Landlords can now complete the Complaint Handling Code Annual Submissions form. More information is available online.

Lambeth Council (202107857)

Back to Top

REPORT

COMPLAINT 202107857

Lambeth Council

8 December 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

  1. The complaint is about the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports concerning:
    1. Leaks, damp and mould in the property.
    2. Repairs required to the kitchen window.
    3. The associated complaint.

Background

  1. The resident is a secure tenant of the landlord. The property is a flat.
  2. The landlord raised a works order on 13 January 2021 to fit an extractor fan, carry out a mould wash and decorate, to repair the wall above the window in the bedroom, take out a section of ceiling in the living room and check for leaks from the roof. It required insulation and to reboard/reskim. The landlord requested a dehumidifier and redecoration to the affected areas. The landlord’s repair records of 8 February 2021 detailed that work was part-completed but more time was needed.
  3. The landlord raised a works order on 6 April 2021 following the resident’s phone call to repair a wooden window frame in the kitchen. The resident reported that the window was not opening and that there was a loose wire from the side of the window.
  4. The resident advised that the contractor attended on 19 April 2021 and stated that they would come back but did not return.
  5. The resident contacted the landlord on 28 April 2021 (it unclear whether this was by phone or email) with regard to the works orders. The resident was worried that the walls were wet and that it could be in connection with a roof leak. The resident chased up the landlord on 4 May 2021 for an update on the works.
  6. The landlord’s repairs records indicate that the work to repair the kitchen window was “part-completed” on 25 May 2021 but that follow on work was required.
  7. The resident phoned the landlord on 27 May 2021 to chase up the repairs. The resident had advised that a contractor had called on 25 May 2021 but could not fix the problem as they were the wrong person. She had not heard anything since.
  8. The landlord’s records of 3 June 2021 indicate that the resident wished to make a complaint with regard to the works orders. The landlord stated that the work was unable to be finished as the “external walls are damp but no follow-on work has been booked”. Its subcontractor advised that it would contact the landlord and resident, but the landlord reported that it had not done so. The resident stated that the kitchen had been unusable for 2 months. The resident was still unable to open the window.
  9. The resident contacted the landlord on 9 June 2021 as her kitchen window was not repaired and that there had been 3 visits. The landlord issued a recall order for the window to its contractor on 14 June 2021.
  10. The resident emailed her MP on 18 June 2021 to advise that she had reported repairs to the landlord in January 2021 that they had not been completed. She stated that she had emailed the landlord’s surveyor “multiple times” but had received no response.. She advised that whilst the mould was removed in the kitchen the wall remained damp after 5 months and the contractors were unable to paint it. She was concerned that there may be hidden water leaks. The resident advised that she had not had proper use of her kitchen since January 2021. The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 23 June 2021 to ask for a response to the issues and complaints raised by the resident.
  11. The resident emailed the Ombudsman on 30 June 2021 reporting the same issues that she had reported to her MP. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 2 July 2021 and asked the landlord to provide a response to the complaint.
  12. The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 27 July 2021. It apologised for the delays in getting the repairs completed. The landlord advised that the works orders were to be raised to a new contractor. It advised that work would be prioritised once the leak was resolved. It advised that “compensation for delays will be calculated upon completion of repairs and further details will be sent to you”.
  13. The landlord sent its stage one complaint response on 30 July 2021.
    1. It partially upheld the complaint pending the further assessment of the “cause of damp still pending”.
  14. The landlord raised a works order on 6 August 2021 following an inspection the day before. This was to inspect the roof for defects and to provide a report on “defective roof ingress (water penetration) affecting kitchen” to the rear.
  15. The resident’s MP emailed the landlord on 2 September 2021 for an update on the works. The MP’s email contained an extract from the resident’s email in which she advised that the landlord’s surveyor had identified water leaks using a leak detection tool. The resident advised that the kitchen wall had been wet for 8 months and that the landlord had advised that a roofing specialist would visit on 10 August 2021 and that scaffolding would be erected. She advised that the surveyor had reported that there was a leak from the exterior wall and a hole in the wall under the guttering. She advised that the roofing specialist never came or contacted her.
  16. The landlord’s contractor visited on 5 October 2021 to clear the guttering and outlet.
  17. The MP emailed the landlord on 12 October 2021 as the resident had contacted them again. The resident had requested an update on the outstanding repairs. She had reported that works had not started and the extractor fan had not been installed.
  18. The landlord’s contractor repaired the kitchen window on 17 November 2021. The contractor requested a variation to the works order requiring scaffolding for the roof repairs on 18 November 2021.
  19. The landlord emailed the MP on 23 November 2021. It apologised for the delay in responding. It advised that its contractor visited the property on 1 November 2021 and repaired the window.
  20. The resident emailed her MP on 9 December 2021 reporting that the landlord had not completed the required works. She stated that there had been no scaffolding erected, that the gutter had not been repaired after 12 months, and the extractor fan had not been installed. The resident reported that the landlord had stated that the variation was still awaiting approval. The resident’s MP forwarded the email to the landlord on 11 December 2021.
  21. The landlord emailed the resident’s MP on 23 December 2021. It apologised for the delays in completing repairs. It confirmed that the contractor had raised a variation request on 18 November 2021 and that this had been passed to its surveyor for authorisation on 23 November 2021. It stated that the work would be monitored “through to completion”. It awarded compensation of £590 “as a gesture of goodwill”. This would be credited to the resident’s rent account.
  22. The landlord’s repair records indicate that scaffolding was erected on 13 April 2022.
  23. The landlord’s roofing contractor reported that there was no roof leak and that a damp specialist was needed on 16 May 2022.
  24. The Ombudsman wrote to the landlord on 26 May 2022 to advise of the outstanding complaint issues and requested that the landlord issues its final complaint response within 5 working days by 8 June 2022.
  25. The landlord raised a works order on 30 May 2022 to apply mould treatment and redecorate the kitchen. It ordered the kitchen units and worktops to be refitted following completion of the works.
  26. The landlord raised 2 works orders on 31 May 2022 to repair the window including catches.
  27. The landlord emailed the resident on 1 June 2022 to advise that it had tried to phone her and left voicemails that day to discuss her complaint and arrange a repairs inspection.
  28. The landlord sent its stage 2 complaint response on 8 June 2022. In this it detailed:
    1. The resident had reported that the kitchen was still damp on 7 July 2021.
    2. Access was granted to the landlord and roofers during a “cold call” “this afternoon”. Some roof defects were found with the lead flashings around the dormer windows, repointing required to the chimney stack, securing of the 2 chimney pots to prevent water penetration, and rendering below the guttering. The work had been booked in on 9 June 2022. It would repair and repaint the window frames and sills to the 2 rear dormer windows. This had been booked in for 22 June 2022.
    3. The landlord found that the kitchen was in use and “fully functioning”. A further works order had been raised to carry out a mould wash.
    4. It acknowledged that there had been “avoidable delays” and that “all works should be completed by Thursday 30 June 2022 at the latest, if access is granted”.
    5. It awarded an additional £195 compensation in respect of the delay from January 2022 and time and trouble taken to pursue a resolution, in addition to compensation that had been paid directly to the resident’s rent account during stage 1 of £590. It would “monitor the completion of these repairs and will revisit this position again if it is found that delays have occurred due to the council’s/contractor’s actions”.
  29. The works order to repair the window including the catches was marked completed on 16 June 2022. The works order in relation to the roof and guttering raised on 6 August 2021 was marked “system completed” on 16 June 2022.
  30. The landlord’s repair records indicate that a survey had been completed on 23 June 2022 regarding the roof.
  31. The resident referred her case to the Ombudsman on 23 June 2022. She advised that she been chasing the works for 18 months. She had emailed the landlord on multiple occasions and advised that her MP had also contacted it. She stated that she had suffered unnecessary distress due to the landlord’s failure to provide a watertight home. She felt that the landlord should appropriately compensate her for the “inconvenience and distress for past 18+ months” and for landlord’s lack of action.

Events following the end of the internal complaints process

  1. The landlord’s roofing report dated 14 June 2022 identified a number of defects to the roof, windowsill leading and chimney pots. The landlord’s internal email of 15 June 2022 showed a number of completion photos of the roof.
  2. The second works order to repair the window including catches was marked completed on 6 July 2022.
  3. The landlord’s repair records indicate that mould treatment, redecoration work to the kitchen, refitting of units and worktops in the kitchen were completed by 18 July 2022.
  4. The landlord advised the Ombudsman on 8 September 2022, that no damp report had been compiled. It advised that the damp works in the kitchen had been completed on 18 July 2022. The landlord’s repair records indicate that a number of works had been undertaken by its roofing contractors up until 5 August 2022.
  5. The landlord’s repairs records indicated that a contractor had visited the property on 17 March 2023 and completed a mould wash in the lounge. A report had been made to the landlord that a works order was needed for the roof and guttering as “there seems to be a leak which is causing the damp and mould.”

Assessment and findings

  1. 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, and;
    3. learn from outcomes.
  2. The Ombudsman must first 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’.

Scope of investigation

  1. The resident has referred to earlier reports concerning damp and mould that she had made, along with previous complaints. In line with paragraph 42(c) of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme, this investigation has considered the time frame from 6 months prior to the resident’s formal complaint of 2 July 2021. Paragraph 42(c) of the Scheme states that the Ombudsman may not consider complaints which, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, were not brought to the attention of the member (landlord) as a formal complaint within a reasonable period which would normally be within 6 months of the matters arising.

Policies and procedures

  1. According to the tenancy agreement the landlord is responsible for maintaining “the structure and outside of the property”, the “drains, stack pipes, gutters and outside pipes”, along with “any fittings for supplying water, gas or electricity, toilet facilities and non-temporary space and water heating”. The landlord will decorate where needed due to carrying out repairs which are its responsibility.
  2. The landlord’s repairs policy states that it will attend an emergency repair within 24 hours. It will attend to some routine repairs within 7 days, or 3 days for qualifying repairs under the Right to Repair Regulations. It will complete planned repairs within 90 days. The policy states that mould is the responsibility of a resident and a resident “should wipe away any mould using a proprietary cleaner”. It provides advice on preventing condensation from occurring. It states that where this advice has been followed, but that the issue remains, that a resident should report this to the landlord.
  3. The landlord’s website details its “damp charter”. This states that “it’s not your fault”. It details that it is “committed to resolving issues in partnership with you and will communicate with you in a sympathetic way”. It will “arrange an inspection to diagnose the issue within 28 days, or sooner in emergency situations”. It will “agree and write an action plan with you to resolve the damp, that will include timeframes”. For cases of persistent damp, it will allocate a surveyor as a point of contact. The damp charter is not dated and it is possible that this postdates the resident’s initial complaint.
  4. The landlord’s complaints policy states that it will initially seek an “early resolution” of a complaint. At this stage it will “make contact with the resident and agree actions to resolve the issue and agree timescales”. A written response is not provided at this point. It advises that if a complainant is still dissatisfied, they can ask for their complaint to be “formalised to a local resolution”. It will respond within 20 working days at this stage. It may take longer and if this is the case it will advise a resident of the timescale for a response. It will respond at review stage within 25 working days. It will acknowledge complaints within 2 working days.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould in the property.

  1. The resident advised that her initial report regarding leaks, damp and mould was made at an earlier point. The Ombudsman acknowledges that the resident has advised that she has reported leaks, damp and mould previously, however, the Ombudsman has not seen evidence of an earlier report before January 2021 and as such we are unable to verify this. The landlord’s records detailed that it had raised a works order to carry out damp related works on 13 January 2021. It had at this point requested a dehumidifier which would have been appropriate to speed up the drying out process provided that repairs to prevent water penetration had been undertaken.
  2. The landlord’s stage one complaint response of 30 July 2021, referred to work that had reportedly been carried out on 6 May 2021. However, the Ombudsman has not seen this record, so we are unable to verify exactly what work was carried out on 6 May 2021. There was evidence that a mould wash had been carried out in February 2021 as the resident had referred to this in her email of 18 June 2021 to her MP.
  3. The resident continued to chase up the repairs between 28 April 2021 and 3 June 2021. By 3 June 2021 the resident understandably wished to make a complaint. The resident then emailed her MP on 18 June 2021 when she advised that she had not had proper use of her kitchen since January 2021. She also emailed the Ombudsman on 2 July 2021 and her MP on 9 July 2021 to chase up the repairs. She advised at this point that no extractor fan had been fitted.
  4. The landlord’s response to the resident’s MP of 27 July 2021 indicated that the landlord was aware that a leak was ongoing and that its surveyor had been informed that the walls were wet. It had referred to a number of works to be undertaken in the kitchen and it would also “review the cause of the leak”. The surveyor’s inspection was arranged for 5 August 2021. This was already a delayed response according to the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. Its response at this time suggested that repairs would be prioritised “once the leak is resolved”. It also referred to possible compensation in respect of delay in completing repairs. It was appropriate to consider compensation, given that the response was already delayed. However, the landlord gave no advice on when the resident could expect completion of the works. This would not have given the resident assurance of when she could expect the works to be completed or when she would be compensated. The landlord should have considered compensation prior to the completion of the works, given this was based on an estimated completion date. As the completion date was estimated, if there were any further delays the landlord would need to then consider any additional compensation at that point.
  5. The landlord’s surveyor undertook their inspection on 5 August 2021 as planned and the day after this, a works order was raised with the repairs focusing on the roof and guttering. The landlord also requested a survey to be undertaken and a damp proof course which was an appropriate step to take. A request was made for scaffolding for a period of 6 weeks whilst the work was undertaken. The work order was marked as completed on 26 October 2021.  However, it was marked “system complete” on 16 June 2022. It was not clear from this whether any work had been completed in October 2021. However, the resident’s subsequent reports to her landlord from her MP on 2 September 2021 suggested that the roofing specialist had not attended and that she had not been contacted. The landlord’s response to the MP was unreasonably delayed until 23 November 2021. In this the landlord advised that its contractor had requested a variation on 18 November 2021 and that this had been passed on to its surveyor on 23 November 2021. The landlord needed to provide an appropriate update to the resident, especially when the work was delayed but it failed to do so.
  6. The resident had to chase up the landlord again through her MP on 9 December 2021 This was by this point a significant delay of 11 months after the landlord’s original works order was raised in January 2021. The resident also contacted the Ombudsman concerning the leaks, damp and mould in December 2021. The landlord’s response was to award compensation of £590 “as a gesture of goodwill”. It would also monitor the work “through to completion”. The delay and the landlord’s lack of updates to the resident was unreasonable. Whilst it was appropriate to consider some compensation, which it should have done earlier, the landlord failed to provide an adequate timeframe as to when the resident could expect the work to be completed.
  7. There was evidence of communication issues between the landlord and its contractors. The landlord seemed to be unaware that scaffolding had not been erected when the resident reported this on 13 April 2022. There was an apparent mix up with contractors putting in a variation request for scaffolding even though the landlord’s works order specifically stated that scaffolding was required. Ultimately, the landlord is responsible under the terms of the tenancy agreement as above to complete repairs. It needed to ensure that it did monitor the completion of the works as promised and yet it failed to do this.
  8. There was evidence of a lack of effective communication with the resident as the landlord failed to keep the resident sufficiently updated. This meant that on the whole the resident spent a lot of time chasing the landlord for updates directly, and through her MP and contact to the Ombudsman. An example, of the lack of communication with the resident was the fact that the landlord reported in its stage 2 response of 8 June 2022 that there was an issue in gaining permission to take the scaffolding through the park. However, the Ombudsman has seen no evidence that it updated the resident about this to explain the delay which would have been appropriate at the time.
  9. The landlord’s records were not always clear and there was evidence of inconsistent dates in the evidence provided to the Ombudsman. Accurate and complete records ensure that the landlord has a good understanding of the age and condition of the structure and its fittings within the property, enable outstanding repairs to be monitored and managed, and enable the landlord to provide accurate information to residents. The Ombudsman has recently published a Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023). This highlights the importance of good knowledge and information management that allows a landlord to keep both a building and people safe, now and in the future as a tool to manage buildings. The landlord should carry out a self-assessment against the recommendations to improve its record keeping practices.
  10. The landlord’s roofing contract reported on 16 May 2022 that there was no leak and that a damp specialist would be required. The landlord needed to employ the services of a damp specialist and undertake a survey to identify all possible causes of leaks, damp and mould at a much earlier point. It failed to do this.
  11. It would have undoubtedly been frustrating for the resident to have been living in a property affected by leaks, damp and mould over an extended period of time and to then be told by the landlord on 1 June 2022 that a further inspection was required a year and half later. This was to “establish details of all works that need to be undertaken”. The landlord was already aware of the work that needed to be undertaken following its previous inspection of 5 August 2021.  However, given the fact that it failed to monitor the completion of the works, a further inspection was likely to be warranted at this late stage, as by this point the situation may have deteriorated.
  12. The Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould – it’s not lifestyle (October 2021) and follow up report one year on (February 2023) give a number of recommendations that the landlord should self-assess against. The Ombudsman has seen no record that the landlord has completed a self-assessment, though it has updated its repairs policy on 16 August 2023 to include a section of damp and disrepair. It has since introduced a “damp charter” as referred to above. This a positive step forward and as mentioned in the updated policy the landlord needs to be proactive in identifying and dealing with issues of damp and mould. It needs to ensure governance is in place to sufficiently monitor the compliance with its repairing obligations in relation to damp and mould.
  13. The resident advised the Ombudsman that an appointment had been arranged with her for 9 June 2022, but that the landlord’s contractors had turned up unannounced the day before. Whilst the tenancy agreement advises that a tenant should give access to the landlord to inspect and carry out repairs, this should be with prior written warning, except in an emergency. The landlord did not give prior written warning. Although the landlord had not managed to contact the resident directly, it still needed to give the required notice so that the resident could make necessary arrangements.
  14. It can be seen that further works orders were raised in March 2023. This evidences that the landlord failed to provide the resident with a watertight home which it was required to do under its repairing obligations as above. The resident was unable to enjoy full use of her kitchen from January 2021 as the landlord had removed some kitchen units and a radiator. According to the landlord’s repairs records, these were not reinstalled until 18 July 2022, a year and a half later.
  15. These issues combined amount to severe maladministration for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, which sets out our approach to compensation. The remedies guidance suggests that for cases of severe maladministration that compensation from £600 to £1000 plus may be appropriate. The landlord has previously paid £590 compensation. In this instance compensation of £1,357 is appropriate in addition to this earlier offer.
  16. The weekly rent payable by the resident is £110.58. A 10% rent rebate is appropriate as the resident’s use of her kitchen was more limited due to the issues and works connected with the leaks, damp and mould. The Ombudsman considers the timeframe from the initial report of 13 January 2021 to the landlord’s stage 2 response of 8 June 2022. This covers a period of 73 weeks. This amounts to £11.06 per week over 73 weeks. Therefore £807 is payable as a rent rebate. 
  17. The compensation also comprises £250 for the time and trouble in the resident pursuing the matter, and £300 for the detriment and inconvenience with regard to the landlord’s failure to effectively repair the issues causing water penetration.

The landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the kitchen window.

  1. The resident initially reported that a repair was required to the kitchen window as it was not opening in April 2021. The landlord raised a works order within a reasonable timeframe on 6 April 2021. However, there were a number of issues that impacted on the completion of the repair. Following the resident’s chase up on 9 June 2021, a recall was issued on 14 June 2021. It is unclear from the landlord’s records whether work was completed by the target date which was 23 June 2021 as the records do not specify this. This indicates some record keeping issues as the landlord’s records were not complete.
  2. However, when the resident reported the repair to the kitchen window again on 9 July 2021, it indicated that the previous attempts to fix the window had failed. There was evidence of communications issues in respect of the contractor’s visits to fix the window which had been unsuccessful. It was not clear from the landlord’s records whether this was a specific performance issue with this particular contractor, as the work was later issued to another contractor, or whether the landlord had not communicated the type of work required. Irrespective of this, it was the landlord’s responsibility to ensure that it carried out the repairs in accordance with its repairing obligations under the terms of the tenancy agreement and relevant legislation. The landlord needed to keep track of the repairs which were delayed over and above its repair policy timescales. It was appropriate for the landlord to issue work to a different contractor, and this would indicate that the landlord was not happy with its previous contractor’s performance. This inevitably led to some delay, which would not be solely the landlord’s fault, as it required a surveyor to inspect the property. It was reasonable for a surveyor to attend so that the landlord was aware of what, if any work, had been carried out and what work remained to be done.
  3. It took a month for the landlord’s surveyor to inspect the property on 5 August 2021. The Ombudsman has seen no record of the reason for this delay in organising the appointment. The landlord raised a further works order, this time to another contractor on 8 August 2021. There were further inconsistencies in the landlord’s record keeping. The landlord’s repair records indicate that its contractor repaired the kitchen window on 17 November 2021. The landlord advised in its stage 2 complaint response that the window was repaired on 7 July 2021. The landlord’s email of 30 June 2022 states that the window repair was completed on 16 June 2022. It was therefore unclear when the repair was completed. The landlord needed to ensure that its records were accurate as previously mentioned so that it was able to track the progress of work which it said it would, and to provide accurate information to the resident.
  4. The evidence suggests that an effective repair was not completed until 16 June 2022, This was an unreasonable delay which was outside of the landlord’s repairs policy timescales. It caused unnecessary detriment and inconvenience to the resident. It took the resident the additional time and trouble in chasing up the landlord to complete the work over an extended period of time. It is also of note that during this period of time, where the resident was unable to open the window, that this would not have helped the issues of damp and mould in the kitchen, particularly in light of the need for an extractor fan to help to ventilate.
  5. These failings combined amount to maladministration by the landlord, for which an order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance, as referenced above. The remedies guidance suggests that for cases of maladministration compensation of between £100 to £600 is appropriate. In this instance, compensation of £500 is appropriate comprising £300 for the delay in the landlord completing the repairs and £200 for the inconvenience to the resident, along with the time and trouble in the resident pursuing the matter.

The landlord’s handling of the associated complaint

  1. The resident referred to earlier complaints being made to the landlord; however, the landlord advised the Ombudsman, that it dealt with these reports at its local resolution stage. As such no written response was given which was inappropriate. The local resolution stage acted as a stage zero denying the resident access to the complaints process. This is something that the Ombudsman’s Complaint Handling Code (the Code) discourages as it acts as a barrier to complaint handling and ultimately complaint resolution. The landlord also failed to log the complaint following the resident’s request to make a complaint on 3 June 2021.
  2. The Ombudsman referred the resident’s complaint to the landlord on 2 July 2021 concerning damp and mould. The landlord acknowledged receipt of the complaint and gave a timescale for a response of 30 July 2021 which was appropriate, in line with its complaints policy.
  3. The landlord’s response at stage one was sent within the timeframe specified to the resident on 30 July 2021, which was 20 working days later. The landlord met its complaint policy timescale. However, it is of note that this response timescale is non-compliant with the Code, which is now on a statutory footing. Landlords who are members of the Housing Ombudsman Scheme are expected to adhere to the Code.
  4. The resident contacted her MP on 3 occasions after the landlord’s stage one response was issued. The first 2 MP enquiries of 2 September 2021 and 12 October 2021 were asking for an update in relation to repairs and as such it was reasonable for the landlord to address these as general MP enquiries. However, the last MP enquiry of 9 December 2021 was clearly an expression of dissatisfaction and the resident clearly reference a potential referral to the Ombudsman. The landlord therefore needed to escalate the resident’s complaint at this point, and it did not do so, which was a failing.
  5. The landlord escalated the resident’s complaint to stage 2 following the Ombudsman’s contact of 26 May 2022. After this, the landlord attempted to contact the resident which was reasonable and then issued its stage 2 response on 8 June 2022. This was 7 working days after the Ombudsman contacted the landlord to escalate the complaint to stage 2. However, taking into account the need for the landlord to have escalated the resident’s earlier expression of dissatisfaction from the resident’s MP on 9 December 2021, it took 122 working days to issue its stage 2 response. This was therefore unreasonable.
  6. The landlord’s complaint response at stage 2 was sufficiently detailed and gave a response to the queries raised by the resident, though the dates provided for the repairs were at times inconsistent with its repair records as mentioned above, for example in relation to the window repairs.
  7. The landlord’s complaints policy has not been reviewed since March 2016. It is therefore significantly old and non-compliant with the Code. This has been mentioned already to the landlord in previous determinations made by the Ombudsman. However, the landlord has failed to update its policy and has confirmed during this investigation that the policy in operation is still the one from 2016. The new Code is due to be published on 1 April 2024. The landlord should carry out a self-assessment once the new Code is published to ensure that its complaints policy is brought in line with this.
  8. For these reasons, there has been maladministration in the landlord’s complaint handling. An order has been made in line with the Ombudsman’s remedies guidance as above. The landlord offered compensation of £195 in its stage 2 complaint response of 8 June 2022. However, in the Ombudsman’s opinion, this does not fully compensate for the failings identified with regard to the landlord’s complaint handling. As such, a further £150 compensation has been ordered in respect of the errors set out above in the landlord’s complaint handling.

 

 

Determination (decision)

  1. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was severe maladministration in the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
  2. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the landlord’s handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the kitchen window.
  3. In accordance with paragraph 52 of the Scheme, there was maladministration in respect of the associated complaint.

Orders and recommendations

Orders

  1. Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to:
    1. Provide the resident with a written apology from a director or higher for the failings outlined in this case including the delays in tackling the leaks, damp and mould and in repairing the kitchen window, and the failures in its communication and complaint handling.
    2. Pay the resident £1,357 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of leaks, damp and mould.
    3. Pay the resident £500 compensation in respect of its handling of the resident’s reports of repairs required to the kitchen window.
    4. Pay the resident £345 compensation (including £195 offered at stage 2) in respect of the landlord’s handling of the associated complaint.
  2. In line with the Ombudsman’s established approach, any compensation awarded by our service is to be paid direct to the resident and it should not be offset against any rent arrears or credited to the resident’s rent account.
  3. Within 5 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to carry out a full inspection of the property. It must produce a schedule of works to fully address water penetration arising from leaks and damp and mould issues. The work must be completed within a further 8 weeks after the schedule of works. The landlord must provide satisfactory confirmation of the completion date of the works.
  4. Within 12 weeks of the date of this report, the landlord is ordered to complete a director level review of this case, identifying learning opportunities and produce an improvement plan, with actions assigned to named postholders, that must be shared with this Service and the landlord’s governing body and residents’ panel. The landlord should consider this case against previous reviews it has done, and identify any further actions it may need to revisit or take as a result. It should outline as a minimum its review findings in respect of:
    1. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on Knowledge and Information Management (May 2023) available on our website.
    2. Its intention and a timescale to complete a self-assessment using the Ombudsman’s Spotlight report on damp and mould – its not lifestyle (October 2021) available on our website.
    3. Its intention and a timescale to review its policy and procedures for contract management and operational oversight, in respect of contractor performance.

Recommendation

  1. It is recommended that the landlord conducts a self-assessment of its complaints policy and procedures, once the new Code has been published on 1 April 2024, as recommended in previous Ombudsman determinations. It should update its complaints policy within 8 weeks after the new Code is published.