Lambeth Council (202103898)

A blue and grey text

Description automatically generated

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202103898

Lambeth Council

30 November 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. repairs to windows, roof and back door.
2. reports of damp and mould in the property.
The Ombudsman will also consider the landlord’s complaint handling.

Background

The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord and occupies a 3-bedroom property with her children; including her son who has asthma and other health conditions.
On 6 January 2021 the resident requested a repair to the external back door. The resident said that the landlord had previously fitted an internal door instead of an external one, which was thin and not secure. Shortly after, the landlord enquired whether any members in the household were vulnerable or experiencing symptoms of COVID-19 before it would book the repair.
In March 2021, the resident chased the landlord about the repair for the back door. She also reported that the double-glazed windows were not airtight. Having not heard back from the landlord, the resident referred her complaint to the Service on 18 May 2021. She said she had made several complaints about rotten windows, a roof leak and insecure back door as well as missed appointments but that the landlord had not provided a formal written response. The next day, the Service contacted the landlord to inform it of the complaint and requested it provide a formal response.
From May 2021, the resident continued to report the issues and made further complaints that the issues remained outstanding and that appointments had been missed. The landlord issued a stage 1 response on 28 June 2021. It apologised for the inconvenience and confirmed that repairs including back door replacement and window repair had been raised. It also explained that the landlord was in the process of changing over to a new repairs contractor and both orders will be passed over to them to carry out when they start in mid-July 2021. Additionally, it said that roof works to a neighbouring property had been raised and enquiries had been forwarded to the area surveyor to clarify if the works will include works to the resident’s roof.
On 29 September 2021, the resident reiterated to the landlord that there were outstanding repairs and unpaid compensation for missed appointments. She queried when she would receive new windows in her son’s bedroom as the current ones were rotten and mouldy. She also explained that her son’s health was affected by the mould. A further stage 1 response was issued following this. The landlord apologised that she was waiting for repairs and stated its new contractor would contact her and that the jobs had been highlighted as a priority and they would be monitored through to completion. It noted that the resident had reported mould on windows and damp on the walls of the passage, ceiling and bedroom and in the room underneath the bedroom. Additionally, it repeated its position on the roof works and also asked the resident to provide a list of the missed appointments along with work order numbers and dates which would be used to assess the compensation due.
Following further contact from this Service on 22 November 2021, the landlord said it would respond to the resident’s complaint by no later than 6 December 2021. On 23 February 2022 the landlord issued a third stage 1 response regarding a missed appointment. It said it had been unsuccessful in contacting the resident to rebook the appointment, requested that she rebook it herself and awarded £20 as a gesture of goodwill which was credited to her rent account.
In May 2022, the resident contacted the Service to ask to escalate her complaint as she was still experiencing problems and the repairs were outstanding. The landlord issued a stage 2 response on 18 July 2022. It apologised and acknowledged that its stage 1 response had not been satisfactory and that it had failed to deal with the issues raised. It stated its surveyors would contact the resident to arrange an inspection to review the windows and arrange subsequent works. In recognition of the inconvenience caused and the delays experienced, it awarded £250.
The landlord contacted the Service in August and September 2023. It stated that the resident had provided a list of outstanding issues in June 2023 of which some had been completed. These included an overhaul and redecoration of all windows and drywall repairs to an upstairs bedroom window frame. In November 2023, the landlord confirmed that the external door and a window had been fitted. It also confirmed that the roof repairs were resolved in June 2023. As a resolution to her complaint, the resident is seeking further compensation, of £5,000, to reflect the inconvenience of the delays in responding to her concerns; the missed appointments and loss of earnings relating to these; and the extra cost of heating the property as a result of the holes in the roof and the gaps in windows and walls not being repaired sooner.

Assessment and findings

When investigating a complaint, the Ombudsman applies its Dispute Resolution Principles. These are high level good practice guidance developed from the Ombudsman’s experience of resolving disputes, for use by everyone involved in the complaints process. There are three principles driving effective dispute resolution:
1. Be fair – treat people fairly and follow fair processes.
2. Put things right.
3. Learn from outcomes.
The Ombudsman must consider whether a failing on the part of the landlord occurred, and if so, whether this led to any adverse effect or detriment to the resident. If it is found that a failing did lead to an adverse effect, the investigation will then consider whether the landlord has taken enough action to ‘put things right’ and ‘learn from outcomes.’

The landlord’s handling of repairs to windows, roof and back door

The repairs records history held by the landlord has impeded this Service’s ability to establish the facts. There are instances where repairs completion dates pre-date the raised date. While it is unclear for the Ombudsman to confirm what was initially agreed regarding the issues, the landlord’s stance was clear in its formal responses in which it took ownership of the repairs and stated it would pass repairs onto its contractors. It therefore set the expectation to the resident that the repairs would be carried out in a timely manner.
On receiving a report of issues with the external back door, windows and roof, the landlord should have carried out an inspection in good time, established the root cause and an appropriate course of action, be it repair or replace, and undertaken the necessary works to resolve the issue at a time convenient to the resident. The landlord must also keep the resident updated throughout the period, notifying them of progress and any delays.
The landlord’s repair policy distinguishes between repairs as regards their urgency; namely, urgent emergency; emergency; two types of routine repair; and planned repairs. The landlord’s website defines an emergency repair as one if it could cause serious health and safety problems or severe damage to the building if not fixed or made safe. Its policy states that it must maintain the outside and the structure of the property. This includes the roof, windows and external doors. It was reasonable that the landlord took the view that the windows, external door and roof did not present an immediate danger to the resident or the building or security of the property. Under this policy, the repairs to the windows and back door would have been treated as the type of routine repair that should have been fixed within 28 working days from when reported.
With regard to the external back door, given the repairs history as mentioned above, the earliest evidence that the resident reported an issue was a submission by the resident dated 6 January 2021. The resident stated the landlord had previously fitted a thin, internal door instead of an external one and that it did not provide the expected level of security. This indicates that the landlord had previously attended the property before January 2021 to replace the back door, though the Service has seen no records to corroborate this.
In March 2021, the resident reported an issue that the double-glazed windows were not airtight, at the same time chasing the previously raised repair for the back door. The resident subsequently complained to the Service in May 2021 about the back door, windows and a roof leak. The landlord’s records indicate repairs to the back door and kitchen windows were raised in late July 2021. This is a significant amount of time, particularly considering that it was alerted to the repairs as early as March 2021. This represents a period of almost 7 months before the relevant work order/repair was even raised. An internal email indicates that the rotten kitchen windows and the back door works had not been completed by April 2023. These inordinate delays were a serious failing on the part of the landlord.
The landlord was first alerted to a leak in the roof on 19 May 2021. A job was raised in January 2022; however, it is unclear what the previous appointments between August and December 2021 were for. A work order was raised on 17 January 2022. This was to trace and remedy a leak to the domestic water system and involved scaffolding. In its stage 1 response of around June 2021, it stated the roof work to a neighbouring property had been raised and enquiries forwarded to the area surveyor to clarify if these works would cover the repairs to this resident’s property. Despite this response, nothing seemed to have arisen from this. The resident again reported issues with leaks in May 2022. Indeed, on 14 September 2022 the resident emailed this Service to explain she wanted the roof to be fixed as soon as possible which indicates it had not been completed by then.
The landlord confirmed that the roof repairs were resolved in June 2023. Nevertheless, this was a substantial amount of time, over 700 calendar days and significantly outside its 28 calendar days for routine repairs. Even if it was treated as a planned repair under the landlord’s major works repairs, though there is no indication that the landlord did so, it was again well outside 90 calendar days. In addition, there was no evidence that the landlord sought to provide an interim response or reach out to the resident to explain the delays. It is also particularly concerning that the repairs work order for the roof was only raised in May 2023 – 2 years after the landlord had been informed of the issue. This was a serious failing and would have caused distress to the resident who was left with a leak in her roof for a prolonged period of time.
In June 2022, the landlord tried to call the resident to make an appointment to ascertain the type of door needed but was unable to get through. The landlord had noted the previous year that its contractor had requested further information as to whether the external back door was PVC or timber, but this was never confirmed by the landlord and it is not clear if a work order had been raised in 2021 in respect of the back door.
On 27 June 2022, the landlord raised an inspection to attend and review the windows which was attended by a surveyor on 19 July 2022. Following their visit, a referral was made to the capital works team to inspect the windows with a view to replacement. The same day a new repairs work order was raised for the back door yet the landlord failed to fix the issue within 28 days as per its repairs manual. It is noted a further work order was raised in July 2023 for the back door and it was only completed in the week commencing 13 November 2023. This is a substantial amount of time and there is no indication that the landlord sent any communication to explain the reason for the delay nor an anticipated completion date for the repairs. This led to the resident making concerted efforts to chase the landlord for outstanding repairs.
The landlord stated in its initial stage 1 response that it was in the process of changing over to a new repairs contractor and that the back door replacement and window would be passed over to them when they started around mid-July 2021. It also said its area surveyor would clarify if the roof work to a neighbouring property would cover the repairs required to the resident’s property. The landlord is entitled to choose its repairs contractor; however, it must ensure a seamless transition when moving repairs over. In this case, it is likely that some repairs got missed. The landlord seemed to be reliant on the resident to communicate any issues despite having previously been made aware; the resident had to chase the landlord in September 2021, which should not have been the case. This was unreasonable.
In the landlord’s stage 2 response, it was appropriate for it to apologise for the inconvenience caused to the resident. It said its surveyor would be contacting the resident directly to arrange an inspection to review the windows and arrange subsequent works. Typically, the Ombudsman would expect the landlord to provide a remedy, such as undertaking works, which clearly sets out what will happen and by when, in agreement with the resident where appropriate. Any remedy proposed must be followed through to completion.
The resident advised the Service that, on 17 November 2023, the landlord’s contractors attended to renew the back door and bedroom window. This is a significant amount of time from when the repair was first raised; the resident had initially contacted the landlord about the repairs in January and March 2021. The landlord informed us that the resident was contacted around June 2023 regarding various repairs and she provided a list of outstanding issues. It also stated that the works to the window and the back door were ongoing and were due to completed by the end of November 2023. While it is encouraging that the landlord took steps to remedy an issue, this was a substantial amount of time since the resident first reported the issue – almost 33 months during which time, the resident had to live with rotten windows and a poor-quality external back door. The resident described the windows as not airtight and the door as unfit for purpose.
On 14 September 2023, the landlord contacted this Service and explained that a number of works had been completed to her resident’s satisfaction. However, the landlord also advised that the resident had requested the rear kitchen windows and back door be considered for renewal and explained these were on order and would be fitted around the end of November 2023, due to a manufacturing delay. The Ombudsman finds this to be concerning considering that these repairs were initially requested by the resident in January and March 2021 and raised by the landlord as a work order in July 2021. Indeed, yet another work order was raised for the renewal of the back door in July 2022 and July 2023 both of which missed its a target date. It is unclear why these delays happened, but nonetheless there is no evidence that it communicated this to the resident and kept her informed. These delays would have caused distress to the resident.
The landlord’s compensation policy sets out its approach to providing a suitable remedy to a complaint. It states that:
1. It can offer financial compensation to remedy a service failure which has had an adverse effect on the resident considering any anxiety, frustration, worry, or uncertainty caused to the resident together with the length of time involved.
2. It can consider the resident’s ‘time and trouble’ in making the complaint, where the resident has had to go beyond what might reasonably be expected to bring a complaint to the landlord’s attention. For example, this might include situations where the complaint has taken extra time to resolve or the landlord’s responses have been inadequate or delayed.
3. For time and trouble, a bracket of £50 – £250 is given depending on the extent of the inconvenience the resident has been put to.
4. Missed appointments are to be compensated at the rate of £20 each.
5. All parts of a compensation payment should be cumulative.
The resident reported issues such as extra costs of heating due to the gaps/holes in the door/windows causing draughts. In line with the landlord’s compensation policy, if there were quantifiable losses, the landlord may offer compensation for additional expenditure such as increased utility bills. The landlord should consider reimbursing direct financial losses that have been incurred by the resident due to its service failures such as failing to carry out routine repairs in a reasonable time. From the evidence submitted, it is not clear if this has been addressed by the landlord, and a recommendation has been made for it to do so below.
An entry in the repairs log mentioned an attended appointment on 23 August 2021 in relation to the rotten kitchen windows. The landlord’s internal emails indicate that it had no access to the property on the subsequently rebooked dates of 9 September 2021 and13 December 2021; the next booked appointment was on 1 February 2022. Landlords should rearrange no access appointments as soon as possible at a resident’s convenience, and in this case the landlord acted appropriately by rebooking appointments, but the period of 50 calendar days from 13 December 2021 to 1 February 2022, a winter period, was a significant period of time for outstanding repairs.
With respect to appointments, in accordance with the landlord’s compensation policy, it will award £20 for failing to keep an appointment without giving 24 hours’ notice. In a formal response, the landlord offered £20 for its failure to keep appointments which would equate to 1 missed appointment, which would have been on 16 August 2021, and it was appropriate for the landlord to apologise and compensate the resident for a missed appointment in line with its policy. Were there only one missed appointment, it would be reasonable for it to make an award of this amount to the resident. However, it is ambiguous from the landlord’s records how many missed appointments there were in total; the resident asserted that numerous appointments had been missed. It is noted the resident said that 2 appointments which had been raised by the surveyor during their visit on 19 July 2022 had been missed. Therefore, this would have been at least 3 missed appointments, which corresponds to £60.
While the landlord acted fairly by offering to compensate the resident for missed appointments, it is concerning that it requested a list of missed appointments including the work order numbers and missed appointments date. The landlord should have robust record keeping in place and itself be able to identify any missed appointments with ease. This may indicate underlying issues with the landlord’s record keeping.
The resident also estimated she had lost earnings of £3,000 as a result of taking days of work to accommodate scheduled appointments not attended by contractors. The Ombudsman appreciates the distress caused when the resident has taken time off to accommodate contractors, only for appointments to be missed or cancelled, without being informed that this would be the case. This would have caused frustration; and this was clearly a resident who wanted to engage and work with her landlord to resolve the repair issues. While the landlord’s compensation policy states that it will consider loss of earnings, the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states it would not be fair or reasonable for the Ombudsman to order a landlord to pay a resident reimbursement for loss of earnings for repairs. However, there may be circumstances when the Ombudsman decides that it is appropriate to make an order for a landlord to pay compensation in recognition of the inconvenience caused, for example where repairs appointments are repeatedly missed or have failed to resolve the repair issue.
The landlord offered compensation of £250 for the resident’s time and trouble and for missed appointments. As stated above, it is not clear how many appointments were missed (and therefore what figure is attributable to those) but, given that the maximum amount in the landlord’s compensation policy for such inconvenience is £250, there is an element in the offer to reflect that failing.
In the circumstances, the landlord might reasonably have been expected to offer some compensation in addition to the above in respect of the inconvenience caused to the resident by the substantial delays in carrying out repairs to ‘put things right’. Together with the fact that the complaints process did not serve to move the repairs forward, and that some issues remain unresolved, the Ombudsman considers that the landlord’s offer of redress was not sufficient to recognise the impact of its failings on the resident.
Overall, the landlord failed to undertake a number of repairs within a reasonable time and missed several appointments and failed to keep the resident updated. This would have undeniably caused distress to the resident who had to frequently chase repairs. Further, there is no evidence that the landlord learned from outcomes and it did not detail in its formal responses any learning it had acquired or steps it would take to prevent a recurrence of this situation. Considering the circumstances of this case, the remedy offered was not proportionate to the detriment experienced by the resident. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance suggests that compensation between £600 – £1,000 should be considered where there has been a failure that has a significant impact on the resident. The Ombudsman has considered this as part of its orders and further compensation is due.
On 17 November 2023, the Service rang the resident and was informed that contractors were at the property and indicated that the renewal works to the two kitchen windows, her son’s bedroom windows and the back door would be completed that day. On 28 November 2023, the landlord informed the Service that the door and the windows have been fitted. A recommendation has been made to ensure that any work that remains outstanding is carried out within a reasonable time.

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

On receiving reports of damp and mould, the landlord should arrange an inspection, investigate to determine the cause/s, carry out a risk assessment and, if necessary, undertake remedial repairs within a reasonable timescale that will deal with the cause and consequences of damp and mould – not simply treat the symptoms.
Following the resident’s reports, the landlord did not appear to help nor arrange for its contractor to inspect the property in a reasonable time. The first report of mould was made on 29 September 2021. The resident emailed the landlord detailing her son’s health conditions and provided pictures which the landlord acknowledged in one of its stage 1 responses. The Ombudsman recognises that in July 2021, the landlord’s repair log noted a “kitchen window is rotten and needs repair”. This seems to relate to a request for a window repair and not necessarily a report of damp and mould.
A work order was raised on 17 January 2022 stating that the resident reported damp and bubbling walls in the property but could not see where the damp was coming from. While this work order may have related to the roof repair, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to have inspected any damp and mould, diagnosed the cause and carried out appropriate steps to remedy the issue. Given the roof leak was believed to be causing the damp and mould, the landlord could have promptly confirmed this and then prioritised the repair to deduce the ongoing impact. This did not appear to happen. Its operative attended the property on 1 February 2022 to inspect the windows which they reported were rotten and in need of renewal. However, there is no indication that any mould wash or treatment was carried out on that visit.
Additionally, landlords would be expected to follow up reports of damp and mould in a reasonable time from first report – typically within 6 months to establish if the issues was ongoing and if it needed to act. This did not happen and it was only when the resident contacted the Service in May 2022 stating the issues were unresolved that the landlord acted. This was a serious failing that caused distress to the resident.
As noted above, the landlord explained work orders were raised with its previous contractor but were transferred to a new contractor in July 2021. While there may have been some transition issues on moving repairs over depending on how far they had progressed, the landlord was notified of these mould and damp issues in September 2021, and it therefore should have reasonably arranged a prompt inspection to diagnose the issue and agree an action plan to resolve the damp that would include a timeframe. This did not happen.
The landlord’s repairs manual dated 2021 states that mould should be wiped away by the resident using a proprietary cleaner. The resident said she frequently did this, but the mould reappeared. This manual also states that if a resident cannot remove black mould or damp after taking its advice, the resident should contact the landlord, which she did. As there were repeated reports of damp and mould, the landlord should have acted with more urgency and adopted a more proactive approach.
In 2022, the landlord agreed a ‘Damp Charter’ which sets out its commitments to tenants affected by damp and condensation. Its commitments include:
1. Communicating with residents in a sympathetic way and arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations
2. Agreeing an action plan to resolve the damp including timeframes.
3. Allocating a surveyor who will arrange necessary work, be point of contact and stay in touch until completed in the event of persistent damp.
4. A ‘rapid-response’ mould removal and treatment service that it can quickly deploy to remove mould ahead of any preventative or remedial action.
In this case, the landlord did not appear to do an inspection of the property in a reasonable time nor to arrange an action plan when notified of the issue in September 2021 by the resident’s email which included photos. The Ombudsman also contacted the landlord in November 2021 asking for it to investigate the mould and damp issues in the property and to complete necessary repairs to resolve the issues, which was acknowledged the next day. The landlord also acknowledged the resident’s concerns about damp and mould in a stage 1 response.
The landlord raised a work order on 17 January 2022 regarding damp and bubbling walls inside the property. The target date for this work order to be carried out was 24 February 2022. It is noted that the landlord attended the property on 1 February 2022 to inspect the windows which was within 28 days; however, it is unclear if this was specifically in relation to the concerns about the damp and mould, or simply to inspect the windows for renewal.
Either way, when the landlord inspected the windows, it should have agreed actions and considered whether its ‘rapid-response’ mould removal and treatment service should be deployed. The fact remains that the landlord was alerted to damp and mould in September 2021 and only raised a work order in January 2022. While the landlord stated there were some appointments in which it could not gain access, it should have adopted a more proactive approach considering the significant amount of time and that the delay meant the resident was living with mould for a prolonged period of time.
It is also unclear if the landlord carried out a risk assessment. This is of concern considering that the resident’s asthmatic son occupied a room with rotten windows and mould around the frames. The potential detriment of damp and mould to a resident’s health and wellbeing has been highlighted in the Ombudsman’s October 2021 Spotlight report entitled “Damp and mould: It’s not lifestyle” and it is the case that, the longer it is left untreated, the more damaging it can be to a person’s health. Under the Housing Health and Safety Rating System, damp and mould growth is classified as a hazard.
The Government also states that, under the Social Housing (Regulation) Act 2023, it will introduce ‘Awaab’s Law’, which will require landlords to investigate and fix damp and mould in its properties within strict time limits. This came about from the tragic death of Awaab Ishak in December 2020 which highlighted the expectation for landlords to do more to tackle the issue, and the significance and weight that should be given to reports of mould.
The Ombudsman notes that a surveyor inspected the bedroom window of the property on 19 July 2022 and raised a work order to wash down/treat mould. This was appropriate, however substantially more delayed than it should have been. In this case, there is indication that this mould wash was carried out on 5 September 2022 which was outside its target date of 28 July 2022. There is also indication a mould wash was carried out in the bathroom on 14 April 2023.
Although the landlord provided some information about repairs, its records often lacked sufficient detail and were unclear which proved challenging for the Service to understand what actions were carried out and when. In line with our report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”, the landlord should have a robust record keeping system to ensure appropriate recording of, handling of, and responses to complaints and its delivery of operational service. In this respect, a recommendation has been made.
The resident explained that she did clean the windows but mould returned which impacted her son’s health and he had been seen by a specialist regarding his asthma. The landlord failed to attend to the initial report of damp and mould in good time, and there was a sustained failure, following a missed appointment and a no access appointment, to manage and follow up the repair, despite being aware of the impact it was having on the resident’s son. This resulted in distress to the resident over the impact the prolonged period of damp and mould was having on her son’s health, as well as a great deal of time and trouble having to be taken by her in pursuing the matter.
Overall, the landlord’s handling of reports of damp and mould was unsatisfactory. It failed to inspect the property within a reasonable time nor did it deal with repairs in accordance with its policy timescales. While it is ambiguous what the compensation of £250 in its stage 2 response was in respect of since the landlord did not provide a breakdown, it is considered that this compensation, though in line with the landlord’s compensation policy, does not adequately reflect the level of detriment caused to the resident. In line with the Service’s remedies guidance, awards of between £600 to £1,000 compensation should be made where the Ombudsman has found failure which had a significant impact on the resident and the household.

The landlord’s complaint handling

The landlord’s complaints policy states that a complaint is an expression of dissatisfaction by resident where the initial response to their problem has not proven satisfactory. The complaints process has 2 stages: at the first stage, local resolution, a response is due within 20 working days; and at the second stage, final review, a response is due within 25 working days. If a complaint cannot be responded to within these timescales, an interim response should be sent explaining the reason for the delay and when a response can be expected instead.
The resident contacted the Ombudsman for assistance in pursuing her complaint on 18 May 2021. Subsequently, we contacted the landlord on 19 May 2021 requesting a formal response to the resident’s complaint; however, the landlord failed to provide the Service with a copy of any formal responses. The Service contacted the landlord again on 22 November 2021 as the resident said issues remained outstanding and again asked for it to provide a formal response.
In the landlord’s submissions, it provided a copy of an undated stage 1 response which it later confirmed was issued on 28 June 2021. This addressed the resident’s concerns about the property repairs. As the landlord was alerted to the resident’s dissatisfaction regarding the issues on 19 May 2021, it should have responded by 17 June 2021. It sent its stage 1 response on 28 June 2021 which was slightly outside its policy timescale. It is also noted that this response did not appear to include a date nor reference number.
It is noted that the resident informed us in September 2021 that repairs had not been carried out and that the complaint remained unresolved. The Service subsequently informed the landlord of this on 22 November 2021. As the landlord had previously issued its stage 1 response in June 2021, it may have been reasonable – considering the resident had continued to express dissatisfaction and had reported that the issues remained unresolved – for the landlord to escalate the complaint at that point in November 2021. It should be noted that the Ombudsman did not receive a copy of any formal response until around May 2022, despite asking the landlord numerous times. Following contact from the Ombudsman on 30 May 2022 that the resident wished to escalate her complaint, it issued its stage 2 response on 18 July 2022. This was 33 working days and slightly outside its aim to respond to complaints at stage 2 within 25 working days.
The resident made a number of enquiries and complaints to the landlord; some it appeared were acknowledged, however not formally responded to. The resident may have felt ignored or that her complaint was not being taken seriously. The Ombudsman noted that some responses did not contain reference numbers nor dates and therefore it was unclear which response related to which issue. This would have caused confusion to the resident. In this case, multiple complaint references were created for issues that were closely related; this poses a challenge for the resident to understand what the current status of repairs was and how to follow them up.
The landlord missed several opportunities to respond to the resident’s concerns earlier. These delays would have caused frustration to the resident. In addition, its formal responses lacked detail, did not outline what the timescales of the next steps were and failed to address all the points that the resident had made.
It was appropriate for the landlord to apologise for poor communication and for not addressing all points raised; however, it did not take appropriate action to ‘put things right’ for the resident. It should have at satisfied itself as part of its complaint investigation that the damp and mould had been resolved, and that repairs to the resident’s home had been completed. Neither is there any evidence that it took steps to ‘learn from outcomes’. The landlord’s failures added to delays in getting matters resolved and required concerted efforts from both the resident and the Ombudsman to progress the complaint.
Additionally, it did not offer any financial compensation as a remedy. The landlord may choose to do this in line with its compensation policy which states it may pay discretionary compensation from £50 for time and trouble beyond that routinely incurred when making a complaint. The Ombudsman’s remedies guidance states compensation of up to £100 where there has been service failure which has had an impact on the resident but was of short duration and may not have significantly affected the overall outcome for the resident. Given the circumstances and length of time of these issues, it would have been reasonable for the landlord to offer some compensation for its complaint-handling failures.
Moreover, a recommendation has been made below for the landlord to review its staff training needs with regard to their application of its complaints policy and the Code. This is to ensure that it responds to all aspects of complaints raised at each stage of its complaints procedure in every case.

Determination

In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in the landlord’s handling of:
1. repairs to windows, roof and back door
2. reports of damp and mould in the property.
In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was service failure in the landlord’s handling of the complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

The landlord must, within 28 days of the date of this report:
1. Apologise to the resident in writing for the failings identified in this report.
2. Pay the resident a further £800 compensation for substantial delays in repairing the windows, roof and back door.
3. Pay the resident a further £550 compensation, in addition to the £250 already offered in the landlord’s stage 2 response, for the distress and inconvenience caused by its handling of reports of damp and mould and water damage in the property.
4. Pay the resident a further £100 for the distress caused by its complaint handling failures.

The landlord must provide evidence it has attempted to make the compensation payments within 28 days of the date of this report.

Recommendations

The landlord should:
1. Satisfy itself it has carried out the necessary works to the back door and windows. If it considers further work is required, it should carry this out in a reasonable time and keep both the resident and the Service informed throughout until completion.
2. Review its repairs record keeping in this case. The landlord should demonstrate that it has considered implementing a system that provides clear and detailed information on completion dates and works carried out as detailed in the Ombudsman’s report of May 2023 entitled “Spotlight on: Knowledge and Information Management (KIM) – on the record”.
3. Contact the resident to request evidence of her increased utility bills from its lack of windows, roof and door repairs and consider contributing towards the increased amounts.
4. Review its staff training needs regarding their application of its repairs, complaints and compensation policies, and the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, to ensure that responsive repairs such as this resident’s are promptly completed and fully remedied in every case.