’s knowledge the resident last reported it to the landlord on 19 March 2024.

Assessment and findings

Scope of investigation

The resident has referenced how the landlord’s failure to resolve the damp and mould and repairs in his property, or to move him to suitable accommodation, has impacted the health of him and his family. While the Ombudsman does not doubt the resident’s comments, we are unable to draw conclusions on the causation of, or the liability for, impacts on health and well-being. Therefore, we cannot determine whether there was a direct link between the landlord’s handling of the issues reported and the household’s health. Nonetheless consideration has been given to the general distress and inconvenience which the situation may have caused the resident.
This service cannot consider complaints about a local authority’s statutory decisions on housing allocations or homelessness applications, as these decisions are not taken as part of a councils’ role as a landlord, but rather as part of its wider obligations. The Ombudsman cannot order the landlord to rehouse the resident as it is not an outcome within the Ombudsman’s authority to provide. The resident’s complaint about the landlord’s response to his request to rehouse him will focus on the landlord’s response to this. The Ombudsman will investigate whether the response was fair and reasonable in all the circumstances. If the resident wished to pursue a complaint about his housing application and the points he was awarded, this would fall under the remit of the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman.
The resident brought this complaint to the Ombudsman in relation to his complaint of 1 November 2023. Before the Ombudsman had requested evidence from the landlord, the resident provided us with a further complaint made in January 2024 that had also exhausted the landlord’s internal complaints procedure. Both complaints have been investigated within this report.

Relevant policies, procedures and legislation

The landlord has a statutory duty under section 11 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985 to keep in repair the structure and exterior of the property. It is obliged to complete repairs within a reasonable timeframe. The resident’s occupancy agreement reiterates this.
The landlord’s repair guide outlines the following relevant information:
1. If a repair needs a survey to ascertain what work is needed the landlord will attempt to complete the survey within 10 working days.
2. The landlord will make good a surface around a repair ready to be redecorated. If making good is not possible then it will prepare the area for redecoration and repaint with emulsion paint.
3. In cases of damp and mould caused by a leak or water penetration the landlord is responsible for repairing the issue. In cases of condensation causing dampness or mould the resident will be given advice on how to manage condensation.
4. The landlord is responsible for repairs and maintenance to parts of the external fabric of the blocks and estates including areas shared with neighbours.
5. The following repair priority timescales are given:
  1. Emergency– immediate danger or serious ongoing damage to property. The landlord will attend to make safe within 2 hours.
  2. Urgent– repairs that affect the resident’s day to day living the landlord will attend within 24 hours.
  3. Recall– any works believed to be a recall job for work previously completed.
  4. Routine– non urgent repairs, some may require an inspection first. Complete within 20 working days.
  5. Planned– high value repair jobs which are often complicated to complete.
The Housing Health and Safety Rating System (HHSRS) was introduced under the Housing Act 2004 and applies to residential properties in England and Wales. It sets out 29 categories of housing hazard. Each hazard has a weighting which will help determine whether the property is rated as having category 1 (serious) or category 2 (other) hazards. Damp and mould and excess cold are two of the 29 categories.
The Government guidance on the HHSRS tells us that persons aged 14 and under are most vulnerable to the potential harm caused by damp and mould in a property. There are several potential physiological health effects including allergic symptoms. The mental and social effects of dampness and mould should not be understated and can cause depression and anxiety.
The guidance states that dwellings should be warm, dry and well-ventilated and maintained free from persistent condensation. The guidance recognises that small room sizes with high occupant density will increase the likelihood of an occurrence of damp or mould and increase the risk of harm.
To assess the hazard of damp and mould the assessment must take into consideration:
1. Design, condition and state of repair of the property.
2. Immediate local climate.
3. Damage to decoration and mould growth.
4. Dwelling size, number of occupants and use of rooms.
5. Cause of dampness and mould for example, condensation or other reason.
The Government guidance on the HHSRS tells us that a healthy indoor temperature is 21 degrees. Serious health risks can occur when the temperature drops below 16 degrees with a substantially increased risk of respiratory and cardiovascular conditions. To properly assess the hazard an assessment must consider:
1. The dwellings characteristics.
2. The energy efficiency of the property.
3. The effectiveness of the heating system.
4. Adequacy of the heating, insulation, and ventilation.
5. Any other factors that may affect the indoor temperature such as dampness, disrepair to the structure, or to space or water heating systems.
The guidance states simple measurement of indoor temperature is inappropriate.
On 22 November 2022 the landlord published its key actions completed as part of a project to review its service response to damp and mould against the recommendations made by the Ombudsman in the 2021 spotlight report ‘it’s not lifestyle’. Key relevant points included:
1. Reinforcing the communication and language standards expected when handling reports of damp and mould.
2. Reinforcing the importance of signposting to other services that can provide support.
3. Training sessions for landlord staff by a specialist mould treatment supplier to provide training on the application of mould treatments and a refresher on customer care aspects of cases.
The landlord’s compensation guidance states that disrepair payments range between £500 to £2500 depending on the severity of the problem. It offers between £100 and £300 for time and trouble, and between £100 to £1000 for distress. In the absence of a service guideline, the guidance tells us that for each month of a delay, after the work should have been completed, a payment of £25 per month should be offered.
The landlord operates a 2-stage complaint process. At stage 1 it will acknowledge the complaint within 3 calendar days (excluding bank holidays) and respond in 10 working days. At stage 2 it will acknowledge the escalation within 3 calendar days (excluding bank holidays) and respond within 20 working days of receiving the complaint.
The landlord publishes its customer care standards on its website. Relevant to this case the standards are:
1. If a resident emails a member of staff, they will confirm receipt within 2 working days.
2. It will send a response within 10 working days or an explanation of any delays with a new date for a full reply.
3. If a staff member is away, the resident will receive an automatic replay with the staff member’s return date and an alternative contact.

Damp and mould

In March 2023, the landlord carried out a damp and mould survey at the property, in response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. Based on the findings no further action was taken, as the extractor fan was fully functioning. In the evidence provided as part of this investigation it documented that the landlord offered the resident an information leaflet on managing condensation. The landord acted appropriately in response to the resident’s reports.
In August 2023 a further survey was carried out and all areas tested were found to be dry. The time of the year must be taken into consideration. There is no evidence that demonstrates the landlord gave the resident any advice. The landlord acted appropriately in completing the survey, but it acted unreasonably by either not having or not documenting the discussions with the resident, including advice and signposting.
In November 2023 upon informing the landlord of more issues with damp and mould the landlord suggested a further survey. The resident declined as he felt the previous ones had been a waste of time and that the landlord blamed the overcrowding but did nothing. The landlord offered a senior surveyor and the resident agreed. Internally the landlord organised the appointment to be a joint visit with someone from the landlord’s housing management department, to offer support and pick up any welfare concerns. The landlord acted appropriately by ensuring a survey was organised. It also acted reasonably in arranging the joint visit. It demonstrated that it listened to the resident and took a supportive, solution driven approach.
On 4 December 2023 the landlord completed a damp and mould survey at the property. It was comprehensive and demonstrated that the landlord adhered to the HHSRS guidance on damp and mould. It showed that the landlord had asked the resident inquisitorial questions to try and understand the situation and think of solutions. The landlord acted appropriately. The following actions were agreed:
1. A ventilation/electrician contractor to attend to review if a ventilation system could be fitted in the bedroom and living room. To also review if a bathroom fan needed upgrading.
2. Apply mould wash, treat and paint the bedroom ceiling.
3. Arrange metal fitter to review if window restrictors can be installed to allow for ventilation.
On 11 December 2023 the landlord completed a mould treatment to the bedroom ceiling. This was 5 working days after the inspection. The landlord appropriately worked within its published repair timescales. The resident later told the landlord the whole ceiling had not been completed as per the repair order. The Ombudsman cannot determine, from the evidence provided, if this issue has been resolved. In recognition of this a recommendation is made below.
On 14 December 2023 the ventilation contractor attended the property. The resident had some concerns about the location of the equipment because it would be right above one of his children’s heads. The Ombudsman does not know when an agreement was reached, but the resident noted in an email to the landlord on 11 January 2024 that he had confirmed to the contractor he was happy with the second option. The landlord listened to the residents’ concerns, liaised with the contractor and resolved the issue. It acted reasonably and was customer focused.
The ventilation system was installed on 20 February 2024. The resident had acknowledged in an email to the landlord on 7 February 2024 that he knew the work was invasive. The resident complained to the landlord that the work was disruptive and there was dust everywhere. He said he had not been told of the level of works involved. He said that the landlord should have conducted a risk assessment based on the declared health conditions of those living in the property. The landlord responded the next day and provided a comprehensive response. It also attended the property and met with the resident and the contractor. It apologised for the lack of communication and that the resident had to spend time cleaning. The landlord agreed it should have called before attending and dust sheeted the property. It explained why the work completed did not meet the criteria for a decant. The landlord’s response was reasonable.
The response was sent separately to the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response that was sent on the same day. The stage 2 response did not offer any compensation or acknowledge the service failure identified by the landlord. Internally the landlord could have communicated with the complaints department to see that an offer of compensation was made in respect of the service failures it identified. It did not put things right by offering compensation proportionate to the service failure.
In summary, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s reports of damp and mould. For the most part it followed HHSRS guidance and its own procedures. The installation of the ventilation system was in excess of the landlord’s obligations but was the correct outcome given the resident’s situation and obvious concern and distress regarding the situation. The service failure is in relation to the failures that the landlord acknowledged on 21 February 2024 but did not put right. Orders in relation to this have been made below.

A faulty window

On 11 October 2023 the resident told the landlord his lounge window was not working properly. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as a routine repair. It accepted responsibility to inspect the window. The landlord attended 22 working days later on 10 November 2023. This was 2 days outside of its published timescale for a responsive repair, but it was not an excessive delay. The landlord acted reasonably.
The landlord’s evidence, requested for as part of this investigation, showed the notes from the inspection said the window was acceptable and there was nothing that could be done about the draft. It would have been useful for the notes to document the resident’s response to that outcome. It would have enabled the landlord to make an informed decision to complete the repair on the system or not. The landlord acted unreasonably by not documenting the outcome comprehensively. When returning to these notes when investigating a complaint, whether internally or by the Ombudsman, they do not tell the full story.
On 9 January 2024 the resident complained to the landlord that if it could not do anything about the window drafts how was he supposed to heat his home to a safe level. The landlord booked an appointment on 15 January 2024 to inspect any outstanding repairs and the window drafts. It asked the resident if it could install temperature and humidity monitors in the property and the resident agreed. These were installed by the end of January 2024. The landlord acted quickly in response to the resident’s complaint. The landlord’s response was appropriate and reasonable.
After the inspection on 15 January 2024 a job was ordered with the appropriate trade to inspect the UPVC window, mechanism and gasket seal. The appointment was booked for 9 February 2024. While the landlord raised this on an appropriate timescale, another inspection prolonged the time from the resident’s report to resolution. The landlord had a recorded history of issues with the lounge window, specifically the hinges. Had it utilised its knowledge of the issues, it could have arranged an appropriate trade to attend on 15 January 2024. The issue of ineffective appointments was highlighted in the Ombudsman’s paragraph 49 special investigation.
On 17 January 2024 the resident contacted the landlord and said he had found the source of the window problem. When the window was closed it could still be opened from the hinge side. He asked them to attend urgently. The landlord did respond the same day and advised a repair manager would call him that day. The landlord has not demonstrated that it did so, and the evidence tells us that the resident received an email the next day saying the information had been passed to the relevant team to process. The landlord acted unreasonably. It should have called when it said it would. The resident was clearly concerned about the window and the temperature in his property. The landlord was not empathetic to the resident’s situation. The appointment remained set for 9 February 2024.
At this point in time there were several outstanding repairs at the resident’s property and communal area. It would have been customer focused of the landlord to produce a repairs action plan and a single point of contact or weekly arranged catch up call. The resident had expressed the inconvenience to his work and home life of managing the repairs, with up to 12 phone calls a week and multiple appointments. While it is acknowledged that appointments and calls are necessary to resolve issues, the landlord should have equally acknowledged the toil on the resident and considered the adverse impact on his life. The Ombudsman acknowledges the positive aspect that the landlord did call the resident instead of relying only on emails or texts. However, the landlord acted unreasonably by not instigating methods to better coordinate its repairs service to the resident.
The landlord said that it attended the appointment on the 9 February 2024 and there was no access. The resident said he was in and waiting and sent an email to the landlord after midday asking if it was still attending. It is important to explain that when 2 sides have differing versions of events it is not always possible to be clear about what exactly happened. In the evidence provided by the landlord this matter is further complicated as the 9 February 2024 was confused internally with a different repair booked for Monday 12 February 2024.
On 15 February 2024 the temperature and humidity monitors showed temperature readings within acceptable levels. These were provided at the resident’s request. It was not clear whether any agreement had been made about how often the monitors would be read, the duration they would remain in the property, and the possible outcomes or actions arising from the results. The landlord should have documented to the resident its plan for the monitors. The landlord acted unreasonably. Its positive action installing the monitors was not followed through with close monitoring and a plan. It was not solution driven.
After 2 further inspections the lounge window was reglazed, gasket applied to the frame and the opening adjusted by 23 April 2024. From the 15 January 2024 when the issue was reported, it was 70 working days until the repair was resolved. This is not considered a timely manner and the landlord acted inappropriately.
Where there have been acknowledged failings by the landlord, the Ombudsman considers what the landlord did to put things right and learn from outcomes. The landlord’s stage 1 complaint of 24 January 2024 found no fault in the landlord’s actions in relation to the window repair. It advised of the new appointment on 9 February 2024.
The landlord’s stage 2 response did not mention the window complaint, despite the resident attaching a video of the window to his escalation email. He wrote in detail about the issues with the window and the drafts it was causing. The landlord’s complaint process offered no compensation or action to put things right for the resident. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The landlord did take action to put things right and resolve the window repair. It put in place monitoring of the temperature and raised inspections and repairs to the window. However, there was no evidence provided that demonstrated it treated the window draft and subsequent low temperature as a potential hazard of excess cold. It did not carry out a detailed survey including assessment of the points listed within the HHSRS guidance. Monitoring of the temperature alone was not enough. The landlord acted inappropriately in not providing a full and fair remedy, including compensation for its failings.
In summary, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s report of a faulty window. The number of inspections delayed the eventual repair, and the process should have been quicker, given the known history of issues with the window. The landlord did not comprehensively respond to the report of excess cold as the process was not succinct nor included all the points within the HHSRS guidance. Orders have been made below in recognition of this finding, including an order of compensation.

Sewage leak

On 30 November 2023 the resident reported a sewage leak coming through his bathroom ceiling. The landlord’s response was correct. It accepted responsibility and raised the repair on an emergency. It attended within the 2-hour timescale, traced the source of the leak to the upstairs property, attended and resolved the leak. The landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord attended 13 days later to inspect the works required to ‘make good’ the ceiling. The landlord says it will attempt to carry out inspections within 10 working days. While this is 3 days in excess of this timeframe it is still within a timely manner and caused minimal adverse impact to the resident. Therefore, the landlord acted reasonably.
An appointment to complete the ceiling decoration was booked for 14 February 2024, 40 working days after the inspection. The job was logged as a priority complaint job on the landlord’s system and raised as a routine repair to complete within 20 working days. It was inappropriate, given the landlord deemed it a priority job, that the appointment was so far away.
The landlord managed to bring the work forward to the 9 January 2024 but accidentally raised it to the wrong trade. The Ombudsman understands that mistakes can and do happen. However, the landlord has evidenced that it was aware of the priority the work needed so extra care and diligence should have been taken. It undid the good work it had done in moving the appointment forward. The landlord re-booked the work for 11 January 2024 and acknowledged internally that it would need to compensate for service failure. The landlord’s response to its error was reasonable and it tried to put things right.
On 14 January 2024 before an appointment was booked to finish the work that had been started on 11 January 2024, another leak occurred from the property upstairs. It was reported on the 15 January 2024. The landlord was already visiting for other matters that day. It gained access to the property upstairs and resolved the leak. The landord organised a further visit to check its actions had resolved the leak completely and noted that once this was confirmed the resident would need plaster and redecoration works on his ceiling. The landlord was proactive while on site and solution driven to sort out the issue for the resident. It backed up what it had done by raising further works to ensure the leak was resolved. The landlord acted reasonably and provided a good service on this day.
On 16 January 2024 the resident reported water dripping through the bathroom light and isolator switch in kitchen. The landlord’s response was correct. It raised an emergency repair and attended within the 2-hour timeframe. It had to isolate the extractor fan and disconnect the light fitting and leave it for 48 hours before reconnecting. The landlord returned on 19 January 2024 and fitted a new bulkhead LED light and left it in working order. The landord acted quickly and appropriately to the resident’s report. The resident expressed his concern that on 16 January 2024 the light fitting was not left in a safe manner. There is no evidence to suggest this was the case, however the landlord should ensure that it reassures residents at the end of a job as to what it has done and how it has left the repair.
The landlord attended to repair and paint the damaged ceiling 11 days after the light was fitted. On 5 February 2024 the resident reported that, despite the landlord’s best efforts, the staining was still coming through the ceiling. The landlord tried to book an appointment for 20 February 2024, but the resident said it was not convenient because the ventilation was being fitted that day. A new appointment was booked for 4 March 2024. The landlord should have been aware of the resident’s appointments and that the property was small meaning some jobs could not take place on the same day. The resident was left to manage the appointments resulting in time and trouble taken. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The Ombudsman must first consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord has occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found to be so, then the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes’. The Ombudsman will determine whether any remedies were fair and proportionate to the failings.
From 30 November 2023 to 4 March 2024 was 64 working days. There were mitigating factors that contributed to the delays. The leak reoccurred and this investigation cannot determine if the fault was with the landlord’s resolutions, the neighbour’s misuse or a blameless occurrence. The landlord did act quickly when the leaks were reported and moved forward an appointment when it could (albeit to the wrong trade). However, the nature of the leak and the time taken to completely resolve the issue did have an adverse impact on the resident.
In the landlord’s stage 1 complaint response of 24 January 2024, it acknowledged its failings and apologised for sending the wrong trade to the property which delayed the remedial work. It explained it had started work on the ceiling because the system stated the leak was fixed. It recognised the distress the resident may have experienced because of the sewage leak. For these reasons it upheld the complaint and offered compensation made up of:
1. £150 for inconvenience.
2. £200 for distress.
3. £25 for incorrect trade sent.
4. £25 time and effort to complain.
The offer of compensation was within the landlord’s compensation policy and within the Ombudsman guidelines for a failure that adversely affected the resident. To further put things right the landlord booked an appointment for 3 March 2024 and attended on 3 February and 3 March 2024 to complete the works.
The landlord’s remedies were fair, and the offer of compensation was proportionate to the failings. The landlord acknowledged and apologised for its failings. The landlord has therefore offered reasonable redress to the resident, prior to this investigation, which in the Ombudsman opinion resolves the complaint satisfactorily.

Leak in the communal area

On 26 September 2023 the resident reported a leak in the communal area. The landlord’s initial response was correct. It classified the repair as an urgent 24-hour repair because it could affect the resident’s day to day living. It accepted its responsibility to repair the leak and attended the same day. The landlord acted appropriately.
To resolve the leak, the landlord needed to put up scaffolding. It was 26 working days after the report that the scaffolding was in place. This was reasonable given that the landlord was reliant on a scaffolding contractor. However, the landlord had not raised the order until 6 October 2023, 8 working days after its urgent visit. The evidence requested as part of this investigation does not show any reason for the delay. Given that this was a reoccurring problem and the resident’s child had slipped on the leak the year before, the landlord should have acted quickly. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The resident complained to the landlord about the safety of the scaffolding in November 2023. The landlord sent a stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2023 and explained the scaffolding did not need a licence and that it had not been checked for use yet. The landlord said it would expediate the repair. The landlord’s response was fair in that it answered the resident’s concerns about the safety of the scaffolding. The resident was told the repair would be completed and the scaffolding removed by 17 November 2023. Giving the resident a date may have helped the resident feel that the landlord cared and was committed to fixing the leak. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 7 December 2023 the resident asked the landlord what was happening as the scaffolding was still there and no work had been completed. The Ombudsman understands it is not always possible to update residents on communal repairs. However, it knew this repair formed part of a formal complaint and directly affected the resident. It had also given the resident a date that it transpired was not achievable. It should have kept the resident updated with its plan of action. The landlord acted unreasonably.
The evidence submitted showed that the landlord knew the scaffolding needed adjusting to perform the repair. It is unclear as to whether it was adjusted, but work was completed to resolve the leak on 16,19 and 22 December 2024. By 9 January 2024 the scaffolding had been taken down and the resident told the landlord the communal window was still leaking and causing a hazard. The landlord should have communicated to the resident what it had done. Knowing the history of the leak it would have been important to carry out a post inspection of the work. There is no evidence this happened, and the landlord acted unreasonably in all the circumstances.
The Ombudsman is aware that the landlord’s caretaker made concerted efforts to keep the area dry when the leak occurred. There was no further evidence provided that showed any other interim measures that the landlord considered or took, such as signage or communicating with residents.
The landlord attended the property on 15 January 2024 for a number of reasons including to look at the communal leak. The landlord raised a further repair for 6 February 2024. The landlord responded fairly to the repair it saw at that time. However, this does not mitigate the errors that had gone before.
Despite one visit in February 2024 and the resident telling the landlord the issue is not resolved, the landlord has told the Ombudsman the work is completed and there are no outstanding works related to the water regress due to pointing, the window or roofing works. The landlord’s website states that most communal repairs will be completed within 20 working days, though some may take longer if parts are needed. This repair needed scaffolding, but this does not account for the 225 working days that have passed since 26 September 2023 to today.
The landlord’s stage 2 complaint response of 15 December 2023 acknowledged the failings in this matter and that the leak had occurred for many years. It apologised for the inconvenience and concern caused and upheld the complaint. The landlord offered compensation of:
1. £500 for the delay in resolving the communal window leak.
2. £200 time and effort (trouble) in pursuing a complaint (for 2 complaint issues including the communal leak).
3. £100 distress (for 2 complaint issues including the communal leak).
The Ombudsman considered this a fair remedy at that point in the repair journey. Had the work been completed satisfactorily in ‘the next week’ as stated in the landlord’s stage 2 complaint response, the Ombudsman would have considered this reasonable redress because the compensation and action was proportionate to the issue and the impact on the resident. However, the leak continues to happen when it rains and therefore the Ombudsman concludes that given the 7 years the resident has reported there is a leak, the landlord has not taken reasonable steps to ensure a lasting repair. At the time of this investigation, it is unclear if the leak has been repaired or not.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s report of a communal leak. It did not consider the history of the leak or take reasonable steps to ensure a lasting repair. It did not keep the resident updated and he had to go to significant time and trouble to find out what was happening. The outcome is unclear, and the repairs were not completed within a reasonable timeframe. Orders for action and compensation, in addition to what has already been offered, are made below.

Request for rehousing

In October 2023 the landlord agreed to an online meeting with the resident to discuss his concerns and queries about his housing application. It was proactive of the landlord to arrange the meeting. It was supportive and customer focused. The landlord acted reasonably.
On 12 October 2023, the day after the meeting, the landlord sent the resident the minutes of the meeting and a medical form to complete. It offered assistance with the form. The landlord acted in a timely manner and its offer of help was considerate. Given all the circumstances the landlord acted reasonably.
The landord answered the residents’ concerns about his perceived unsanitary living conditions factually but empathetically. It made it clear it did not refute the fact that the property had a high level of humidity and suffered from condensation. It managed the resident’s expectations explaining what it needed to award any points for unsanitary conditions. It continued to provide realistic explanations to the resident of his chances of moving to a bigger property, explaining the housing shortages in the area. The landlord gave advice on other ways to try and move including via a mutual exchange. The landlord acted fairly and reasonably.
When the resident complained about his housing application and that he had not been awarded the points he felt he deserved the landlord answered in full where it could. Where it could not (welfare points) it told the resident who it had passed the complaint to for a response. This was reasonable of the landlord. However, it could have been clearer and explained to the resident what aspect of his complaint may fall under the jurisdiction of another department and Ombudsman. The resident could then make the informed decision as to where to direct his complaints.
The landlord has informed the Ombudsman that the medical evidence has been received and is in the process of being assessed.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s response to the resident’s request to be rehoused. Its responses were timely, supportive, fair and proportionate to the resident’s queries.

Associated complaint handling

Complaint 1

The landlord acknowledged the resident’s first complaint within 3 days and provided its stage 1 complaint response on 15 November 2023, 10 working days later. This was in line with its complaints policy and the Ombudsman complaint handling code (the Code) at the time. The landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s stage 1 response contained all the information the Code required and therefore the landlord acted appropriately. It included:
1. The complaint stage and definition.
2. The decision on the complaint and the reasons for the decision.
3. Details of any remedies to put things right and any outstanding issues.
4. Details of how to escalate the complaint.
On 18 November 2023, the resident escalated his complaint to stage 2 of the landlord’s complaint process because the leak had still not been fixed. He also added a new issue to the complaint that the mould in his property had significantly increased. The landlord accepted the additional complaint issue. It was reasonable and customer centred for the landlord to do this, rather than raise a new complaint. However, landlords must be mindful that at this point in the process it meant that the resident had not had a chance to take his new issue through the complete complaint process. Landlords must ensure residents are aware of the consequences when adding new complaint issues to current complaints at stage 2.
The landlord acknowledged the complaint within 3 calendar days and provided a stage 2 response on 15 December 2023. This was 19 working days after the resident escalated the complaint. The landlord acted appropriately.
The landlord’s stage 2 response was empathetic, detailed, and signposted to relevant schemes or departments to assist the resident. It clearly stated that the landlord was not blaming the resident for the circumstances or the associated condensation. It recognised the continued delays in its service and offered compensation for it. As with the landlord’s stage 1 response the response contained all the required information that the Code expects a stage 2 response to have. The landlord acted appropriately and reasonably. It was solution driven and empathetic to the resident’s situation.
With regard only to the resident’s first complaint this investigation has assessed, the Ombudsman would find no maladministration with the way the landlord handled the complaint. Below I will consider the second complaint, made to the landlord 10 January 2024, and make a complete determination below.

Complaint 2

The landlord provided its stage 1 complaint response on 24 January 2024. This was 10 working days after the complaint was made. While this was appropriate and in line with both the landlord’s policy and the Code, the landlord has not submitted evidence to the Ombudsman of a comprehensive complaint acknowledgement. Paragraph 4.2 of the Code states the landlord’s complaint acknowledgement must set out its understanding of the complaint and the outcomes the resident is seeking. The landlord acted inappropriately. The landlord emailed the resident and told him it would pass the complaint to the relevant team to be registered, but it did not provide the necessary acknowledgement details. Without this the resident may have been unaware if the complaint was passed to the relevant team.
Comparing the resident’s complaint and the landlord’s stage 1 response the Ombudsman can assess that the response did not comprehensively cover all the issues the resident raised. The main part of the resident’s complaint was about the faulty window, the drafts and the resulting excess cold in the property. The landlord’s response did not show it had fully investigated this aspect of the complaint. Paragraph 5.6 of the Code states that landlords must address all points raised in the complaint and provide clear reasons for any decisions, referencing the relevant policy, law and good practice where appropriate. The landlord should have acknowledged the resident’s concerns about the excess cold and outlined its proposed actions, referencing the HHSRS guidance if necessary. The landlord acted inappropriately, and it may have contributed to the resident feeling that the landlord was not listening or cared about his concerns.
On 25 January 2023 the resident escalated his complaint, and the landlord acknowledged it within 1 calendar day. It sent the resident its stage 2 complaint response on 21 February 2024, 19 working days after the resident’s escalation. The landlord acted appropriately in adhering to its published timescales and the Code.
The landlord’s stage 2 response missed the main point of the resident’s escalation, that the stage 1 response had not fully addressed the complaint about the window, drafts and excess cold. It did not adequately address the complaint and referred to the stage 1 response as it had found the same findings. It did not adhere to paragraph 5.6 of the Code to address all points raised. It did not include the necessary information as per paragraph 5.16 of the Code. The landlord acted inappropriately, and it was an unsatisfactory response that showed no evidence of further investigation. It did not demonstrate empathy to the resident’s situation or any recognition of the time and trouble the resident went to in making the complaint.
The resident contacted the landlord about its stage 2 complaint response on 21 and 27 February, and 4 and 7 March 2024. He asked how to claim the compensation offered at stage 1 and what could he do about the fact the stage 2 response did not address all his points raised. The resident did not receive an acknowledgement or response to these emails. This was not in keeping with the landlord’s customer care standards detailed above. Furthermore, the landlord’s corporate complaints policy strives to have a well-managed and responsive complaints policy because it recognises it can be a powerful tool to reassure residents it has:
1. Listened to their concerns.
2. Taken them seriously.
3. Learnt from its mistakes.
4. Used the lessons learnt to improve services.
5. Committed itself to providing good customer service.
6. Made sure that complaints are investigated fully and fairly.
The lack of response showed that the landlord did not act in a way to fulfil these published commitments. The landlord acted inappropriately and unreasonably. It was not customer focused and its inaction may have contributed to the resident’s continued dissatisfaction with the landlord.
In summary, the Ombudsman finds maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling. It dealt with the first complaint appropriately. The second complaint was not given the same breadth of investigation and the landlord’s responses showed it had not fully considered or investigated the resident’s complaints and concerns. In recognition of this finding, an order for compensation has been made below.

Paragraph 49 special investigation

The Ombudsman completed a special investigation in October 2023 into the landlord, using its systemic powers under paragraph 49 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme. It found the landlord responsible for a series of significant failings impacting residents. This included a finding of repeated service failure across multiple service areas including disrepair and complaint handling. Some of the failings identified by this complaint mirror the issues noted by the special investigation. As such and in view of the timing of this report, the Ombudsman does not make any repeated orders or recommendations that the landlord has already been given through the special investigation.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was service failure in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a faulty window.
In accordance with paragraph 53(b) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was reasonable redress in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a sewage leak.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of a leak in the communal area.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was no maladministration in relation to the landlord’s handling of the resident’s request for rehousing.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, there was maladministration in relation to the landlord’s associated complaint handling.

Orders

Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to apologise for the impact of its failures on the resident.
Within 4 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to pay the resident £2100 made up of:
1. £100 for the distress and inconvenience incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s reports of damp and mould.
2. £400 for the delays, distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s report of a faulty window.
3. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its handling of the resident’s report of a leak in the communal area.
4. £200 for the distress and inconvenience, time and trouble incurred by the resident because of the landlord’s failures in its complaint handling.
5. £1200 offered in relation to the sewage leak and communal leak in the landlord’s internal complaint process responses, if not already paid.
These payments must be made directly to the resident and not used to offset any rent arrears or other amount owed.
Within 8 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
1. Inspect the communal area leak and raise any associated orders to complete a lasting repair.
2. Complete a survey of all the windows in the resident’s property and raise any associated orders to ensure the windows are fit for purpose. Send a copy of the inspection report to the Ombudsman.